"whington journal," we take youralls and comments live. then the daily beast's ree gorman discusses what to expect in washington this week as congress and the white house try to avoid a government shutdown. and axios national pitics reporter sophia kai looks at the south carona republican presidential primary and other developments in campaign 2024. also, the ceo of hedgehog, john matze, talks about his new social media platform that aims to encourage more civil discourse. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for february 26.

polls express very little trust for supreme court as they look at two cases directly connected to former president trump, one to allow him to appear on colorado primary ballots after he was removed on the 14th amendment, the other on his claim he should receive immunity from prosecution for acts committed in office. do you trust the supreme court when they have to handle cases directly related to former president trump? if you say yes, you trust the court, (202) 748-8000. tell us why. if you say no, you do not trust the court with these cases, call (202) 748-8001. perhaps you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us your thoughts, it is (202) 748-8003. you can always post on our social media sites, facebook.com /c-span and on x @cspanwj.

the first poll looking at the handling of trump cases and the blic's trust comes from marquette university. this is on the question of colorado's case against the supreme court on the 14th amendment, saying response since -- saying that the 14th amendment was part of that. 41% said they have not heard anything to form an opinion. but when it comes to the court dealing with it, those with an opinion on the matter, 50% saying they favor the decision. if you go to a recent poll conducted by cnn, but the hill

picked it up in a story, looking at cases concerning the president -- former president, how much do you trust the u.s. supreme court to make the right decisions on any legal cases related to the 2024 election? only 11% of those saying when it comes to the courts matter on these things, only a great deal of confidence, 11 percent saying that. a moderate amount, 31%. just some confidence to deal with those cases related to the 2024 election, including those concerning the former president. does not at all, 22% expressing that. that was in that cnn poll. if you want to talk about your level of confidence as the court is still dealing with these two direct cases related to the former president, and you want to call us, if you believe in the courts ability to do so, you say yes, (202) 748-8000.

if you say no (202) 748-8001. ,perhaps you not sure, (202) 748-8002. as always, you can text us at (202) 748-8003. here is someone who covers the various legal cases, and he was that's about those two cases that have yet to be decided by the supreme court and with those cases deal with, here he is from last week. [video clip] >> because they want to see the way this case progresses in their own mind, they would like to see quick resolution or no resolution at all. but i think there is a strong chance that the supreme court waits on this issue potentially towards 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're not going to take this

case and there are supreme court watchers we think if the supreme court decides this for colorado, he might get an unfavorable rule on the immunity thing, and they might refuse to hear the case. so the supreme court, in effect, decides whether they hear the case or not. if they decide not to take the case, then the immunity question , because straight back to the district court. the judge can say trump, three months to prepare for trial, and i will set a trial date in may. the supreme court, if they wait and sit on it, could be late, could be july around the conventions, then we will not have a trial before election day. host: a follow-up, nbc news looks at the decisions of the cases and why they have not been

made yet. they say that oral arguments were held in the colorado case february 8 with a ruling expected quickly and whether the former president was an eligible because of what happened leading up -- was ineligible because what happened leading up to january 6 attack on the capitol, the court is considering the president's request to block the election interference trial, and other proceedings remain on hold and no trial can take place. the court has several auctions, such as denying the request to take up the case and hear a ruling on the immunity question. the story sing any further delay narrows the window -- the story saying any further delay narrows the window. rulings are due by the end of june. that is the set up. your level of trust in the court to deal with these cases

concerning the former president. melissa is in cleveland, tennessee, who says no. you are first up. caller: good morning. no, i absolutely do not trust the right now. their behavior with clarence thomas and certain groups of people do not have constitutional protections and that those -- that the supreme court needs to get rid of them, with members of the court having ethics issues. in fact, they have been sitting on this -- making a decision about whether or not they are even going to take a case when they know whether or not they think this argument is ridiculous or not about immunity , it kind of makes you wonder if the operative work the supreme

court is bought and paid for, you know, is for more money. host: ok. let's hear from addy in washington state, who also says no. caller: good morning to you. yes, sir, i totally do not trust them with the cases. their behavior has just -- it does not make sense. i mean, we have this man who has tried to overthrow the government. i mean, it is an open and shut case as far as i can think of. this does not make any sense. why would we trust them with handling his cases. they allow him to run for president? without the statute of monetary use, as this trump guy has, he

would have been thrown in a jail cell. no, i do not trust them. host: when you talk about the courts behavior, what do you mean that in terms of the cases they are handling with the former president? caller: right now, their behavior about -- just they do not see the whole criminal act of it all. just trying to overthrow the government, they know he is guilty of that. so why would they even prolong it? why has it been prolonged as long as it has? i just don't understand. and millions other people don't understand that. host: that is addy in washington state on our no line. three lines to express your thoughts. no, (202) 748-8001. if you say yes, you would trust the court in handling these cases with the former cases, it is (202) 748-8000.

if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. a couple people texting us, larrin new jersey saying i do not trust e urts to be perfect, but if we cannot trust the courts overall, we are doomed as a country and decry. this is from kevin off o x, when it comes to the level of nfence in the court, he starts with, of course, adding that he been disappointed in some decisions, b democrats threaten a whirlwind when they do not always, in all caps, get their way. you can make your thoughts on x if you wish at @cspanwj. or on facebook, facebook.com/c-span. or you can text us, (202) 748-8003. nathan in wisconsin says no.

hello, nathan. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say i do not trust the supreme court because it is involved with other millionaires and three of the state u.s. supreme court justices lied to congress to get onto the supreme court. host: why does it matter in the specific cases against the president? how do you relate those? caller: i just believe that they are -- they haystack to the supreme court, and i do not believe they can give a fair judgment. host: ok, that is nathan there, who called on the no line. this is another viewer off of x this morning who watches the program, when it com to these cases, i trust them to make

right decisions, which is exactly why do not trust the middle. some thoughts on the cases against the former president, one dealer with a 14th amendment issue in colorado, the other dealing with a question of immunity. do you trust the court as it deals with these things? you can call us on the various lines or post on social media. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. we have added a line this morning. if you are not sure about how the court will take these matters, you can call that line at (202) 748-8002. that is where john is, calling from new york. go ahead. caller: i was going to call on the no line because you have been accepting only no calls, but i agree with about 80%. i think there was 22% that said no. this is a segment you have, and

it is just so terrible what you guys do everyday, these segments you have. host: before you go down any further, you called on this question, so elaborate on the not sure part, please. caller: so here we go. i trust the supreme court more than a trusted the house of representatives that only had two anti-trump republicans on that committee that came up with the conclusion that he was trying to block this, block that. so we never got the truth about this. really, i go for the truth. i really do. host: but why do you trust the court more? caller: let's hang trump. host: ok, we're going to go for roland in maryland, says yes, he trusts the court. caller: good morning.

trump tried to call the judiciary as a function. they are a pt of government. when it comes to litigation, i do not think supremeourt want to make a mistake this time around. the court want to maintain its integrity. right now, they have low bar, maybe about 20%. so they will do well, i think so. if they mess up, then they do not want peace in this country. everybody is looking at that. thank you. host: carolyn in atlanta, georgia, on our no line. caller: yes, good morning. i really do not trust the supreme court to do anything when it comes to donald j. trump. they are not going to make any

decision. they'll just going to be in his favor. he is wrong for doing everything he does. he just does -- what? january 6, when they had -- when they invaded the capitol, it was his fault. he told the people to do it. so, no, i don't trust the supreme court. host: why do not trust the court specifically then? caller: because they believe everything trump does, and they just like him. i do not believe, no. host: ok, that was carolyn in atlanta, georgia. you can express your thoughts on the lines and on social media. if you want, you can also call us and text us. text us at (202) 748-8003. a recent event in washington, d.c., future two supreme court justices, justice sonu sotomayor

and justice amy coney barrett. one of the issues they talked about was about the courts critics, particularly critics on decisions they make. here's that reaction from justice amy coney barrett from this critics and rick -- what critics should do. [video clip] >> things that the court or the way we make decisions, the nature of our business is different. we are trying to say what the law means, we are not the policymakers. that is your job. i think, one, we do not speak -- we speak publicly in these kinds of settings, but we do not have press conferences and that sort of thing. really, the product of our work is the opinion. and it shows -- i do not go out and talk to the press and talk to people in between oral argument and the issuance of an opinion about what i think should happen in the case, so it

is very different than the political process in that respect. so i think if you want to know the court's reasoning, you have to look at the opinion because it explains the decision. just just sotomayor and i have been on opposite -- justice sotomayor and i have been on opposite sides of different issues. last year, there was one with a vigorous debate in the country about student loan forgiveness, but the opinion did not mirror that debate. it was not about whether loan forgiveness is a good thing or bad thing or desirable or not, it was about the scope of the statute. so i think there are many reasons to criticize the courts work in any number of cases. justice kagan and the chief justice in that case had an impressive back and forth with both making excellent arguments. but you cannot know whether you agree to disagree with what the court did because it is not just based on the policy bottom line, without seeing the reasons for why the court got

the result it did. what i tell my law clerks and what i used to tell my students when i taught constitutional law, i wanted them by the end of semester to be able to identify several decisions that they liked the results but disagreed with the reasoning and vice versa. justice scalia used to say, and i wholeheartedly agree, that if you find yourself liking the results of every decision that you make, you are in the wrong job, not doing the right thing. you should sometimes be reaching results that you really dislike because it is not your job to take a side on cases. it is seeing the rationale for the court having made the justice that it did. host: that event still available at the website. when it comes to the matters of the former president before the supremert a your level of trust for them. on facebook, darren says, justices like clarence thomas get millionsf gifts from right wing billye ro are donors and

his wife -- right wing biioire donors and his wife was involved inhe insurrection, give me a break, he adds. larry from new jersey, we cannot trust the courts overall, we' doomed. i think i read that one. this is jimmy from facebook saying, why not, every justice went through the proper procs of selection and confirmation. it is to be expected. you can express yourself on the phone lines, too. joe from maryland says no. hello. caller: no, i do not trust them. in fact, if they did what justice barrett just said, that would be fine, but they don't. they have been setting policy for years, and they have upset

well law, justified law, lecture voting rights, like for birthrates for children and all of that. they are awful. they're very opinionated and not with regard to law. there decisions are not justified by the law. host: that is jill in maryland. let's hear from kingsley in queens, new york, on our not sure line. caller: thank you for having me. i am of the opinion that the supreme court is a rogue court. some of the decisions they make go against common sense. for instance, medication for

abortion, you know, planning the roadwork that it is not available, should not be available to women, and abortion, is ridiculous. i have not heard much about it, but i would love to hear about biden expanding the court. host: let's go back to the topic of hand, when it comes to the handling of cases concerning the former president. you are not sure. tell us why. caller: i think they're very political animals, very political people. i do not think that i would trust them to make decisions according to what the law says. i read some very right wing, very outside of what normal people would probably say. that does not make much sense. but i find that, you know, i cannot really trust them with any ruling that i think -- i just don't trust them at all.

