paid 35,000 -- i pay $35 in the hospital for a couple days. host: arc in maryland. -- mark inyland. last call. caller: i want to remind all americans that planned parenthood was founded by a woman named sanger who is a proponent of eugenics. in 1939 she wrote to a colleague of hers after she started the so-called negro project in harlem she wrote to a colleague of hers that she did not want any in the negro race to figure out we are trying to exterminate them. it is odd that black americans are about 12% of the population

but get 60% of the abortions. you find a planned parenthood anywhere but a minority neighborhood. host: march finishing off this round -- mark finishing off this round of open forums. our ne us to talk about former president trump in court on his various legal cases , his perspective on those cases against the former president. that is mike davis, he is the head of the article iii project and he will join us next on "washington journal.">> as friedman's first major television series unfolds famous and influential men and women who occupy those seats will have a lot of you about -- a lot to sayut lives. >> american history tv will air the three part series free to choose featuring nobel

prize-winning economist -- the friedmans also wrote a best-selling companion book with the same name. the friedman's advocate free markgovernment intervention in the economy. other topics include welfare education, equality, and inflation. watch free t choose saturday at 7:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span2>> today watched c-span's 2024 campaign trail, providing a one-stop shop to find what candidates across the country are saying to voters. a first-hand account from political reporters, fundraising data, and campaign ads. watched c-span's 2024 campaign trail today at 7:30 p.m.

eastern, online at or download as a podcast at c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events featur markets -- markers that guide you to highlight. these markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on videos. this timeline makes it easier to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's point of interest. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. americans can see democracy at work. when citizens are truly informed our republic thrives.

get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are because the opinion that matters the most is your own. c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: davis the founder and president of the article iii project to talk about the cases against trump. find us -- remind us what the project is and how you are i started the project after i left the senate judiciary committee riser for the lead staffer for the confirmation of justice kavanaugh along with a record number of president trump's federal judges. as we talked about in one of my prior c-span interviews the reason i started theproject is because

i saw how vicious the left was on judicial nominees. i saw a void on a right where we needed somebody with insider experience with an outsider mindset and an outsider willingness to fight. that is why a started the article iii project in 2019. we have been successful helping president trump support his effort to confirm justice amy coney barrettnd transform the supreme court to the first constitutionalist majority in 90 years along with a record number of lower court judges. focused on this democrat warfare against president trump, his top aides his attorneys, his january 6 supporters. parents outraged by gender chaos in schools and the resulting rapes in high school bathrooms. christians praying outside abortion clinics while president

biden and abide in justice department give amnesty to biden, his family antifa, hamas , the abortion industry how are you funded so we can go on to other things? guest: we are funded by you can go to articleiiip roject.org and donate online. host: there are four cases brought against the former president. they are alln various stages. to what extent would you argue about the cases and their legitimacy against the former president? guest: i think this is part of the democrats lawfare and election interference campaign against president trump. i thi cases. whether it is the two bogus impeachments against trump. the four bogus indictments againstseveral unconstitutional gag

orders against trump. i've never heard of putting a gag order on a criminal defendant. if everyone on the planet needs right to speak out against the prosecutor, the judge, the witnesses, the process i process unless we are north korea and then they do not have those rights. we see -- going through with bogus civil lawsuits like the civil fraud lawsuits by the new york attorney general letitia james for the non-fraud of paying back a significant wall street back on tt. the democratic judge imposed a half billion dollar unconstitutionally punitive fine on trump. with jean carol you have the new

york legislature changing the law so she can bring a lawsuit just against trump. under this law passed just to get trump. she cannot remr case except she knew it was trump like christine blowsy ford. another unconstitutionally punitive damage from a democratic judgment a democratic jury. our country is not going to survive if we will continue these tactics. this will not end with trump. if democrats -- it will use democrat lawyers and democrat prosecutors and demose democratic hellholes to take out the leading presidential candidate instead of letting the americaopvote on november 5 we will not have a country. host: let me roll the callers in. if we want to ask our guest

questions, republicans (202) 748-8000 democrats (202) 748-8001 independents (202) 748-8002. test your -- text your comments. (202) 748-8003. the former president waits a decision on immunity. what you expect from the court? caller: i expect the court if they follow -- guest: i expect the supreme court will establish that any president of the united states has immunity from criminal prosecution just like federal judges do, just like members of congress to. that is for their official acts. not for personal acts. for official acts. judges and members of congress have civil and criminal immunity for their official acts. the president just has civil immunity from a case from 40 years ago, the nixon case from

