♪ host: this is the "washington journal" for march 26. new york lower court decided monday to cut the bond amount

former president donald trump has to pay against the civil judgment for business fraud. that new amount, $175 million. today at the supreme court the justices consider a case that could determine not only the future of action ses to the abortion drug meth preus tone, it could determine the f.d.a.'s role in drug approval. those stories up for consideration in the first hour of the program. if you want to comment on either of those, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you want to text us about either the decision before president fr president trump yesterday, 202-248-8003. you can post on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. and post on x site "usa today" picks up the story

about that lower court decision for former president trump yesterday. saying the formepr and the co-defendant need only to post $135 million bond or deposit to shield their assets as they appeal their real estate trial loss. that's a court that ruled on monday. the ruling helped mr. trump administrationp as he scrambled -- mr. trump as he scrambled to come up with the cash. they have 10 days to post the bond or deposit. presumptive nominee has been struggling not only the wait of that 450 million civil fraud judgment but $848 billionle trial loss. post either a pond in securities or cash. he posted on truth social. he attacked that initial $454 million judgment that. decision yesterday earnered a response from the new york attorney general. this is the headline you'll find

in news week saying, she fires back after donald trump's bond reaction. and part of her statement and response includes this, saying donald trump is still facin accountability for his staggering fraud. the court has already founde engaged in years of fud. faustly inflated his worth. and unjust enrich himself, his family, and organization. the judgment plus interest against donald trump and the other defendants still stand. that's the event of yesterday. when it comes to the former president, you can comment on that in the first hour. 202-748-8000 for democrats. democrats, republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. in washington d.c. eyes on the court as they -- on the supreme court as they look at a case on mifepristone. joining us for that is maya

goldman, the health care reporter for axios. good morning to you. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. host: could you break down what the justices are being asked to do. essentially this case is determining the access to medication abortion. which is how the majority of abortions in the country are performed. in a lot of ways it's relitigating access to abortion in the country. more specifically, the case deals with whether the federal government, specifically the f.d.a., was acting lawfully when it loosened restrictions on how people can access medication abortion, mifepristone, the specific pill. in question. and whether the f.d.a. followed the appropriate approval. host: who is bringing up this case? guest: originally in late 2022 a group of anti-abortion doctors sued the federal government

saying that the original approval of mifepristone, approved in 2000, was inappropriate. they wanted the drug removed from the market entirely. a couple months ago a judge in texas, conservative judge, sided with those doctors. an appeals court quickly said, well, we don't think that this should be entirely removed from the market, but the f.d.a. did unlawfully roll back restrictions in the last couple years. and then the supreme court in december, the f.d.a. and the drugmaker asked the supreme court to take the case up. that's what we are hearing. host: depending on the outcome, what does it mean to access to the drug itself, but the are a f implications for today's case. basically for people who are trying to access abortions and medication abortion in mifepristone has been the

responsible for the majority of abortions since the dobbs ruling. this would really curtail access to abortions not just in states where abortion is already illegal, but also in states where abortion is widely accessible. because this would -- if the supreme court sides with doctors that are bringing the case forward, telehealth access to medication abortion would be cut off. it's a big deal for access to abortion. it's also a big deal for the f.d.a.'s authority. this case essentially is unprecedented. it could really undermine f.d.a.'s role as the arbiter of what is safe for patients. experts are worried that this could set a precedent for disgruntled pharmaceutical companies or patients to sue the f.d.a. and overturn approval of

drugs. host: has the supreme court ever considered this type of case focusing on a single drug or process by the f.d.a.? guest: not to my knowledge. i this is this is pretty unprecedented. host: as far as watching out for today, the justices will hear that decision. decision expected later■s year s that what's expected? guest: june is when we expect to hear about the only abortion case that the supreme court is hearing this year. they are also going to hear a case in i believe late next month on whether hospitals have to provide emergency abortions under federal rule. so this is -- abortion access is not -- the supreme court is not done talking about abortion access right now. host: in light of this case, if the decision goes for the -- those who reject abortion, what happens on the state level? what could happen on the state

level? guest: right now abortion after the dobbs decision is left up to the states. states can decide if abortion is at all available in their states. but this ruling, if the supreme court sides with the anti-abortion doctors here, basically it will make it a lot more difficult to access medication abortion because it will say the f.d.a. was not correct when it rolled back restrictions on who c medication abortions. basically the f.d.a. said that nonphysician providers could prescribe it. it could be preskraoeubt in telehealth, laettnerfl a pregnancy, and rolling back those things would make it more difficult to access mifepristone in medication abortion even if