i don't trust them. host: ok. a recent piece in the "new york times" looked at the matters of law about the various cases before the courts and the questions that are asked about. you can find it online. what the law says in three cases that could decide trump's fate is the headline, one is on the case of trump versus anderson, is trump ineligible to be president under section three of the 14th amendment? section three of the 14th amendment adopted after the civil war come along received scant consideration, the scope and force of the profession has figured in recent law across the country, including colorado. it says section three seems to add a qualification for eligibility to hold office, little different from the requirements to be president, 35-year-old natural born citizen and not to have already served two terms. but it speaks of holding office, not running for it, leaving an opening for trump supporters to say the colorado ruling was premature, considering the

provision which gives congress the power to lift the authorization. and there is an explicit reference to the presidency is among offices covered. the clause, any office civil or military under the united states , so long as it is considered an office under the united states. that is some of the section when it comes to the colorado case been considered by the court and also the immunity case. in oregon on our guest line, stella, on your level of trust with the court -- on our yes line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i trust -- this is the last place that i trust, everything else has been ruined in my whole life. everything is crooked. but they do not have a justice court, they do not make the laws , they are reading into the laws

that are already made. but if you do not have trust in that, you have nothing in the united states left. and i am hoping there is no democratic party, no republican party or we are in way trouble. yes, it is the last place i trust. goodbye. host: ok, monty is in oregon on our no line. caller: good morning. i said no for a pretty simple reason, in front of the world at the confirmation hearings, the trump appointees all said they would not touch roe v. wade, and they did. they lied. no, i do not trust them. who would? host: so you relate that to the cases concerning the former president currently under consideration? caller: thank you for asking

that question. you are on top of it. i actually think that, because they may consider their decision in the trump cases could have an impact in 50 years or 100 years, that in a do not think they should actually vote in trump's favor simply because they would be the ones in the history when our country went from -- america went from democracy to otto cressy and dictatorship, whatever you want to call that. host: ok. the no line is (202) 748-8001. if you say yes (202) 748-8000. ,if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. the same story by the "new york times" also considers the case beforehe court involving immunity claim by the former president for prosecution. some of it says, is the former

president absolutely immune from prosecution? former president trump says he has absolute immunity from that, saying he plotted to overturn the 2020 election. his claim was rejected, and he is all but certain to appeal, which she did. it says the constitution itself does not exclusively address the existence or scope of any such presidential immunity. the closest is the impeachment judgment clause which says it should not extend further than to the removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office upon her trust or profit under the united states. after officials are impeached from the house, they are tried in the senate with a two thirds majority required for conviction, mr. trump second impeachment got 57 votes, 10 shy of this super pejorative.

-- super majority. this is james in memphis, tennessee, who says no. caller: how you doing today? host: fine, thank you. caller: that's good. one of the previous calls talked about trump and the investment he had in the last justice, but i disagree thinking that they are going to be unbiased because trump has an investment in those justices. not only that, i am not sure if he has instilled the same fear in them as he has instilled in the republicans in congress right now. so that is why i would say no, i do not trust them to make a decision -- 2 can you --2 host: can you

elaborate on instilling fear in the supreme court justices, who have a lifetime appointment? caller: still, they do not have any recourse to the decisions they make. we cannot vote them in or out. host: ok. debra lee on our yes line in daytona beach. hello, tell us why you trust the court with these cases. caller: yes, i trust the court because that is the position they are in. that is what is coming up now. i believe that they will do the right thing based on law. that is what they are therefore. host: when you say that is the position they are in, elaborate. caller: they were appointed to that office, and the president -- president trump was at the time, and all these cases and things coming against him is sad

that we see how do one person be responsible all these cases and the russian cahoots and everything, ever since the man first got in office? it is a lot of injustice, i believe, for one man, because he is the president, to bring about so much turmoil. the people that voted for him are the one sent leave for this country, as well. he is just one man. and the people that voted for him are many people that voted for him. so they not only feel, they believe in america, and everyone else can. everyone get a chance to believe what they believe. and the supreme court, they are in that office to do the right thing. so we hope for a good turnout. 2 ok. --host: ok, she made her case

for the level of support and the supreme court. you may side with her or disagree with her, but you can express that on the lines. your level of trust in the court in handling these cases against the former president. if you say yes, you do trust the court, (202) 748-8000. if you do not trust the court and you say no (202) 748-8001. , perhaps you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. social media is available to you, too. houston, texas, this is sandy, who says no. caller: good morning. yeah, i say no. the simple fact that they cannot even govern themselves. look at clarence thomas and all the stuff he has gotten into. anybody else had done that, they would be held accountable. but because they are appointed for life, they are not. you know, it boggles the mind what they are getting away with.

and this could not have been picked up quicker, knowing that this ex-president was directly involved in an insurrection and is still allowed to run for president again, the supreme court should have stepped in long ago and said no, no, no, we have a constitution here, let's look at it. no, i do not believe the supreme court can do what is right for the american people right now. host: ok. ed in myrtle beach on our yes line, you're next. caller: good morning. maybe trump will get a fair trial. i am looking forward to hearing the arguments. this is a joke and a sham, so maybe the supreme court will get it straightened out. host: when you say get a fair trial, what do you base that on? what things are you looking for as far as a fair trial when the court is concerned? caller: you got to, first of

all, you got to try him for insurrection and find him guilty, and we have not gotten that far yet. it is the same thing in new york, he was found guilty and we had no trial. the judge decided he owed $80 million, and it was a sham and a joke. that is where we are at with this. host: as for as a fair trial is concerned for the former president, are you considering how he appointed three members to the bench? caller: no, that has nothing to do with it. they don't look at the law. it is that simple. so yeah, i don't think the appointments that he made got anything to do with it. host: ok. ed there in myrtle beach giving his thoughts this morning. this is dave in orlando, saying only have moderate trust, and

he says they seem be sandbagging the decionn the formerresident. texting us, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. many of you will post on social media during the segment and throughout the day, facebook.com/c-span. on x, @cspanwj. mark in tampa, florida, on our no line. caller: it boggles my mind how anyone can think that justice clarence thomas could be impartial in this case. his wife is on record, on text message, texting donald trump's chief of staff mark meadows things like urging him to prevent biden and the left from attempting the greatest heist of our history and just urging him

to try to get them to overturn the election. how in the world can anyone think that her husband then should act on the case that ginni thomas is urging -- host: but the case in question directly deals with the president, what convinces you that mrs. thomas might have that kind of sway over her husband in a decision like this? caller: well, during the series of text messages where she is urging mark meadows to prevent biden and the left from, you know, taking over, she says, and i just talked to my best friend about this, and it is well documented that justice thomas

refers to his wife as his best friend and vice versa. you see him saying, oh, my best friend, all the time. so it is pretty obvious she was talking about that she hasn't discussed this with her husband. it is really a stretch to believe that she has not talked about this when she was even there on january 6 at the capitol. host: ok. that was mark in tampa on the no line. the line for those that are not sure, that is where elaine is, in maryland. caller: hi, thanks for having me. i am not sure about the supreme court because of the way that the democrats around the country has treated trump. he is the next president. he is a citizen of the united states. and he was good to us. and what has biden done to this

country, it is shameful, sir. it is shameful. and i believe the last election was all that. that is silly. and i think what they are doing to trump's -- and let them look at the eighth amendment of the constitution, let them look at the past, and why do you let one attorney general and a judge, because they hate trump, because they hate him -- host: ok, elaine there in maryland. the previous caller mentioned ginni thomas, and that picks up a story looking at those text messages, sing the closest ginni thomas came to acknowledging any political conversation with justice comments was a reference to her "best friend."

thomas had just tested mark meadows that she was considering leaving politics, i wish i could remember but i have no memory of the specifics, thomas told the panel of the conversation with her husband. thomas offers spousal support with a wife that is upset often, so i assume that is what it was. you can find more in those text messages between clarence thomas and his wife ginni. that can be part of your conclusion on the level of support. nancy in louisiana, yes line. caller: that last caller just took my breath away. but do i trust the judges on trump's case? if we cannot trust the supreme court, then what do we have? these people are human. they are only human.

what has trump done that these people hate him so much? the man is trying to help the united states of america. i just wish that everything could just turn out ok. like she said, this man was the president of the united states. and that is really all i had to say. host: have you always had a level of trust like this in the supreme court, no matter what the decision is, even if it does not do what the former president? caller: yes, if we cannot trust the supreme court, than what do we have? these people are human beings. they are smart. i think we can trust them. i think they need to leave trump alone. i really do. it is really heartbreaking to see this happening to this man. leave him alone. host: ok. roseann and san diego texting us this morning no, i have no

trust in this cou. the only cservative justice i would have anyopin is robert, and even if he holds trump accountable, it won't be enough to allow any of the valid cases to be heard. that is a viewer in san diego, up early texting us. you can do the same, (202) 748-8003. tom in illinois on our no line. caller: hello. yes, i am on the no line because the supreme court in 1973 made into law that abortion was legal and it was that way for 50 years and in the last couple years they overturned it. the reason they overturned it was because it was not legal for the court to make laws. it was not legal, that is why it was overturned. the other thing is when we put

the supreme court justices on it, and i'm sorry but i do not remember the last lady they got put on the court, the black lady -- host: justice jackson. caller: yeah, justice jackson. i watched it on tv, and they asked her the meaning of a woman, and she would not answer the question. she did not know the meaning of woman. host: how does this relate to the former president's cases? for everything you mentioned. caller: well, because the --i believe that it goes right to biden, that this is an orchestrated thing by the democratic party. they think they're going to lose, so they are going to prosecute trump into oblivion. that is more for his character if he keeps standing up to it.

because we had a whole summer of black lives matter which burned down old exam federal court houses and all kinds of stuff and nothing was done. host: on our not sure line in new hampshire, this is eric. caller: good morning, america. thank you for having me on. why i am not sure, one of the reasons i'm not sure is depending on how they rule, we are a divided country. if it goes in one way, there will be a lot of hatred. if it goes the other way, everyone will be upset. expanding the court is just a silly proposition, because we are a divided country. we have people on one side, people on the other. no one will be happy. we could put 100 justices on, but if 49 of them are left-leaning and 51 of them are right-leaning, no one will be happy.

we are becoming -- like i said, we are a fractured nation. so no one is going to be happy one way or the other. we cannot make everyone happy. but i will say this about the trauma cases, -- about the trump cases, there is a scholar in the legal field who says a lot of these cases are over the top. he will say i would never vote for trump. he doesn't like trump, he is not a trumper, but on the other hand, he is a legal scholar and says a lot of these cases are, without a doubt, politically motivated. host: ok, eric on the not shoreline. a texter on not sure, scott out of massachusetts, says i would likeo ow more about what is discussed behind the scenes for the justices thinking prior to

decisions made. all decisions are in the legal vein a keeps politics out of them. you can factor that into your thinking, as well. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. al on our yes line in oregon, hello. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i think the supreme court will overturn a lot of things being thrown at trump because it is unconstitutional, and it is political hatred of the man. i also believe that trump's eighth amendment was violated by new york city, which means cruel and unusual punishment, excessive bail and fine spirits i do think the supreme court is going to reject a lot of this stuff, and i think it is going to be thrown out. i do have a little bit of distrust with roberts, have had over the years that he has been ruling the court, but i still

think they will do the right thing and throw this garbage out from the left. host: as far as the distrust in the chief justice, what is that based on? caller: over the years, there has been discussion about his mental faculties. i have heard things about him having some mental issues. i do not know all about it, but i have heard that. i have often wondered about that. host: ok, al in oregon on our yes line pure you can continue to call the lines. if you say yes, you trust the courts (202) 748-8000. ,if you don't, (202) 748-8001. and if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. some of you have expressed you are not sure this morning. on the no line, kenneth in missouri, hello. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. no, the supreme court's activist

now. remember 2005, four votes elected george bush. he gave us 20 years in afghanistan and iraq. that did not work out so well. host: but that was an entirely different court at the time. caller: it was. the only one there was thomas, i think, with that sandra day o'connor there. it was a great court. that is when it went downhill. lately, when we have a place open for kavanaugh, who was not much of a sterling character, we picked nothing but right wing evangelical types, all tied to a billionaire. they got billionaires in their pocket, especially -- host: how does that relate to these cases? caller: mr. leo, a billionaire