40 y ago where the supreme court established the president is immune from civil prosecution. the court has not yet established the president is immune from criminal prosecution from his official acts because we have never seen a former president indicted until thes unprecedented bogus indictments by these democrat prosecutors against president trump. i would say if the supreme court does not establish the president is immune from criminal prosecution for his official acts, you will see the destruction of the which will lead to the destruction of the country. let me give you an example. we have lincoln riley's murder in georgia. does that mean when president trump is back in office the trump 47 justice department can charge presi biden for the consequences for his illegal release of dangerous illegal immigrants into our country who go on to rape and murder people?

does that mean the biden justice department can charge biden? host:id prosecution based on any conduct aay position finds no support in constitutional text or logic. what you think about the strength of that argument? guest: i would say jack smith is getting used to getting reversed unanimously by the supreme court like he did by the bogus prosecution of bob mcdonald. jack smith won a conviction. donald was a likely buys presidential contender in 2016 and that was reversed in 2016 eight-zero. jack smith is a political scud missile who sent in to take out presidential contenders like he did with bob mcdonald. on the presidential immunity argument there is president in the civil context. the president of the united states is a -- is immune from

civil prosecution or the perimeter of his official acts under that nixon case we discussed 40 years ago. if federal judges are immune from criminal prosecution absolutely immune from criminal prosecution, and so are members of congress, why wanted the president of the united it would destroy our country. another example besides biden and riley is president obama and his legal advisor, now federal circuit judge david baron on the first circuit court of appeals in bostodavid baron advised president obama it was lawful for obama to order an extra traditional drone strike on two american citizens including a minor. if obama is not immune from criminal prosecution for his official acts, does that mean the from 47 justice department can charge president obama and judge david baron with capital

or their illegal drone strike on two american citizens? do we want to go down this path. host:is tim in kentucky. democrats line. go ahead. caller: how are you doing. you are talking very fast and there is some lag. i think you be thrown for spreading so much hateful propaganda. trump belongs in jail. period. put him in jail. host: go ahead. guest: i would say this to these people who hate trump. this is so much bigger than donald trump. he's a republic ending tactics and i would say to biden -- these are republic ending tactics and i would say to biden in these four democratic prosecutions trying to defeat president trump in the courtroom and put him in because they fear president trump on november 5 2024, this is not

our country is supposed to run. the people pretending they are saving democracy are actually destroying democracy with this unprecedented election interference. host: from new york city, republican line. peter is up next. caller: thank you for all you are doing for the former iate that. i wanted you to address this idea of lawfare going on where they are using prosecutorial discretion on who they prosecute and who they do not. both hillary clinton and joe biden both violated the espionage act. hillary clinton by having in illegal private server and then destroying 33,000 emails, and joe biden for stealing documents out of a skiff for the last 40 years.

both of those violate the espionage act and yet the justice department refuses to prosecute them but they are prosecuting president trump for the sameffi believe he will be vindicated in the long run but this is all designed to convince the public that somehow president trump is a criminal and somehow hillary clinton and joe biden have been vindicated. i do believe the president will be vindicated in the long term. in the short term it is to hurt him politically. if you could address that i would appreciate it. host: we will let our guest address that. guest: i would say you h trump, who had his presidential records in the office of the former president which is funded by staff, it has secret service protection, 24/7 the staff had security clearances is one of the

most secure office spaces on the planet. president trump used mar-a-lago as one of his offices when he was president. he had his presidential records in this office and they never leaked, they never leaked the entire time president trump had them. they only leaked until joe biden's justice department went to a democrat judge who had just recused from trump's civil lawsuit against hillary clinton six weeks prior because of judge re posts bashing trump. somehow that recusal issue disappeared and the biden justice department got in illegal unnecessary raid on the office of the former president using the espionage act and not even mentioning the presidential records act. host: you probably saw this morning. when it comes to the georgia case. fani willis tends day and keep

on with the case if she let's go of the prosecutor or vice versa. what you think of that decision? guest: it is a clearly legally wrong decision but it does not surp me. this is a young judge, a plant by governor brian kemp, who is certainly a trump hater. this judge is 33 or 34 years old and worked for brian kemp as the georgia state inspector general. he worked for fani willis and the fulton county da office and donated $150 to fani willis's campaign. there is very clear evidence that fani willis had in illegal financial stake in this criminal prosecution of president trump. she hired her secret unqualified boyfriend and gave him $250 an horico charge against president trump and 18 co-defendants.