your state says this is legal. the meser: maya goldman reports for axios, their health care reporter on today's supreme court case taking a look at that abortion drug. the website at axios.com. thanks for your time. again, you can comment on that case. by the way if you are interested in hearing those arguments before the court from those sides presenting the cases, you can do that and stay on this network just after 10:00 we'll bring you live audio as it takes place right after 10:00. stay on the network. if you have to miss it always go to our website. we have setaside a special site for supreme court oral argument, at c-span.org. follow along on the app as well. comment on the too, in this first hour. 202-748-8000. republican republican. independents -- republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can comment on the decision

of the former president yesterday when it comes to the bond hearing, that $135 million bond a new figure being posted compared to what was initially ruled against him. call the same lines. text us, too. speaking of the former president, he also spoke about the decision what it means for him. and especially as he attempts to win the white house here's former president donald trump from yesterday. >> all of these things -- what they do, they do election interference, which is court cases and let's try and tie them up and take as much of his money as possible. i respect the appellate division for substacksly reducing that ridiculous amount money put on by a corrupt judge. going to be looked at seriously looked at. especially what he did with valuations. he's a fraudulent valuator. where he values mar-a-lago at $18 million. people say it's worth 50 to 100 times as much. he ought to be looked at.

james ought to be looked at. she's like the puppet master of the judge. and our state, this state, is losing tremendous prestige. it's losing its companies. its people. they are fleeing. violent crime is flourishing. we can't have that. can't have a that. no city should a have that. it's happening in other cities. not with the law fair. the law fair they are doing is incredible. they could have done this in the case of the trial that we just left, one of the many that are going -- every single one of his thugs. the only way they think they can get elected. the i think it's backfiring. the people of this country understand t it's backfiring. host: hear from carla in illinois, republican line. good morning. go ahead. caller: yeah. i think they should have reducei don't see how they can do that considering there was no -- what

do you want to call it. nobody was damaged. nobody -- everybody got paid. everybody got their money back. i'm trying to figure out where the fraud comes into it. to me it seems like the fraud was on the judge and james. they under evaluated everything. and then the supreme court case about the mifepristone or whatever it is. to me i think that aim mor i figure the 16-week ban would be good. it used to be three months, the first tr oeufpltp*eser -- trimester. i thought that worked just fine. my opinions with the trump case and all that, even with e. jean carroll, i think that should have been dropped. the woman doesn't --

host: hear fro line. caller: good morning, pedro. i want to comment on the abortion pill. this is really outrageous that we have the supreme court making medical decisions trying to determine whether the c.d.c. is acting medically prudent? how are they going to do that in stration? you have professional medical doctors that have examined 24 years of evidence on this pill. i would remind yourteners and viewers that this is going to cause a problem -- the whole dobbs decision has caused problems even in states where abortion is legal. i have a niece who is a genetic counselor at major teacher counselor in new york city, because they are being in at the doctors who are providing services are being inundated.

those people who live in those states, women who are there, shouldn't be sanguined about their options in the future. i would tell the supreme court th this is not--this should not be in their domain. this is a pill that has been around for a long time with very, very low side effects. i read an article on this yesterday. they are misstating -- they have a few -- number of people who actually have problems with the pill is well under 1%. they are highlighting that as a permanent --n for women. i feel sorry for the women today. host: that's mitchell there in new jersey. n.p.r. reporting on today's case. one of the things to watch out for or the impact, depending how the justices decide, point they make, the drug industry could face destabilizing uncertainty saying drugmakers are concerned about the mifepristone case. hundreds of drug company executives signed a letter to

regulate medication without judicial i.n.s. tpaoerpbs. many also submitted the am pheu cuss brief. the case about mifepristone, it's about one medicine, but it could be any medicine. a consultant who signed the brief said in a press conference organized by the aclu. addling that the f.d.a.'s regulatory process we rely on as an industry is rigorous and long and expensive. it's not a perfect process but it's predictable. if it can be undone by plaintiffs who morrallly object to the medicine, that predictability goes out the window. 10:00 if you want to listen to the oral argueles right after this program. can you follow along on the website and the app as well. you can comment on that. also the decisions against the former president yesterday -- supporting the former president re bond. to $175 million. hear from linda in mississippi. democrats line.