tied with the federalist society, are picking people for the supreme court. and when george got in, that was the first clue. but now, they also the last three, kavanaugh, ms. barrett, and i forget the third one recently elected -- host: ok, let's hear from cliff in oklahoma on our yes line. caller: hello. yes. the supreme court was set up as a body that is not to be ruled by popular demand. that is the reason their lifetime appointments. they rule according to the laws of the land and the constitution. as far as people criticizing any one of the supreme court justice -- judges, such as thomas, and they are afraid of his opinion

being biased because of his wife's opinion, my wife and i vote differently. my wife and i also, she goes to church and i don't because we have different opinions. and if you are afraid of one of those supreme courts having gifts from rich donors, what about the other eight? they are up with nine judges, and that is one of the reasons you have got more than one judge ruling, is because there is nine judges. and to be worried about one judge's opinion is ridiculous. host: ok. you can continue to give your thoughts for the next 15 minutes. you can call the lines, text, or post on social media. there was a little conversation from the event we showed you previously with justice amy coney barrett. it was both of the justices, sonya sotomayor and justice

barrett, on this idea of perceived partisanship on the court. here is a bit of that exchange. [video clip] >> they began to adopt our buzzwords as buzzwords some of the discussions we were having like plaintext and things like that. but instead of discussing those terms with respect to approaches that made sense and why, with all the nuances that those approaches contained, they just began to label people according to the buzzwords. and that does not do justice to the fact that -- justice barrett was just describing the cases we disagree, she should also be describing the cases that we do agree, of which there are many. >> many. >> and not just between her and

me but between me and clarence thomas, me and neil gorsuch, me and all of them, including scalia. we have consented together on a number of cases. so the nuances of how we talk about legal theories is missing from the sort of fancy words that politicians have given to judges. >> for a lifetime, it does insulate us from politics, so it is not just that we are not obama judges or trump judges, we are not democratic judges or republican judges, we are not on different sides of the aisle, we all wear the same color, black robes, and our loyalty lies all to the constitution and to the court. i am glad you brought that up, that i should be talking about the times that we agree, which is more often than not. i wish i had the statistics at the ready. i gave a talk a few months ago

and looked at the statistics from last term, and you hear so much about our deeply divided court, but when you look at the dockets from last year, i think that might have been true in five cases or so. the vast number of cases are unanimous are almost unanimous, and then in the next segment, you have all kind of different lineups. sometimes they are going one way or other ways. my first term, it was 6-3. it was the six men and you and justice kagan and me. so there are many different lineups, but i think all the attention gets put on a few. so i do think it is important to keep in mind that there are many more times of the court is in agreement. host: by the way,, if you are interested in court cases that the supreme court, two cases being dealt with today on the topic of social media -- as

always, when the court provides audio to that, we take that and process it and let you listen in on some of those oral arguments. the court will consider whether states can restrict social media platforms from moderating user content, with two cases. they will address laws in florida and texas that argued that content moderation suppresses conservative speech. that is set to start live, and you can follow along on c-span, our free mobile app at c-span no and online at c-span.org. mary lou in connecticut, hello, yes line. caller: hello. look, this question is unbelievable. of course i trust the supreme court. and all the liberals and that this country are -- i do not know what is the matter with them. what is the whole country going to, hell in a handbasket,

because trump appointed all these supreme court justices, and now they are all worried because when it gets in front of the supreme, the cases that are put up to him by these democrats are ridiculous. that new york case has no standing. host: why do you trust the court specifically than in dealing with these cases? caller: because it is the supreme court. and why, in this day and age, would it all collapse? because the liberals think they do not have enough democrats on the supreme court. it is not -- the world does not change just all of assad in. this court has been in operation since the beginning of this country. and they are not going to just collapse because there were five republicans on the court instead of five democrats.

host: a call from georgia on our no line. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i do not have trust in the court. they have become political animals. they have started moving towards the right, and i do nothing that is a good thing. as far as them dealing with the president's trials and stuff such as that, i do nothing they can be impartial. host: why not? caller: i believe they have an agenda with him. that is what i think. host: two things, why don't you think they can be partial, and what is the agenda? caller: the agenda is that he put them there and for purpose. and he said he put them there for a purpose. he said to the public that he had done that, so i believe it. you don't necessarily have to be

bitten twice by a rabid animal, you can be bitten one time and learn a lesson. he taught us that lesson already. once he said he did something, he did it for purpose, he trying to get them -- hopefully they will turn around and uphold the law and do the right thing, but i doubt it. host: ok. florida, not sure line. caller: yes, my question is why, why are we debating the supreme court when they were elected and they have their own word, and who am us? like u.s. citizens to talk about other people. we should see what we are doing to help this and unite us. you see, god made this world to become one. and here we are destroying it.

we destroyed it since january 6 that never this happened -- host: as far as the court itself, why are you not sure as them dealing with these cases? caller: no, they can deal with these cases. not sure because they should deal with these cases and everybody should zip up because they were elected to do this. they are not going to do the wrong thing if they really believe in their job. and i think that is why we are having all this problem all over the world. we should put first our trust in god that that is the one that made us as man and woman. host: ok. keep on those calls and we will take your emails and texts, including david south dakota, no, when it justice cannot determine what aoman is, a

liberal justice cannot interpret the constitution, never an issue until the progressives started losing. the liberal media is carrying watefothe democratic party. from new hpsre, ike, the only way i wl ust the court isf it has three conservatives, three liberals, and one certified moderate, so a lot less people will distrust them. some thoughts there on our texting. perry in north carolina on our no line. caller: yes, the reason why i do not trust them -- and the thing is, they say in the beginning, the last couple judges, that they would not touch roe. regardless of that, you have to realize, why are we here? why are they in the position they are? since donald trump came on the scene, he has uprooted every division, every division, from the republican party to congress to the senate to the doj,

everything he has uprooted and he go against -- host: you related everything to the roe decision, but how does that relate to the decisions currently before the court? caller: because it is all related into donald trump. he has uprooted everything in this country. and he is anti-american, whether they see it or not. he is pro-trump. everything is about trump. so the court will look at it one way. they are going to try to keep their self-esteem and try to boost it. by doing that, you have to question if they go against anything he goes about, he is coming at them. ahead with disrespect and all kinds of rhetoric. host: but they have lifetime appointments, what could he do? caller: just the disgrace alone. what do you mean lifetime appointments? we know they have lifetime

appointments otherwise thomas would have been brought up under some kind of moral thing for what he has done and his wife. that goes beyond the scope. host: let's hear from nicky in panama city, florida, on our gas line. caller: hello. i am so amazed that people today are just intent on saying people are guilty of something they have not been convicted of. if it were me or my next for neighbor and somebody said that, i would really be annoyed. host: but the cases before the court, you say you trust the court, why is that? caller: i trust the supreme court. i do not trust the other courts, nothing lower. but i will say this, biden and harris -- host: hold on, why do you trust this supreme court specifically? caller: specifically, because i do not think it can be many belated the way the lower courts

can -- i do not think it can be manipulated the way the lower courts can. biden and harris were on the judiciary committee. biden voted against thomas and roberts, and harris voted against kavanaugh, barrett, and gorsuch. host: that is the last of the calls on this topic. do not forget, the supreme court considers two cases, looking at the topic of social media and what can be posted, specifically on cases brought up by conservative groups. 10:00 you can start listening to the audio from the supreme court. you can stay on this nwork. you can always go back to our website looking at matters of the supreme court, including some of these cases. you can follow that all at c-span.org. congressional lawmakers heading back to washington this week, seeking to avert a partial government shutdown, and a lot of other things going on.

to walk us through it is reese gorman at the daily beast. he will join us next. later on in the program, john matze, founder and ceo of hedgehog, discussing his new social media platform that aims to encourage more civil discourse online. those conversations coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> get contact information for members of government right in the palm of your hand when you preorder your copy of c-span's 2024 congressional directory, with bio and contact information for every house and senate member. important information on congressional and state governors. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. skin the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to preorder your copy today for delivery the

spring. in the weeks that lie ahead, the famous and influential men and women who occupy those seats -- society in which we live today and solution affect time. >> american history tv will add a 10 part series free to choose between nobel prize-winning economist known friedman and first aired on television in 1980. they also run a best-selling companion book of the same name. friedman's advocate free-market principles and limited government intervention in the economy and social policy other topics include welfare, education, consumer and worker protection and inflation.

watch saturdays at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span two. c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse our latest collection of products, apparel, books, hold the core and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps for an nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org.washington journal continues . host: a lot going on as washington gets back to work. there politics reporter, thanks for giving us your time. a little bit about the daily beast for this one familiar with. guest: i really focus on politics, not necessarily

day-to-day, in-depth stories, longer stories, stories that you read and think that was a really good story. host: can you remind people about the various headlines, where they are at and what congress has to do about it. >> the first deadline is march 1. four bills are to expire on march 1. they have not started passing any of those bills. we've not seen with those will look like. we were supposed to see that yesterday, chuck schumer has blamed house republicans for the reasoning of this. mike johnson, the speaker has pushed back on that. but at the end of the day, hass republicans are pushing for these conservative policy

writers which would be policy attached to government funding and they only have half of one branch of government, which is not really going to get what you want. that is kind of the push and shove going on right now. expect to see something soon because they do have to start passing it. otherwise we are probably going to see somewhat of a short shutdown if they don't release some bills soon. host: is there a plan b and other plans in the works? guest: the main plan right now would likely be a minibus which is three or four bills wrapped into one and they vote on the one time. to vote on for individual appropriations bills is just unrealistic given the timeframe set now to march 1. there the possibility of another short-term resolution which mike johnson the kind of mention on a conference call with members. they can also pass a handful of bills this week.

we will see it that plays out. another possibility is a shutdown. mike johnson does not want a shutdown, but it is a possibility that there could be a shutdown and government shuts down march 1. host: speaker johnson saying that everyone will get what they want, could you elaborate on that tomorrow >> republican congress has really been pushing these conservative policy writers. they really want policies, whether it be on the abortion pill, they want that gone. so they want these riders to push for the conservative policies attached to government funding. but this is not something that can happen when you are in the minority in the senate, when you don't have the white house and you have a very slim majority in the house which is your own chamber.

so that is really where he was kind of elaborating that they are not going to get everything they want, because some people want this and even some moderates in the caucus don't want everything that the conservatives want. democrats vote vote for anything that conservatives want policy-wise. this is just something that is not really going to happen and may have to get their heads around that. host: have we heard from the freedom caucus in any extent to how they are reacting 12 of this? guest: they did release that letter briefly saying they need policy writers, but really we just see that having talked about it on twitter, and angry about the situation because they feel like johnson is something that the democrats and that fighting for them. they are upset, as are moderates that he waits until last minute to do these things. they need to get something done,

they pass that. they didn't do anything leading up to the second part. didn't pass a single bill. they have not done anything. they went on a week and a half break. so their anger is really just that they have not been doing anything. host: guest with us until 8:30. if you want to ask him about this and other things in the week ahead, you can call the lines. (202) 748-8000 for republicans. -- free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003. aside from that, there has been they on funding for ukraine installing of that. where is that as of today? guest: johnson has been adamant that he wants border security

measures, he wants border provisions before he funds ukraine. also, even if you were to put forward any kind of supplemental , that the ultimate issue for mike johnson. this group that is putting forward this bipartisan package with aid to ukraine, aid to israel, trying to get something over the line. the odds of that becoming law are very, very slim. the president is expected to meet host: host: with the big four on tuesday.