he built $17,000 and counting. he billed for his time to collude with the biden white house. faith and wait took his girlfriend -- nathan wade took his girlfriend,/boss on these trips to napa valley, the caribbean. that is bribery. those are violations. that is in illegal financial stake in a criminal prosecution that is illegal. she should have been disqualified. the entire office should have been disqualified if this judge mcafee followed the facts and the law as he should have. there is been disqualified in the office should have been disqualified. the case should have been dismissed without prejudice for a new prosecutor but doubt that judge mcafee faces a democrat judicial election challenger for this november and this overwhelmingly county i think he

caved to the political pressure. you saw at this evidentiary hearing when he let fani willis run the show. he was scared to look at her. he cannot keep her under control and i think he caved to fani willis. host: he did dismissed some of the charges against the former that was windowdressing. that was political. he made it look like he was dismissing charges that do not matter that much. he was dismissing charges it looks like nathan wade wrote with a crayon. it was so incomprehensible they got dismissed and they can refile those charges. it is obvious this judge caved to political pressure and that is unfortunate.

host: let's hear from the independent line. caller: a quick question for mr. davis. you are talking about cronyism and fani willis worked with this guy and this guy did this and it is all a democratic plot or whatever. at the same time you are seemingly working on this project, you have something to do with mr. trump and his line. how do we differentiate that between what you are talking about, and separately as far as legal stuff, there has been a lot of precedent acting like this is a big smear campaign.

. if you believe in the law does the law not important when it is a guy that you may have something to do with? host: we will let our guest respond to that. guest: is a fair point. i am very pro-trump. we were instrumental in helping trump transform the supreme court and the lower federal courts to the first constitutionalist majority in 90 years where judges would follow the law in these cases instead of make up the their political will and actually follow the law. i would say this. democrats thought they were going to disqualify trump from the ballot based upon a post civil war constitutional amendment, section iii of the 14th amendment passed after the civil war to chase out of

after the civil war those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states. there is persuasive case lawlmon chase from over 150 years ago saying if you want to disqualify under section iii of the 14th amendment congress has to pass a federal statute on insurrection and rebellion with the disqualification clause. a federal prosecutor has to bring federal charges. a federal grand jury has to -- unanimousa federal judge has to convict. that conviction has to be upheld . democrats law, they were going to democratic judges and democratic jurisdictions like colorado and just have the colorado supreme court in a 4-3 decision.

all seven of the colorado justices are democrats. four of them a left and they just took president trump off the ballot in colorado. they would use that president nationwide. the supreme court reversed that 9-0. it is very hard to get the supreme court to rule 9-0 on these key cases. there is democrat lawfare and election that even justices taken, sotomayor, and jackson not exactly trump fans, joint in this nine to nothing decision to side with president trump. you are seeing president biden's hands on all four of these unprecedented criminal prosecutions against president trump for non-crimes. it is not a crime to object to a presidential election in america. it is allowed by the electoral count act of 1887. democrats objected to republican

wins in 1968, 2000, 2004, 2016. we do not see john kerry and hillary clinton in jail. it is also allowed by the first amendment to object to presidential elections. it is only illegal to object to a presidential election in third world marxist hellholes like zimbabwe and north korea and atlanta and washington d.c. host: you talked about the three justices. they say they protest the majority's efforts to use the case to define the efforts of federal enforcement of the provision. what do you make of that? guest: it is silly. if the supreme court did not have a clear broad rule that if you want to disqualify it has to be through legislation passed through congress and you go through due process and the ports, if the supreme court cannot actually rule we would have to play whack a mole with