guest: not a whole lot. they talked briefly. it has mostly been kind of the senate. they passed -- which the president said he would veto. they kind of did stuff their own way so i think this tuesday meeting, that would be a little different for them. mike johnson, are you really going to listen to president joe biden about what he wants? a republican in your own conference has said that they will move the house if you put

forward ukraine eight. you are on with our guest, good morning. caller: the house did put the water bill on about two months ago, and the senate has sat on it for two months. but when you say the house a small minority, the senate has got a small minority. and they wonder why that is. mike johnson, how long are we supposed to run around like this guy is a citizen? we watch the storm for decades now. buying is on vacation two thirds of the year. right now, the only reason -- is

because it looks like -- who is out there. why on earth -- because if you are a republican like me -- guest: if i understand correctly and some republicans -- took a lot of time to get that going.

they needed to be some form of compromise. >> line for democrats in kentucky, hello. >> hello. i want to just say i think that last caller should stop drinking so early in the warning because he thinks donald trump is beating everybody. let's look at the results from so many states. new hampshire, 54%. nevada, 62%. now coming to north carolina -- south carolina, rather, we have 60% to be very honest about something.

hard-core trump country is iola and south carolina. the fact that he has 60% of the vote, at signals to me that he is not for the winning, there is something going on here. i'm going to tell you something. i don't know why it is the press does not talk more. we have a problem here. we can talk about bidens age, let's talk about trump's age as well since he is four years younger. we've seen the pattern here. i had a relative who had this. he confuses people's names. he just said a few moments ago -- host: what did you want to address? caller: i want to make this point is what i wanted to make this morning because as i said, is going around saying obama is -- host: our guest on the former president. guest: trump is winning these

elections pretty handily. over the weekend, nikki haley's campaign is all but over at this point. you lose your home state, that is not a good sign for anybody running to be president. you can't become the nominee without winning a state. trump is going to be the republican nominee more than likely, barring some unforeseen work and stances. that is what we got in the story of the weekend, you have to win states to become nominee and nikki haley has not won states yet. host: justin than as far as the meta-support in congress for the former president as far as the reelection is concerned and who is supporting nikki haley, if anybody? guest: any one person supported nikki haley, ralph norman who actually talk to yesterday and

he is standing by her side, still going to order. says he's going to push through as long as nikki haley wants to stay in the race. this people that haven't endorsed certain candidates or whatever and maybe they are supporting nikki haley, but he is publicly supported nikki haley. host: did you ask about -- srs pulling funding for nikki haley? guest: it's just another sign that that is going to be harder. they were banking her and they got this far, but i think they saw the writing on the wall and they thought this is not worth their time. they did say they are still kind of rooting for nikki haley.

(202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats and independents. -- an independents, (202) 748-8002. we will go to ohio where jonathan is. caller: good morning. i'm a republican, registered republican. are you there? host: you are on. caller: i'm a registered republican. i will not vote for donald trump. i will look for joe biden. donald trump is divisive. batman is anti-democratic. -- that man is antidemocratic. yes he is winning these states now, but come the election, he will lose. i will vote for joe biden, thank you. guest: i think he just stated an

opinion. host: we have a viewer discussing ukraine funding. is that in avenue? guest: that is in avenue, but it would need republican support. there is one that has already been filed. if you recall, they thought about doing this for the debt ceiling deal, they thought about doing this on one other issue of government funding. they need republicans. 218 republicans, total members to sign on. and right now he is --

and right now even some of the republicans, the moderates said they are not ready to do that yet. you're basically circumventing leadership and that is something that does not over lightly. who are already having some bills failed. the last thing you really want -- some of these moderates, they respect the institution. they are not as likely to shoot down the rule or kind of

circumvent. host: independent line. caller: good morning thank you for taking my call. i'm not sure if i should have called when the last guest was on, however i did not trust the supreme court, i do not trust any branch of government. i do not trust the executive, i do not trust congress. i'm thinking that perhaps down the road we should think about breaking up this nation. i know what would be very difficult, but to me, i am an 85-year-old longtime christian and to me it is just too painful to continue living in this

country the way it is going. i would hate to becoming a state by h, but i am taking steps. host: sorry to interrupt, that was from the last segment. do you have something to ask of our guest now? caller: or any of our problems being solved. host: south carolina, one of the things. guest: they can make a motion to kind of get rid of it, which only takes a simple majority, and once they do that it is no longer public, there will be a trial. exactly what they will do, i don't necessarily know. the most logical option since democrats are in the majority, they don't want to impeach a ladder mayorkas is probably to make this motion to get rid of the impeachment charges. host: how much pressure are

senate republicans pushing for toward the minority leader mitch mcconnell? guest: they are pushing the heavily. there's a lot of calls to have a full impeachment trial. the campaign arm for senate republicans, there is a memo out calling on other candidates to kind of urge for a full impeachment trial and that is something republicans really do want to see is a full impeachment trial. this is republicans first time taking the house back since then, so they filed his articles of impeachment against alejandro mayorkas that passed, and now they kind of want the opportunity to have a full trial as well. they feel like he has broken the law, dereliction of duty, is what they say. so they put the crisis at the border at his feet and they want the impeachment trial tools into account. he's never going to be charged, solely because the senate is controlled by democrats.

host: north carolina, democrat, go ahead. caller: morning to everybody. this is the ridiculous thing that people appear are talking about donald trump as though he is a strong candidate for america. look, this man got up on stage and he talked about his mugshots and how black people gravitated to his mugshots. i don't know where you get a statistic where you get the inclination that black people like his mugshots. nikki haley, she is really showing america that not all republicans donald trump. in south carolina, the democratic party, joe biden won

94%. so i already know who is going to win the presidential, but i just want to know why you guys keep talking about trump as though he is viable, he is a good candidate. guest: i think what we are talking about is trump right now leading the republican field. that is what he is leaving and he is leading by a wide margin is also leading president joe biden in a number of poles in swing states and there is a poll just last week where he is leading joe biden in michigan, which is the state that joe biden won, need to indicate the presidency. so we are a ways out from election day, but right now president joe biden is not necessarily performing as well as he would like to do against trump right now in the polls. and as i said, to your point about how much joe biden -- how well joe biden has been doing in the primaries, you recall joe

biden is running against -- at this point which being in a company, he has the full power of the dnc behind him and all these different organizations, so he really is the only viable candidate for democrat and at this point he is the presumptive nominee and will be the nominee for the democratic party or the likely. trump, on the other hand, he faced a wide array of candidates, the second primary race he faced a sliver but still a handful of candidates, now he is down to nikki haley where she is a legitimate candidate running and the rnc is not necessarily putting their force behind one or the other. so it is more of a race and so that is why trump is performing worse than biden in the primaries. host: speaking of the rnc, an announcement today that -- will step down on march 8, taking a look at structural changes within the rnc. for those who don't have the ability to read that, what is

the latest? guest: we talk to strategists, people familiar with the situation about what is going to change with the rnc. gop chair michael watley will be the chairman. laura trump, his daughter-in-law could be the vice president and his current campaign manager -- according to our sources, they will really purge out all these anti-trump staffers that work within the rnc. the rnc, the things you hear about and read about art always necessarily -- i mean, there is so much more behind the scenes. there's a lot of people behind them. a lot of republicans, especially trump-reliant republicans have an issue with how the rnc is being run. and so they really want to take that over, and their words, purge all the staffers, purge

the anti-trump from the rnc. they also want to completely revamp the state and local parties. they want to start training again for canvassing. want to start doing that and house as opposed to contracting out and allowing them to do it on their own. they want to really amplify this grassroots space and properly trained how to run a campaign, how to canvas, how to get people in and voting for your candidate. that is going to start coming back in with the revamping of the party happening. host: the story is online, by the way. the trump rnc takeover on the brink of becoming a purge. let's hear from larry. larry in georgia, democrat line. caller: yes, i have a quick two statements to make and then i have the action. number one, the statement is that donald trump says that he got a mugshot and black people

are behind it. we know that as a publicity stunt by him saying that black people are going to go out and i those mugshots. no we are not. the second one is that america -- is holding this nation together in solidarity with president joe biden because of the many things he's done for the american people. now the question is how will the house senators after seeing their option was not guilty, then they turn around and were able to call another meeting and impeach him -- how were they able to say that he was guilty when if you go to court and you get a ticket and the judge says

you are not guilty for this ticket, and then another comes back and says you got to come back in, ok, you got this ticket, now you've got to pay for it. host: thank you. guest: and impeachment vote is not saying that you are guilty or not guilty. impeachment is solely charging you with something. it is not saying you are guilty, it is like, you are charged with this. the senate is where you are convicted guilty or not guilty. the first time they tried to vote, it failed. one never changes their voter procedural members, but a tie vote fails. in the house, you can bring stuff back up. since this was a different impeachment vote, they waited until steve scalise was able to come back from this cancer

treatment and then they had the vote to win. that is just kind of how it worked. >> there has been a rash of house announcements of people retiring. what could that mean for who controls the house next year? guest: there are a lot of people. republicans especially, a lot of republicans are retiring. but the real issue is they are losing the age and the intelligence, the wisdom that comes with union congress for so long and there you -- they are losing seniority.

they are not necessarily losing people, democrats have a few that they are losing and will be swing seats. republicans are not necessarily losing people in swing seats. if you look at how congress is running right now which is the divide and asked for and congress, is a lot of the people with seniority that are helping hold it together and when you lose those people, it's going to be wild next congress for sure. host: outcast report on matters of politics the daily beast. you can find his work at thedailybeast.com. we are going to go to open for a man if you want to participate, you can call the line. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. independent, (202) 748-8002. we will take calls when

washington journal continues. >> two years ago, democracy -- civil war and today, though bruised, i democracy remains. >> president biden delivers the annual state of the union address during a joint session of congress watch our live coverage beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern with a preview. then your reactions by taking your phone calls and social media comments.

>> resolution is adopted. >> alejandra mayorkas is a lose second cabinet member in u.s. history to be impeached by the house. all the process as house impeachment managers deliver -- and bridging the public trust. president pro tem patty murray provide -- presides over the trial. on c-span two, c-span now, and online at c-span.org. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. we are americans can see

democracy at work while the public 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. washington journal continues. host: again, it is open form. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 first democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. the new york post reports this morning that president biden traveled manhattan today to take interview with late-night host seth meyers. a source familiar spill this plans which have not been publicly divulged by the white house. the story is that biden is given

far fewer interviews than his recent predecessor, he has not done an interview with an american newspaper reporter. the president's trip to the big apple will feature a fundraiser at a nearby hotel. if you go to axios' website, interview with the president's son. here is a story saying that president biden has privately expressed worry that republicans daily attacks in the criminal prosecution of the sun are taking a toll on his family and could evenly hundred to relapse given the family's history struggling with addiction. hunter biden knows this, he told axios that he sees his continued sobriety as crucial that only to himself but also to ensuring donald trump doesn't return to the office. most importantly you have to believe that you are worth the work or you will never be able to get sober, adding that maybe it is the ultimate test for a

recovering addict, i don't know. these are my heroes, my aunt rations. he added i have something much bigger than even myself at stake we are in the middle of a fight for the future of democracy. hunter biden offering that interview for axios. you can find portions of that website at axios.com. go ahead. caller: good morning. first of all i think you should have more hours so people can get publicly onto to voice their opinion. i think it is an excellent show. republicans that follow trump, the cold, i know people that were born same time as me from my neighborhood and i know they were born in easter eggs.