the democrats bogus disqualification efforts. we saw this with the colorado supreme court. you had this democrat maine secretary of state who just decreed i feel like trump committed insurrection somehow on january 6 so i will just take him off the ballot. what the democrats were doing or playing a dangerous anti-democratic game, pretending like they were saving democracy by destroying democracy and the supreme court wanted to make sure we do not have a train wreck before november 5, 2024. host: robert in connecticut. republican line. caller: i like what you are doing, especially when you are on the radio with steve bannon. can you talk about the committee headed up byloudermilk and his findings

on the january 6 committee that president trump did authorize troops and how liz cheney would not interview witnesses that went against her narrative? thank you very much. host: -- guest: january 6 was a lawful protest permitted by the national park service that devolved into a riot. there is zero evidence that trump incited this riot. to the contrary he told his protesters to go peacefully. there is also evidence as this caller just cited that trump wanted to have 10,000 national guard troops at this january 6 protest to ensure it control and the evidence is the democratic leadership the democrat d.c. mayor muriel bowser and the democratic speaker of thepelosi did not want these so-called stormtroopers at the capital.

what the democrats did on january 6 is a politicized this riot, they tried to pretend it was somehow an insurrection. how is it in insurrection when they go unarmed to the capital and follow police directions, walk-through velvet ropes, get to the senate floor and they do not burn down thetrump wanted to send 10,000 national guard troops to put down his insurrection he was supposed to be organizing? this is disgraceful what the democrats have done with january 6. they have only weaponized the biden justice department with the biggest law enforcementn in our history to destroy the lives of these january 6 protesters. there are three categories of generate six protesters. there are people who were there peacefully. even if you think they are wrong or they are crazy, they have a first minute right to be there. there's a second category of people who trespassed on generate sixth and they should be charged with trespassing.

there is a third category,le who are violent. those people should be charged more harshly. to lump all of those people together and say they are insurrectionists even though there is never been a charge of insurrection after the democrats of the generate six committee have spent tens of millions of biden justice department has spent tens of billions of dollars and there is zero evidence of insurrection. this is defamation what they are doing to these january 6 defendants and to put them in prison and ruin their lives while they give amnesty to the much more dangerous and much more destructive and deadly blm and antifa and hamas supporters along with abortion activists who been obstructing justice by politicizing -- by going outside of the supreme court justices and intimidating them. that is obstruction of justice. host: there were headlines leading away from january 6 about one supporter arrested for having a gun. you said there were no arms present.

i wanted to know if you want to clarify? guest: they found one person with a weapon? blm and nt for supporters who attacked the white house who burned the secret service guard station who torched st. john's church, who attacked u.s. senator rand paul leaving the white house who attacked the portland federal courthouse on a nightly basis? how about the abortion industry activists who threatened and intimidated supreme court justices outside their homes while they were deciding the dobbs decision, which led to justices and their families being taken to a safe house. even after the 1:00 a.m. assassination attempt against justice kavanaugh and their two teenage daughters, the biden just department allow this to continue to happen. we have people from the justice department, we have the white house press secretary jen psaki saying from the white house podium that these protesters were protected by the first amendment.

they absolutely were not. do not have a firs right to obstruct justice by intimidating federal judges outside their homes while cases are pending. host: got you there. let's hear from george in washington state. democrats line. caller: i wanted to say we will unelected trump again in november and then we will hold him accountable. this guy rambling about this and that. host: on the several fronts the president has seen delays to his trial, do you think that will impact his efforts for reelection? the president seen some delays and when these trials will take place? do you think that benefits his reelection effort? of course. the democrats campaign strategy seems to be convicting president trump and for these democrat judges and democratic prosecutors in democratic juries in democratic hellholed.c. or atlanta

because biden and the democrats fear american voters on november 5, 2024. the democrats waited 30 to bring these unprecedented indictments against a former president and then they try to stack up these criminal trials back to back to back this year right during the middle of the presidential election. they wanted president trump in a courtroom the election and in shackles and in prison after the election. the american people, not these democratic prosecutors get to decide the presidential election. host: bill in kentucky. republican line. caller: as far as i understand, the lawsuit brought against himn new york by the very smug d.a. james he was fined what i understand, nobody lost any money, nobody lost any