his name should be tax cheat. i don't understand how people of this country -- i was 19 years old when i joined the army to fight russians and the cuban blockade. at that time, people give me the most arguments that are republicans never served in the service. i've got to be quite honest with you. host: illinois, republican line. caller: hi. i'd just like to say regarding the house, i have never seen a more dysfunctional house in my lifetime. we've been through basically a three week shutdown and then everything else that comes through they want us to all off and not pass, including the border, ukraine. you have to learn that when you don't have red wins, you are not

going to get everything you want and you are going to have to learn to compromise. if not, you are all dysfunctional. host: what do you think is an acceptable compromise for the has to engage in? caller: they need to work with the senate more. it is not just everybody gets everything they want because it is not going to work. the senate has learned to compromise, it has gone basically to the mode that we dealt with years ago where you don't get your big red or blue wave. the other issue is regarding mugshots, when it comes to politics and mugshots, there are a couple of states that deal and at high level of corruption, they've done it for decades in both parties, so that is not unusual. host: minnesota, independent line. caller: good morning. my issue today as the veterans issue. yesterday aaron bushnell self,

related over the ongoing genocide in gaza and no one has really covered it. i just think that maybe the news should do the honors, because he did livestream this, he wanted the world to see him do this. this man felt so desperate and had no other way to express that. host: that is a sad story, by the way. the servicemember setting himself on fire outside the israeli embassy yesterday. shouting free palestine as he burned. law enforcement officers extinguished the flames. a man in what appeared to be a military uniform identified himself as a member of the u.s. air force.

again, axios and others picked up that story yesterday. indiana, democrat line, hi. >> -- uncover more of this. at cpac, religious leaders got up there and said we will not fail democracy in the next election. how come new sources are covering more of the stories of this nature? host: the cpac convention still available at the website if you want to go see it online. other events took place over that past weekend. we keep those things at the ready on our website in the short-term. if you wanted to go and look for those for yourself. you can call in, (202) 748-8001

for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats, and independents, (202) 748-8002 . in texas, republican line. caller: hello. since biden went on a socialist platform, our socialism, communism, and marches the same? has the united states turned into a communist country or just washington, d.c.? host: zachary in california, you are next. caller: good morning. early morning in california. the primary election, i think is going to be really interesting in michigan. i think it's going to be a good test for how consolidated the

more progressive wing of the democrats are. i think there's obviously a lot of push for it uncommitted vote and i would like to see just how much that is since it is so important that we consolidate around him. republicans on super tuesday, next week is going to be very fascinating to see if nikki haley makes any ground. i don't think so at this point, though. i think republicans are pretty much just circled around trump at her best chance was south carolina or new hampshire, which she wasn't able to pull off. host: will talk about both of those events, so stay with us. we will talk about those in a few minutes. fred in idaho, independent line. caller: i thought i was on the republican line. host: are you an independent?

caller: no, i'm a registered republican. host: i apologize, we will have to ask you to call back on the line that best represents you. (202) 748-8001, by the way, for those republicans calling in. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8002, independents. the topic of ivf came up on the sunday show one of the people talking about it, democratic senator tammy duckworth saying that reacting to alabama's supreme court ruling, the democratic senator said that she was "devastated how this could affect treatments like ivf" and then called out conservatives who she suggested are being disingenuous and distancing themselves from the case. is a portion of that conversation yesterday. >>-talking about this since 2018 when it is very clear that republicans were working to eliminate women's reproductive rights.

i sit if neil gorsuch is on the supreme court, it amy coney barrett is on the supreme court, we are going to have any erosion of roe v. wade and even back in 2018i said ivf is next so unfortunately i wasn't surprised. i'm devastated for all those families that are trying to start families but i'm not at all surprised. and just to be clear, the decision does not outlaw ivf but obviously makes it more complicated. can you freeze those embryos, what do you do with embryos that are not used? they are very clear that a fertilized egg is a human being which means in my case when all three are nonviable when my doctor discarded is my consent, that would be considered potentially manslaughter or murder. basically republicans have put the rights of a fertilized egg over the right of the woman and that is not something i think the american people agree with. >> the national republican

senate campaign arm is instructing their candidates to "clearly and concisely reject effort by the government to restrict ivf" so do you think you could now get republican support to pastor bill? >> it has been crickets since the alabama ruling. let's make a clear, republicans will say whatever they need to say to try to cover themselves. but they have been clear and donald trump has been the guy leading this effort to eliminate women's reproductive rights and reproductive choice. and by the way, not a single republican has reached out to me. i've introduced the bill multiple times. let's see if they vote for it when we bring to the floor. host: that took place on abc yesterday. the washington post saying when it comes to on capitol hill, many of them were saying americans should have access to ivf, similar to the one the alabama supreme court used in its ruling.

member of the species of homo sapiens at each stage of life including the moment of cloning or fertilization or any moment when an individual member of the species comes into being. we will continue on on the democrats line in washington state. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: ok, i'm calling -- they told me to call back. anyway, i'm calling to say to that question that he was asking, i wouldn't trust, especially clarence uncle tom thomas. his wife was hooked up with a january 6 business for one thing and you know as well as i do that his wife was hooked up with that january 6 business. and the last thing i want to say

is before you cut me off that this character, this gorsuch character, he is another one that lied to get on the supreme court and all these kinds of things. host: ok. but tear from jacob in ohio, pendant line. caller: i just want to make a couple points here. i come from what i consider a white middle-class family. blue collar, dad is a truck driver. i want to say a couple points. here we go again. two rich, old white guys as president. it is just kind of crazy to me. i'm leaning toward trump, but i thin i think that we need to consider age requirements on both sides.

like, between 30 and 65. if you are over 65, you should not run as president. you are too old, it is too much of a taxing job, the mental fortitude to do that position, it is just not there. i think that we need age requirements and if you are 65, you are too old. host: that is jacob in ohio. open form again, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. michigan ahead, super tuesday. walk us through what to expect. thanks for giving us your time. walk us through what is

expected. guest: sure. on the republican side it is a bit of a mess. the primary in the caucus is overshadowed by the chaos in the republican primary where you have two people claiming to be the chair of the republican party. on the democratic side is where it gets more interesting. biden is expected to been as well. but you have an effort to get people to vote uncommitted in the democratic primary, and that is because there are activists who say that biden has not handled the israel-palestine or well they are trying to call attention to that. this is a big issue for the arab population in michigan as well as for younger jens e and millennial voters -- gen z and

millennial voters. the question is how much of a dent will they be able to put in biden's win and if it will be more of the cease-fire effort that we saw in new hampshire which has barely made a difference. host: who is driving this uncommitted effort? a group, several groups? host: is a group in michigan -- it is supported by a prominent congresswoman rashida tlaib to his sister is driving that effort pain she has been very supportive. she has said that former president trump is a threat to democracy and if biden doesn't take the concerns of michigan voters seriously as it pertains to israel's bombing of palestine, -- general election. also by another former member of

congress. michigan governor whitmer -- host: show people what the governor of michigan said, and we will come back to you. >> how many uncommitted votes to you think we are going to see on tuesday? how worried are you? >> i'm not sure what we're going to see on tuesday, to tell you the truth. i can tell you this, that michigan has been so fortunate to be the home of arab, muslim, palestinian communities and a robust jewish community. in harmony as neighbors for decades. and there is a lot of pain all across all of these communities because of what is happening around the world. i know that we've got this primary and we will see a

difference of opinion. i just want to make the case that is important not to lose sight of the fact that any vote that is not past for joe biden's for a second trump term. a second trump term would be devastating. not just on our democracy or at home, but also in foreign policy. this is a man who promoted and muslim ban. this is a very high-stakes moment. i'm encouraging people to vote for president biden. host: how much work have the governor been doing in supporting the president not only overall, but specifically to these groups >> of uncommitted >> voters? guest: she's absolutely not encouraging voters to vote committed, but at the same time he started off by saying that all these groups matter and she wants to make the people that

she represents feel heard, including israelis, including jewish folks as well as palestinians and muslims. and at the same time, to see her, and more generally support president biden's reelection, even as she has made moves of her own including her super pac and some of these high-profile profiles that she has participated in. you see her making moves of her own that she is unequivocally in support of resident biden. host: we saw nikki haley coming out of south carolina saying she's going to -- in michigan and also plans to keep going as far as the level of support she is currently enjoying in michigan. guest: looked, she lost south carolina by 20. we had michigan, and super tuesday were 15 states will vote. her path forward is she is

counting on those open and semi-open primaries which means they are primaries where democrats independents are allowed to vote in the gop primary. but that doesn't really work out because most of those are winner take all. if they candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, that person takes all. regardless of whether she is going to get 30, 40, 45% of the votes and some of those states including the open primary states, her basil end up getting all of these delegates. that is not working out in her favor. her campaign is really on its last legs right now. host: you wrote a recent piece

taking a look at the creek president joe biden and president donald trump, a lack of enthusiasm for both among younger voters. can you elaborate? guest: yeah. gen z voters and younger millenials, they make up up to 20% of the electorate. that is pretty big, but that is also the group that is most likely to stay home. you see them very disillusioned right now, and recently we seen both president biden and president trump engage in ways that show they are really trying with that group. president biden recently joined tiktok's team has also got him to spend more time personally recording videos. he has recorded a couple of videos on tiktok during the super bowl, and he has done this

video with jill showing what their love story was. that was with younger voters. with trump-pence, this comes more easily, he is more into with celebrity culture and he likes to invite them to mar-a-lago and i think he has also been more intentional in terms of joining a podcast which is very popular among young conservatives. both of them are making some efforts with younger voters. as for how successful they will be, we will have to see. host: you can find that story and others by our guest at axios.com. thanks for your time this morning. guest: absolutely. host: we continue on with open forum.

you can join us on the phone lines or via social media. charlotte, north carolina, thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think we focused so much on the polls that we lose sight of the actual amount of people who are voting. what numbers of registered voters actually vote? we take that number and consider how many voters didn't vote, and not worry so much about the polls. maybe we would have a more comprehensive way of thinking about who is actually going to win whenever it comes to the general election. these are primaries that people are voting now. i think the media has not found

the polls. what i don't understand is how the republicans can be so focused on donald trump, a man who has proven to be somebody that -- say if it was my husband, for instance, if he had as many negative things going against him that we know that he has done, he would not be able to even run. host: let's hear from lonnie in north carolina, republican line. caller: i was just listening to your guest, and she said all these things about what donald trump has done, and all these charges against him. i'm an 84-year-old american. i was a democrat for like 30 years.

i'm a native american living in north carolina and i am a republican because my father was forced to be a democrat. i listened to that lady, and she's just talking about donald trump, donald trump. anybody can surely see these people are after that man to crucify him because he is doing a good job. host: las vegas, independent line. caller: yes, i would like to comment about voting. i think it is imperative for all american i would like to see the presidency become just a figurehead, that doesn't make much sense but enough about it.

host: what would you change about the way we do things? caller: i would like to see people get more involved. i wasn't watching a lot of things that were going on in washington until just recently. i thought mr. trump was just a television personality. now he is a serious threat to american democracy. host:host: people have representational government, why isn't that enough? >> it doesn't seem to be working out very well. host: independent line, good morning. caller: one, i people that you bring on, i think you should leave the pole lines open because you are not for the drawing people who are reporting

the news and people are just propagandists. some examples of that, the last time you had an axios reporter, they were talking about the joe biden classified documents scandal, they didn't mention anything about the content of the classified information based on the markets, meant source reporting, all this other stuff. and when it trumpeted all of these things it took on the nuclear secrets, you don't cover things fairly and you bring on -- reporters who don't cover them fairly you just don't take calls, so could you respond that please? host: sometimes we bring reporters undertake altering segments, sometimes we bring them onto those things vary depending on what we look for as far as segments and what we hope to do with the segments. nathaniel in mississippi, democrats line.