property. if you could give us details on all of also some of these democratic politicians -- like kamala harris, you saw that clip of her. they think if they get on a platform and give their little speech -- and even if it is not true. abortion is not in the not. they think we all perceive it to be that way. we are not all stupid. that is not in the constitution. host: she was referring to something in our last segment but goguest: new york attorney general letitia james brought afr the democratic judge and they got nearly a half $1 billion in this unconstitutionally punitive fine against trump for the fraud

of trump paying back sophisticated wall street banks in full and on time as agreed with interest. tims. the banks testified they were happy and want to continue to do business with trump. the judge and letitia law that somehow the public was victimized. i do not know how you would have constitutional standing there if there is no victim. how you have standing to bring an action against someone if there is not a victim? host: democrat line. beth in florida. caller: thank you for taking the call. it appears mike davis must be suffering from some kind of pale ole leah because he keeps reporting -- repeating the word democrat always an addendum -- always in a negative connotation . he has said democrat at least 200 times. no one is above the law. this inc trump.

the republicans had the house the senate, they had complete control of everything. the wall was not completed and for whatever reason -- i do not know why people are thinking trump will magically come into office and do everything he is promising that he never fulfilled in his first term. i am so sick -- i was a republican, i am no longer republican -- i left the party because of him. i am sick of the what about isms. the caller before last asked mike a direct question or you did about the person at january 6 that has a gun and he says what about black lives matter? what about antifa? host: you want to ask him a direct question? caller: if you think that it would be prudent for them to go

after biden for the person that murdered lincoln, which is a horrible tragedy, how would you feel about the kid separated from their parents under trump regime going after trump in the future are ruining their lives? host: that is from florida. guest: i think you're proving my point about this lawfare being destructive to our republic. if democrats think they will indict president trump for his official acts, like they are alleging that president trump contemplated firing his acting attorney general, that is part of jack smith's january 6 indictment, that is clearly one of his official acts as president of the united states yet jack smith usethat as a predicate act in his unprecedented january 6

indictment against president trump. if democrats think this will just end if trump wins back the office of the president, if democrats think he will turn the other cheek they are crazy. this is so destructive to our country. this is how the roman republic fell. caesarg the rubicon because he had the insiders in rome waging lawfare so he crossed the rubicon because he felt like the lawfare left him no other choice. i am not saying we will go to a civil war. i am saying this will lead to a tit-for-tat between the two political parties and it will destroy the presidency and destroy our country. that is why the supreme court needs to firmly say, hopefully unanimously, but i think the supreme court is going hold that the president of the united states, like members of congress and like federal judges, are

immune from criminal prosecution for their officials. not their personal acts, their official acts. host: we have about a minute left. you are associated with something on the internet accountability project. i want to get your thoughts on the efforts this week on tiktok. guest: i thinke tool that china uses in campaigns on american kids. i think tiktok should be banned from the ccp and people associated companies associated with china should not control tiktok. the question is with this legislation, is it tailored enough or is it just focused on tiktok and its chinese control or are there unintended consequences with this legislation? i generally support the legislation to ban tiktok but if there are unintended consequences i think the house

and senate should iron those out before this is enacted. host: this is mike davis of the article iii projearticleiiiproject.org is the website. thank you for giving us your time. guest: thank you. host: that is our program today. another addition of "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow. have a great day. [capons copyright nati [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ] sit nc>> today, house speaker mike johnson hosted president biden in the irish prime minister for the annual luncheon ahead of st. patrick's day on sunday. live coverage at 1:30 on c-span,

c-span now or c-span.org. ♪ >> c-span isded by ♪ ♪ >> midco supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front proceed to democracy. ♪ >> today, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail a weekly rundown of c-span's campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying the voters along with firsthand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers fundraising data, and campaign

ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail today at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or as a podcast on c-span now our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span your unfiltered view of politics. >> my report reflects my best effort to explain why i decline to charge president biden as i analyze the evidence as prosecutors routinely do by assessing its strengths and weaknesses including by anticipating the ways the president's defense lawyers might poke holes in the government's case if there were a trial and seek to persuade jurors the government could not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. there has been a lot of attention in the report about the president's memories of that me say a few words about that. my task was to determine whether the president retain or disclosed national defense information willfully.

that means of knowingly and with the intent to do something the law forbids. i could >t make that determination without assessing the president's st and h ory anthessecuto theseude areporter thi