caller: good morning. i have been watching c-span for a while. i am a 60-year-old black man. look, i never seen people that can care more about donald trump, what he says and does is ridiculous. this man is not need to be nowhere near the white house. listen, you haven't heard this man get on tv and say anything but hate. that's all he says is hate. he ain't got no -- nothing. it's just wrong. these people want to elect this man back president? what's wrong with them? look, he didn't do nothing at the capitol object -- on january 6? you didn't seen what they did? no, it wasn't. ridiculous people still think this man should be president. no, i would never vote for him and i don't care what happened to joe biden. i will be voting for joe biden.

i don't care. host: ok. when it comes to matters of foreign affairs, "the washington post" reporting that the president of ukraine said that -- gave a figure that 31,000 soldiers have died during the conflict there in ukraine. he gave that figure at a news conference to mark the second anniversary of the war. "i don't know if i have the right to tell you the numbers of our losses, every single person is a tragedy," he said, adding 31,000 members of ukraine's military were killed during this war. concerns over ukraine's ability to hold ground are growing as republicans in congress block a u.s. aid package that officials here say is urgently needed. the troops already rationing shells at the front line for several months. that's "the washington post." [captioning made possible by nba digital] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] host: until hamas yields on its

demands and israel press ahead on a campaign to defeat the remaining battalion in the southern region of the strip. he made these comments on cbs yesterday. here is a portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> we want it, i want it because we want to liberate the remaining hostages. we have brought half of them back and i appreciate the effort, combined effort of israel, the united states to bring back the remaining hostages. i can't tell you if we will have it, but if hamas goes down from its delusional claims and brings them down to earth, then we will have the progress we all want. >> what specifically is holding up the deal at this point? reportedly this would have 30 to 40 hostages, women, elderly released in exchange for a few hundred palestinian prisoners being released. >> hamas started out with crazy demands and it's too soon to say if they have abandoned them, but if they do abandon them and get

into what you call the ballpark, they're not even in the city. they're on another planet but if they come down to a reasonable situation, then yes, we will have the hostages. i hope so. >> there are at least six u.s. citizens among those being held by hamas. for you is the return of living hostages necessary and essential for you to declare victory in this war? >> i have said three war goals. the first is to release the hostages. the second is to destroy hamas and the third is to ensure that gaza does not pose a threat to israel in the future, and obviously the three are intertwined. their achieved by very effective and heroic military operation and also by tough negotiations. we are combining the two and i hope it yields the result. but understand that unless we have total victory we can't have peace.

we can't leave a quarter of hamas battalions in rafa herring and say that's fine. host: that interview yesterday on cbs. you can find the full interview online. steven in arizona as we continue on in this open forum, republican line. go ahead. caller: yes, i think it's obvious that the media has done a great job in demonizing donald trump and i can hear it, my friends and family members, all they have are rnn talking points. i used to watch cnn and abc and early in trump's presidency, for instance, he would do prison reform. i would put on cnn and they have stormy daniels' lawyer will be the next president because he has the goods on trump. even recently the supreme court

on colorado, i put on cnn and trump was responding for a good 40 minutes and they put on 30 seconds and they cut him off. they will not let the liberal media will not let trump have even a say in the presidential race. they've convicted him and the more they have done it, the more we feel that you are condemning people who like trump. it's horrible. host: robert is next in indiana on our independent line. hi. caller: yeah, first time caller. host: go ahead. you are on. caller: i had a question for you. i was wondering why there aren't any republican, conservative or independent moderators on c-span. host: we don't know cuss on the political aspect of our jobs as far as hosts are concerned so

that's why. host: ok. it's all democrat. it's all leftist democrat. it would be better for your viewers if you had a republican moderator on once in a while. it would be a little fair. host: the moderator system, the politics don't factor into that. i know people believe that to varying degrees but we try to keep the politics out of it as far as the chair is concerned. valerie in ohio, democrats line. hi. caller: good morning. i am not a first caller. i have called several times. i am a 35-year-old woman. i was raised in kentucky but born in ohio. i have seen both sides for sure. i will not be voting for biden or trump. neither one -- i will not support genocide, free palestine. i will also not support trump. i don't need to explain that. but my point being i really want to talk about the alabama ruling, with the i.v.f. i am thinking about that right

now because our rights as women are getting taken away slowly and i think we need to do something about that, stand up because contraception is next. i am telling you. thank you. host: we heard from senator duckworth concerning i.v.f. issues. one of the other people commenting on those issues was texas governor -- the republican governor, greg abbott, asked about how his state approaches it. here is part of his comments from yesterday. [video clip] >> we want to make it easier for people to be able to have babies, not make it harder, and the i.v.f. process is a way of giving life to even more babies. so what i think the goal is, is to make sure that we can find a pathway to ensure that parents who otherwise may not have the opportunity to have a child will be able to have access to the i.v.f. process and become parents and give life to babies and -- because this is a relatively new issue, we will have to find ways to navigate

laws and situations that are very complicated. >> let me ask you about your state, texas has one of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the country. are you saying that families in texas who are using i.v.f. have extra embryos that are frozen do not need to worry? >> well, so you raise questions that are complex that i don't know the answer to. let me give you a couple examples and that is i have no idea mathematically the number of frozen embryos. is it one, 10, 100, 1,000? things like that matter. what i don't know is families who may have frozen embryos, what happens if they were done so that a mother could have a pregnancy but after those embryos were frozen, the mother passes away? what happens then? what happens if after the embryos are frozen, the mother and the husband get a divorce?

here is my point in telling you that, and that is these are very complex issues where i am not sure everybody has really thought about what all the potential problems are and as a result, no one really knows what the potential answers are. i think you will see states across the country coming together and grappling with these issues and coming up with solutions. host: that is on cnn if you want to see more of that interview. bob in texas, democrats line, hello. caller: yes, thank you, pedro. please ware with me because i am not real good with words but i will try to get this across. the way i see it, the supreme court almost has to rule against donald trump and the reason i say that is if they rule for him and he becomes a dictator, he won't need the supreme court

anymore. he will make the rules himself. thank you, and y'all have a good day. host: a story just coming across "the new york times" website takes a look at the supreme court. the headline -- a conservatives critique of the supreme court's reliance on tradition saying it was in remarks that judge newsom said the justices had strayed from originalism in parts of their blockbuster opinions on abortion and guns whiting judges who are committed to that originalism who seek to reinterpret the constitution based on what it meant when it was adopted off p said they are guided by text and tradition, the phrase rolls nicely off the tongue but one of those things is not like the other. the federal appeals court judge said at harvard law school that critiqued recent trends of the supreme court. "traditionalism gives off an originalist vibe" said kevin newsom who reported to the u.s. court of appeals by former president trump. it seems old and dusty and reliable but maybe it is but

let's be clear. it's not originalism. more there if you want to read that, that's coming across "the new york times" website this morning. we will go to george in north carolina, republican line. caller: yeah, i was calling specifically about -- i am hearing people talk about donald trump running again as really an independent that sits back and watches this -- host: are you a republican or independent? caller: i was republican but i identify as independent now. host: i am going to have to hold you off there and i will ask you to call in on our ind .line. that's 202-748-8002. apologies for that. only three lines available, we want to make sure people who choose that line get access and availability to the program make their comments. stacy in boston, republican line. hi. caller: hi, good morning. i am calling in about the i.v.f. questions. i think they're asking too many -- going back to too many different solutions on that. you can't have it both way,

being manslaughter and other way being positive if they have it both ways. then they can say it's abandonment. that's too many different narratives on that way. switching it back over to the election, i think maybe after super tuesday what happens if they go back to l.b.j. when he steps away and the middle of the candidacy and what happens after that? he resigns. is that going to be the same with kamala harris? she's on the ticket and steps out and now she's the president. that removes biden. now she's on the presidency ticket for the democratic party. how does that affect the upcoming -- changes the democratic -- how it goes forward. host: this is t.j. in ja --

georgia, democrats line. hello? host: can you hear me, sir? host: you are on. caller: i want to get two things off my chest. i have been a democrat ever since i was 18 years old. i am 55 years old. two things i want to get off my chest is the first thing is number one, donald trump -- when you put a person in office that doesn't have any political or government experience, you get what you deserve. it's like a warning to those republican supporters out there. second of all, i want to talk about h.r. 40. they keep sitting on the congress and senate desk, right? they need to go ahead and like

maybe a vote on that, you know. i have ancestors that goes all the way back to slavery and we have been waiting a very long time to get reparations. they need to vote on it because when you have an annual income gap rate dating all the way back, you have a lot of people involved in slave trade going to wells fargo, bapg of -- bank of america, wachovia bank, they use my an tes tosser -- an is ses tosser as collateral to get loans when they needed loans. host: t.j. finishing off this round of open forum. thanks to all who participated. ow final segment takes a look at the impact of social media when it comes to the idea of civil discourse and new platform hoping to achieve that. john matze of the platform hedgehog joining us next on

"washington journal." >> friday night watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage providing a one stop shop to say what their san diego to voters. updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday nights at 7:00 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download as a podcast on c-span now. our free mobile app. our wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> for c-span's voices 2024 we are asking voters what issue is most important to you and why?

>> the most important issue this political season is immigration. >> economics. >> deficit. >> i think homelessness is an issue that needs to be addressed. >> we invite you to share your voice by going to our website, c-span.org, select the record your voice tab and record a 30 second video telling us your issue and why. c-span voices 2024. be a part of the conversation. >> the c-span book show podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to all podcasts in one place so you can discover new authors and ideas. each week we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biography, current events and culture from our signature programs about books. afterward, book notes plus and

qma. you can find it at the free c-span now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/podcast. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is john matze, founder of hedgehog taking a look at social media and the roll of civility. mr. matze, thanks for giving us your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: before we talk about the specific platform if you had a philosophy when it came to how discourse goes over social media, what would that be? guest: sure. i think social media should be a place for people to engage and actually grow and learn. i think it's really important and it's something that hasn't really happened online today as much as it should be. social media has increasingly, if you will, distanced itself

from productivity and we need to take it back to that. so that's really what hedgehog is about, getting people online together and having those important conversations. host: when you talked about that distance and the changes in social media specifically when it comes to discourse, what do you think are the cores of that? guest: well, some of it is by design. when you take a look at the features on social media they're not really designed to promote back and forth and they're not designed to get people to talk to one another. they're more designed for viral short clips and viral short sound bites, if you will, and a lot of what's going on, on social media, is circulated heavily amongst people and their followers. that incentivizes a lot of uncooperative behavior. what we want to do is incentivize people to have the conversations and if you are talking to somebody you disagree with, having that ability to say

look, we disagree but we have a right to disagree with one another. you have a right to your opinion and i respect that right. let's move on and continue our discussion or take it elsewhere. that's really important. host: you are saying that doesn't take place across current platforms and systems? guest: i am not saying it doesn't take place. i don't think it takes place on a wide scale. we have seen a lot of our political discussion and discussion in general in the united states get more and more heated, if you will, and people start getting more angry. it's not bringing people together. social media has had the opposite effect. host: as far as the hedgehog platform is concerned, talk a little about its development. what approach does it take that would bring in line some of your philosophy? guest: so hedgehog kind of -- i would describe its -- it as a social media news platform. you can see the top stories of the day and they're designed to

be written in a way that promote conversation, to get people talking to one another. but in order to have that conversation you need to be invited to the platform to have conversations. it's not like you can sign up and anybody can comment. it's invite only. that creates a sense of exclusivity. that creates a higher level of discussion. if you notice on other platforms, if people want to derail a conversation, they can do so, make another account, come back in and continue to do that. that's not how social media should be because social media should be about having those discussions and getting rid of the trolls, the bots, that's the first step. that's what we have done. so when you get on hedgehog, you are going to have a higher level of discussion. anybody can sign up and become a viewer and from there eventually become a commenter. host: so if you are invited to join, what determines if you get an invitation?

guest: right now it's who you know. people who join hedgehog earn what's called respect. respect earns respect. so the more people are liking your comments, reacting to it, giving you positive feedback, the more points you get. with those points you can invite more people. that's how the basic invite system works. right now we are still really young and early in the system. if you join hedgehog and follow me, my handle is at john, i will be handing out more invites so they can jump on too. host: is it determined that the invitation that you speak about, that determination depends on what you post or if you are not one who engages in too much conflict? what makes those decisions? guest: yeah, it all comes down to respect. if you say something or make some comment and the community members like it, we trust that the community members will reward you with reactions and so

that's a thumbs up, thumbs down, maybe we have a wide range of emojis. whether it's a smiley face, laughing, all of that is used to say hey, this person is engaging in respective dialogue. and they're rewarded for that and with that they have more power in the community. whether that's to invite other people or also on hedgehog the community members can moderate the discussion on hedgehog on their own as well. and so as opposed to something like a twitter or facebook, where you have one central authority who makes determinations about what is acceptable on the platform. on hedgehog the people on hedgehog get to make those determinations in addition to the platform itself. so that's really important. host: are there a list of standards as far as where they would step in? guest: we have community guidelines and those are enforceable by a team of moderators. we have artificial intelligence too. but beyond those community

guidelines, we want to give anybody on the platform the ability to remove anything they think is not acceptable. the criteria is really is this done in good faith? is this something that's trying to undermine the community? that ability has been given to people and we have what is called a parliamentary style voting system where you have to have a majority of people as well as majority of points through this respect system in order to remove content. we give that to the community to do on their own. so far it's been a great success. host: john mates with us, the founder and c.e.o. of hedgehog. if you want to ask questions about the platform, you can do that on the phone lines. it's 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. if you want to text us your questions or comments, you can do that as 202-748-8003. mr. matze, why hedgehog? guest: yeah, so for me, hedgehog

kind of takes me back to when my first app -- when jarred and i both built our first app together in college, i call it a toilet tapper. it's one of those games you play and tap on your phone. it was made after my hedgehog glory and the reason we wanted to bring everything back is so much negativity and so much seriousness associated with these topics. it's really nice to have something that reminds you of the more simple things and to keep it less serious and to have fun with it. that's for us what hedgehog means. host: part of your resume includes being the krevment e.o. of the social media site parler. can you remind our viewers what prompted you to develop that site? guest: parler, i founded that with the best of intentions and we wanted to build a free speech site, a respectable free speech privacy online.

if you go back in time to 2018 and earlier, that was a big issue that i think social media platforms had gone above and beyond what they were intended to do and started enforcing speech that had a right to be on line. parler was created to pursue free speech. so that's the backstop on that. host: but the site also came into question after the ee vens of january 6. so much sow that the amazon web service took you offline. could you recount those events? guest: yes. so after the 2020 election, we had grown tremendously to -- i think upwards of 15 million people using our site. we had over a $1 billion valuation. we were wildly successful and leading up to january 6, we had alerted the f.b.i. of the events that were about to occur. we had taken quite a bit of action with the information that we had, done our best to help

law enforcement. after january 6, we received quite a bit of the blame albeit i don't think that was warranted or justified. other platforms certainly had a much larger role in organizing that event and -- but i think it was a convenient scapegoat a little bit as well and we saw quite a bit of recourse from amazon and other services. host: in fact, you wrote about this. you said grantednot without sin here. i cre parler, before things publicly came ng down. iounded parler with the best of intentions. i am ashamed of what i was hijacked by bad actors looking to promote toxicity. are you saying you had no role directly since you are blaming these bad agentors and third parties? guest: no, i don't think you can say there is no role. everybody is a little bit too blame. i think we did the best we could

given the information we had at the time. and really what we want to do now is say i have had a lot of experience, whether it's the good experience peernses, the bad experiences. when you put all that together, we have a lot of experience bringing to the table. i think after january 6 a lot of the platforms that are out there, a lot of social media platforms, i don't think they've made the necessary changes to prevent something like that from organizing and happening again. so i want to come in here and say we are building a new platform that's a new take on social media. we want to do things right. we still want to allow discussions to take place. we want to do it in a positive way where everyone can learn and grow and enjoy their engagement online without all of those -- that toxicity and negative side effects. host: john matze of hedgehog. our first call comes from jeff in new york, independent line. you are on with our guest, jeff.

caller: thank you. mr. matze, i would like to focus my comments first on an oral from nature. a number of studies discuss the spread of vaccine misinformation on social media and argue that such campaigns are driven by negative opinions about vaccines and have contributed to resurgence of measles online. in the covid vaccine pandemic, scenarios widely shared misinformation including false claims that vaccines genetically manipulate the population or contain microchips that interact with 5g networks. one more thing i would like to read to predicate how important this is. this is from another scientific journal. the european epidemiology journal. journal of epidemiology and it says we have to make that 232,000 deaths that could have been prevented among

unvaccinated adults during the 15 months that the survey -- study was conducted in 2021 to 2022. now, that being said, all the types of toxic effects that you just spoke about, i can't imagine anything more important than losing 23 it,000 people in just 15 months let alone over the entire period that social media has been allowed to spread this type of misinformation. i want to bring this to your attention because this is where preventible deaths are occurring and it dwarfs all the other types of ills that we often speak about in politics and such. that's my opinion. host: jeff in new york, thank you. guest: yeah, i think jeff, you brought up a very interesting and excellent point. there are a lot of issues on social media right now, especially where a lot of people are coming in and they're just saying things and there is an

incentive to say something whether it's true or not. unfortunately a lot of people believe that. what's really important is on hedgehog we have the top stories page and we have trusted sources. so these trusted sources are top media outlets that get the conversation going. that's what starts the conversation and it's up to the community to continue it. i think it's really important that we design things that way so that you don't start with a factually inaccurate basis like you were describing that has all these negative consequences. you start with something positive and you start with something that you know is somewhat based in the truth and from there we can have those conversations and people can discuss it. it's really important that we focus and remember that there is a reason we have journalism in this country and it's their job to continue to not just give us information but also to do it in a way where they continue to earn our trust and giving journalists that opportunity to earn that trust back after a period where i think social media and journalism has

suffered is really important. host: brooklyn new york, that's where alan is, democrats line. caller: thank you, good morning. my name is alan in brooklyn. i was wondering given the experience of the way the culture of twitter was drastically altered by the takeover of the company by elon musk, are there protections in your corporate struck thur that would prevent that change midstream not just of ownership but of direction and values of the company the way we saw with twitter becoming x? i would hope the answer is yes but it would take planning. guest: yeah, excellent question. right now the co-founder and i are majority owner of the company. that gives us flexibility with how things are ran. i think it's really important that with regards to what has happened on twitter, that we have some kind of alternative or some kind of place where people can gather and have good conversations.

you are absolutely right. i think the changes there -- i don't know they're necessarily the changes that i would have wanted to make. host: you said when it comes to the trusted sources, who determines what a trusted source is and also what criteria is used to determine that? guest: yeah, so if you go on to about hedgehog.com we have a list of our trusted sources disclosed on there. that list comes from a professional team of editors that we have who look at what the most factually accurate and high quality journalism, where they're coming from in the united states. our team transparently publishes all that on the hedgehog.com site. host: as far as the representation then, would you say that you look at say an editorial page, where it's coming from and how that determines whether something ends up on a trusted source? how do you balance that?

guest: we try to pull sources from across the spectrum, whether left, right, neutral. you will see reuters, you will see fox and you will see cnn on there. you will see stuff across the spectrum. we try to use sources that are widely recognized as being in the top media outlets of the united states and also that are -- that have a history of professional journalism. host: eric from new york, democrats line. hello. caller: good morning. how are you? i know you are fine because you say it to everybody before me. i want to mention to you, mr. matze, that for the past nine years, i have done an experiment with people when i find them alone, i ask them two questions. i ask them -- i do it identically with each person and if you do three or four people a day, you end up with thousands

over the years. i am confident when i go about the public that they are not the kind of people that you might determine them to be by online communications and i see that because there's a different dynamic when you have your actual skin in the game. there's physical reality between you and another person and you get to watch their body language and there is an instantaneousness of communication, you can retreat from a mistake and get back on track. so i would ask two questions. i would say excuse me, i am taking a personal poll. can i ask you for your opinion? invariably these thousands of people say yes. host: what is the question do you have so we can get our guest to respond to it? caller: ok, thank you. anyway i got a lot of

positive -- 85% said most people are nice. what do you think most people told me? the thing is that how do we mend the discrepancy that i find when you are in person, you get a different vibe and a different answer from what the product of america is producing as opposed to the -- host: i think we got the point, eric. mr. matze, go ahead. guest: thank you, eric. what you brought up is an interesting topic which is the difference between online and in person speech. there is a difference. a lot of that has to do with the fact there are a lack of consequences online. when you are talking online on a lot of platforms, they let you make more accounts, spammers, bots and people take advantage of that. if we want to create an

experience that's more like real life, we have to create a feeling of community and that's where people want to remain. by giving that community feel, i think people -- and making it harder to get in, we are giving people that opportunity. also worth remembering, on most social media platforms you can give a thumbs up, a heart when you react to something and you have a conversation and it's static with the comments. on hedgehog you can react with -- i think we almost 100 different emonliys and that gives it more feeling. the other thing that's nice is we have these chatrooms that are live and real time. it's not as slow as other social platt forms. you can get in there and admit or back down and say i respectfully agree or disagree with you. hey, maybe i didn't think this through. that can happen and more real time back and forth. host: mr. matze, a viewer in texas this morning asking you

what top three lessons did you learn from parler that you applied to hedgehog? guest: top three -- it will be hard to pin down just three. but it's -- i think we learned a lot about what every little feature can do to a lat porm -- platform. remembering that every design that you have for the platform, whether it even be disclosing who is liked or who has followed you, when it comes to moderation, how serious we need to take it, that is very important but also remembering that we still want to trust the people on the platform and trust the community as a whole because i think in most cases people art so we have to remember to trust these people on the platform. that's something i think a lot of other platforms haven't done. host: mike joins us from wisconsin on our independent line for john matze of the platform hedgehog.

caller: thanks for having this forum. it's really nice to allow people to share their opinions when you really can't do that online anymore. for example, i have been on facebook for a long time and everything i say now is shadow banned where they read what my comments are, my posts, along with my friends and they decide what they're going to allow to be seen by other people or not. for example, let's talk about that fellow that called in from new york and blamed misinformation for killing 200,000 people because they didn't believe the covid vaccine was dangerous. so for the last two years, we have been told we needed to get the updated covid vaccine, first the bivalent and now the second one.

so for two years right now only 17% of the adult population have taken the covid vaccine that they're supposed to take. so 83% of the population says i am not taking this vaccine. you can pretty much say these people are anti-vaccine. they're going into their doctor's office, he is saying you need this shot and they're saying no. 83% have said no, i am not taking this covid vaccine. for the children, it's even lower than that. host: got the point, sir. what question would you like to address in relation to what you just said? caller: i think we need honesty out there. we need to stop the censorship. everyone is calling in saying i can't vote for either trump or

biden. but we have robert f. kennedy jr. he is not beholden to phrma. he is not beholden to the military industrial complexful he is not beholden to anyone. he is an honest man. host: got the point. honesty without censorship. how would you respond to that? guest: there are a few things we can take out of that which are helpful of the one of them is mentioning these platforms and this feeling of censorship on line. one thing it comes down to is not that it isn't just a feeling. it's also there. so when you go on your news feed on most social medias, it's a curated news feed. they've made decisions to do that in a way to keep them fresh and new and so there is content always there. there is a side effect of doing that. stuff may show up on your feed because somebody you follow

might follow something or because somebody liked something. it will throw it in your feed. there is a side effect that it could promote things or even demote or take away things that you want to see. it's making this he zigs -- decision because it's in the best interest of the company. we are saying you are chosen to follow these people. that's what you are going to see in order of which they post. that kind of stripping that alg rit away and making it very simple, what you expect is what you see, that's going to really help people get what they came to experience online. host: from john, john in massachusetts, independent line for john matze. john in massachusetts, hello. caller: yeah, i have a question and a comment. my comment is being that rockefeller, rothschild, big

major corporations were funded all the wars on both sides who control all the major media corporations, vanguard, how do you get your funding? how do you get your funding for free speech? real true free speech? not controlled speech through algorithms, not fake news through the major corporations that are being run by black watch and everything else. host: caller, we will leave it there. your funding, sir. guest: one thing worth remembering too is that this topic of black rock has really come up online and companies haven't had a lot of opportunity to kind of counter that narrative. it's not a very nice narrative because it's not based in reality. it's a holding company. it's a fund people invest in. you too can own parts of all these different companies if you go on the stock market and buy some stock.

it doesn't mean they necessarily control anything. two, we ran a funding round where we have a minority partner who came in and has invested and that's how we received our funding. from here going forward, we have a premium tier which is our contributor status where people join and what's really important is that we are accountable to the people on our platform because we are not going to be primarily advertising based. we are supported by our community members. that means we work for the community members and that's different than other social media platforms who work on trying to get the ads to load. we work for the people in the community. our incentives are in line with the people on our platform. host: it was the organization -- news organization puck who reported that at least for them that some of your funding is coming from fox corporation.

guest: yes, fox news is a minority partner in the company. jarred and i are the primary owners of hedgehog and i think it's really important that such a large company has validated what we are working on and the amount of transparency and the amount of disclosures when you work with a large company, the security testing, privacy testing, it means we have really built a professional site and this is a really good community for people to join and get into the conversation. host: fox had its own issues with information about january of 6. is that a concern for you being a partner with them? guest: on hedgehog it will be important to get a diverse set of people on the platform. so whatever fox -- whatever brand they might have, it's not really relevant. what is relevant is that we have incentives in place. we work for the community and we

need a diverse set of opinions on our platform. that's really important. when you look at the fact that such a large company has decided to invest, these are business motivated companies, companies who want to see a return on investment. the fact that they think we can provide that is really cool and really important because our platform is -- there is a business sense to it as well as a social sense to why we are doing this? host: willie in mississippi, republican line. caller: yes, i wanted to ask mry create a narrative, i want to make sure that i trust that story is truthful. and also i want to say that when someone comes on and adds a lie to that story, do they edit that story because that's what he has been happening for so long with the internet services. people get on and tell lies. we want to make sure that mr. john and his company make sure that everything they say is

true, whether it's coming from fox news, msnbc, cnn, you need to have a truthful program because a lot of people in this country take the internet and that stuff that they have on facebook and all that stuff and they run with it and kill people. you need to make sure you are held accountable and fox who come on your show if they're not telling the truth, cut them off and never let them come back again. that's all i got to say. host: mr. matze. guest: thank you, willie. i think what is really important to take away from that call is that we can't have a central authority determine what is true and what is not true. that could be flawed as well. but what we can do is provide people the news and the media that's written from journalists and let people decide whether it's true. if the community realize that this is not quality journalism, they don't like it, the people on the platform have the ability to remove that or when someone else says something they feel is

not right there is that community moderation component where the community can say this member is spreading too much garbage, taking away from the conversation, they have the ability to remove that. but really what it comes down to is the community can have these discussions, disprove, prove, discuss, what about this news makes it true or not true and that's really important that we trust people to have that conversation. host: mr. matze, how does your platform deal with data privacy and in your mind what is the best practices for data privacy? guest: it's a complex topic. there are all sorts of countries that have different privacy laws. we are conforming to the u.s. privacy law and we are -- and other states in the u.s. that have different privacy laws. it gets very complicated and terribly expensive and difficult to conform with all of these different laws. we focus on u.s. law right now. and so what that means is your

data is private. we are not sharing or selling any of your information. we don't have any plans to and i think it's really important that people remember that we work for the people on our platform which is also an incentive for us not to go ahead and give away any information. taking that a step further, also when you are on hedgehog we take privacy seriously. you can't see people following or follower list. that stops cyberbullying and tracking that happens on social media. a relationship between you and oir community -- other community members is if somebody likes your post, that's between you and the person that liked it. it's not for the general public to consume. we have taken privacy seriously with all aspects of our design of the platform in addition to the legal components. we have gone above and beyond if you will, to really ensure that although it's a public site, it's still being managed in a way where people have a sense of privacy and they get what they

expect. host: our conversation with john matze, the founder and c.e.o. of the platform hedgehog. tom is in ohio, republican line. you are on with the guest. good morning. caller: i wanted to mention because the narrator brought up fox news that fox news is owned by a democrat and it is a good company. thank you. host: ok. mr. matze, i want to ask you over the last several years, including recently we have had the head of social media companies come before congress to depend their practices to congress, possibly considering regulation of social media practices. what do you think about the possibility of that? guest: yeah, it's interesting. i think that when it comes to regulation, sometimes it's done with good intentions and gives you bad outcomes. there is a lot of things that we could do to really improve whether or not children or young adults are using social media

online. i personally think that any legislation to help children or people 18 or upped to -- under to avoid or give them production tekses online, i would wholeheartedly support that. hedgehog is 18 and up even though we don't allow nudity, pornography, still don't think it's ok for minors to be online as much as they are today. regulation on that front very good. i just hope that any regulation that might occur or is being considered doesn't hurt competition. it's really important that we have competition online especially in tech where there are so few large companies that have the ability to crush competition. we need to promote it and make sure it's protected. host: what do you think is a regulation that could chill or crush competition? guest: i think we have be careful with section 230. section 230 is a provision that takes liability away from social media companies for what people are posting on it.

although sometimes section 230 is taken too far when people are using algorithms to curate feeds and they are using complex editorial decisions hidden behind algorithms to convince the general public that somehow it's organic when in fact the con tent is not organic. addressing that issue is interesting. it could see some merit but if we take section 230 to interpret legal liability for soition immediate -- social media, you can end any ability to compete with twitter, tiktok and other companies. host: you probably are aware that the supreme court even today is going to consider two cases to uphold laws in florida and texas that would seek to restrict social media companies to moderate content. what do you think of that? guest: well, on one hand once again it's good intentions. they want to make sure that free speech is protected and free speech is a fundamental backbone of this country in respecting

eemp other's ability to have those conversations. the problem is social media online is different than in real life. if you can spin up a bot army in the middle of siberia and attack online communities in the united states and have an effect on discussion there, you shouldn't be required to host those bad actors. so on one hand you want to respect people's right to free speech while also preventing a community from being derailed from its original purpose. right now section 230 and the way the rules are set up allow the platform to determine what is allowed. until we can come up with a solution that works for everybody, what we have now is at least a start. it would be worth keeping those protections so far. host: let's hear from reva joining us from maryland, democrats line. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. so i like the idea of the news

based format. i think that's a nice start, but it has a bit of a danger and i want you to speak to it, and that danger is that the news media has its own blinders about what it will look at, what it will talk about. so for a long time, you got nothing on climate change from standard news media, whether it was liberal or conservative. it just wasn't a topic, and a lot of people's complaints about cnn or fox or whoever their complaint is against is really about what they actually cover. so how do you get around that? for climate change, a lot of the news sources are reputable but they're very secondary. they aren't like mass media sort

of news sources. i am sure there's other subjects that's the same. and then my second question is are you associated with the hedgehog app which is a crypto app? are you associated with any kind of finance stuff going on? host: reva in maryland, thank you so much. guest: with regards to the hedgehog app we are only affiliated with hedgehog.com and hedgehog social, the purple with light hedgehog on it and not affiliated with crypto currencies. that being said, your first point, there's only so much space on a lot of media outlet sites so they choose to publish what they choose to publish. hedgehog is trying to bring you a wide range of topics, whatever is popular in the day. but what is worth remembering is even if it's not on the

editorial page, people who are paying to be contractors on hedgehog can post whatever is interesting to them. if you are passionate about one subject, you can share that. so it's really important that we give people the ability to have those conversations and if you can't find it on the id toirl -- editorial page, maybe contributors have it. we also have a wide range of news-based accounts that you can follow and if you are interested in climate change, i am sure there is a climate change account that's posting news on those topics as well. i personally follow gardening and there is one about airplanes which i like too. host: this is steve, illinois, republican line. hi, steve. caller: how you doing? what i don't like is when they tried -- the democrats tried to rig the elections because what happens is they're trying to take trump off the ballot in these states and they're all

democratic run, which the people in illinois might want to vote for donald trump, how can they vote if illinois would shut his name off the ballot? that's what i would like to know. that pisses me off. have a good day. host: let me rephrase the question a little bit. you are launching this platform in an election year. you probably remember quite firmly the 2020 election year. what concerns do you have going forward particularly when it comes to information and content? guest: yeah. in 2020, i think it was clear social media sites overstepped their boundaries. they were in my opinion panicking quite a bit and so trying to figure out how to handle certain issues, if you remember it was covid and the presidential election. i think for hedgehog this year, what we will be doing is focusing on leading by example. we want to allow people to have conversations, to debate and discuss things on the site.

and really trust the community will be a part of both the moderation, the invite process, making sure the community is having good faith discussions and stay out of the political and that's what is really important to me. host: let's get in max in michigan, democrats line. hi. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i have one question for the gentleman. when you found out that fox had to pay a fine of $700 million for misinformation, did you discontinue taking your $5 million in donations to run your program? guest: i think so when it comes to what happened on their news broadcasting channels, i don't think that reflects their corporate behavior and if you look at -- they've done a decent job at trying to deal with the fallout of what happened there. if you saw a lot of the -- i think a lot of the hoses that were involved in that are no longer working with the company.

i am not a spokesman for them. i can't tell you really. i can only tell you from my experience and what i have experienced with them, for me it's focused on business and i think our business plan is very clear. it hasn't changed with their involvement. our business plan has been the same and it will continue to be what it is, at least until we see how the market responds and so far everything is really positive. host: i was going to ask you in this first year what are your expectations and how do you gauge success? guest: for me i would say the platform is successful if we can slowly grow and consistently grow to half a million accounts over the next year. i don't think that's a really crazy objective. i don't think it's a huge objective. what it is, it's a slow and steady growth process. what we do now hassen a -- has an impactd on our site. because we are give people so much power on the platform we want to make sure the way people are joining that we get a diverse set of opinions and that we get people who are good faith

actors on our site, that's is what is really important. slow and steady growth will whether a good -- build a good foundation. host: the invite thing primarily but if people are interested in checking out, how do they do in a? guest: everybody can join or download the app on the app store, hedge hodge social or hedgehog community. hedgehog.com is where you can go. you can follow the news. you can follow different contributors. if you follow me i will be passing out invites to become members on the site. host: john matze is the c.e.o. and found irof hedgehog. you can find his work online if you want to go to the website. mr. matze, thanks for the conversation. guest: thank you. thanks to the viewers. host: that's it for the program today. a lot of things to watch out for. the results of the michigan primary on tuesday. the efforts in the house when it comes to fun l