hi. caller: good morning. what i'm thinking about is trump, that he's complaining. always complaining about two tier justice system. there is a three tier because if there was anyone else, all those charges, they would not be running for president. they would be in jail. and about the supreme court dipping their nose into something that's not in their purview. they killed dobbs. it by law but theology. those that want to tell women what to do with their body. didn't think they were supposed to be told to wear masks to save their self and other people. but yet they can stand before

the world and tell women they can do with their body and what they can take within their body. i think the supreme court approval rating will eventually drop down to zero. no one will pay attention because they are so not legitimate. host: linda there in mississippi. wasn't the only decision made when it comes to the former president's legal issues yesterday. the associated press also reporting that the first of mr. trump's four criminal trials will begin on april 15. according to a manhattan judge ruling. after tearing into the former president's lawyers for what he said were unfounded claims that the hush money case that had been tainted by prosecutorial misconduct, scoffed at the defense's cause to delay the case longer, throw it out entirely, and bump the first

ever trial from the former president from the scheduled monday start. mr. trump vowed to appeal the ruling. barring another delay the nominee will be on trial as a cremal amendment in three weeks. in a city where he grew up, built a real estate empire, and gained celebrity that kproe propelled him to the white house. the republican line, either the case mr. trump's bond or the mifepristone case before the supreme court today. caller: good morning. always glad to watch your show. i'm very confused on the trump case. when it comes to borrowing money. he borrowed money from banks. the banks want to appraise the value. if the banks didn't think the value of that pperties were that much they would not have loaned him the money. i'm confused on that part of it being a small business oner -- owner myself. if there is a problem here with

money, even though he paid it back, i would think it would be with the banks for loaning this money that they are saying that was overinflated. i don't really understand that. as far as the abortion pill. i really believe the democrats, republicans, even though they stay say it's a state issue. they need to set parameters with the federal government. a happy medium here for the people on abortion. i think too many states are■l going extreme from one direction to the other. there's got to be some parameters drawn up. that's all i got. host: what do you think could serve as a happy medium in that case? caller: i think that they need to sit down and decide how many weeks, whether they can have an abortion or not. i don't think -- if it puts the woman's life in danger, which is very low cases, may i add, if

you look into it, i think that they need to take a look and say, hey, when it comes to the health and -- of the woman should be considered. i think if a woman is raped, under those circumstances that they should have the right to abort the baby. i think there's got to be a happy medium that's got to be set. i don't think that life begins at an egg. we only got a tail there. we don't have a body yet. i believe that there's got to be some pa lam terse -- parameters here. host: tyrone, you have said it. thank you for the call. you can add on to either one of these situation that is took place yesterday. these events, whetherhen it comes to the former president's bond being cut to $175 million. or the case before the supreme court today.

democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can always text us if you wish at 202-748-8003. the lead editorial for the "wall street journal" today does take a look at the case before the supreme court. the supreme court and mifepristone. the editors write, in part they write this, congress granted the f.d.a. authority to review drug safety and efficacy. while the phrafs and lower courts quibble with how the agency evaluated scientific evidence. the job of judges isn'to serve as a super f.d.a. courts must be careful not to unduly second-guess an agency's scientific justice. that was justice kavanaugh wrote while he was on the d.c. circuit court of appeals on the case of therapeutics vs. editorial goesy pro-life doctors say the f.d.a. dismissed the risk that women might mistake side effects for unthreatened diagnosed entopic

pregnancies, but the f.d.a. says mifepristone doesn't exacerbate this decision. which review only in 0.005% of women prescribe the drug. more there from the editors of the "wall street journal" if you want to read their thoughts this morning. in maryland, independent line, this is david, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have just one question. if i do the -- if i have done the math right concerning the bond issue, i think it's around 68% reduction in his fine. my question to all of america, what kind of message does this send to the average american, black, white, yellow, or blue, with respect to the issue of fairness in our justice system? and the question, thank you for taking my call. host: before you leave. how would you answer the question? caller: i think that it isossly.

with respect to the american people i don't care what race you are. what income bracket you are. it is unfair. host: can i elaborate. when you say it's unfair. the initial judgment that was unfair or the reduction? caller: the reduction. host: why is that specifically? caller: because the gross percentage of discount. no other american would be able to get that. it's unfair with respect to how much it was reduced. thank you. host: david in maryland. editors take a look at the decision when it come to the bond from -- that was reduced their erig, mr. trus day in appeals court. mr. trump was found libel for misstating the values of his properties and other assets by up to $2.2 billion a year from 2011 to 221 he paid back the loans in question. even if none of that were true, no defendant should face an appeals process forbidding as

the one mr. trump faced. ruth marcus points out, new york city which defendants in civil cases must post bond equal to the judgment against them before appealing that judgment makes it harder to challenge rulings more likely to unjust. the larger the penalty, the more likely it is to be excessive, yet the harder it is to raise the cash. whatever else the chapter traumw york should revisit laws what a defendant must put up for appeal. gina in alexandria, srarbgs, democrats -- virginia, democrats line. caller: hello. my name is gina. i have one comment about tko*pbl trump and one comment about mifepristone. what i want to say about donald trump is the lower amount of bond that he has to pay, he

still has to pay the higher amount. he's saying the lower amount just to appeal. that's it. if he loses his appeal, he still owes the higher amount. and what i want to say about mifepristone is, there are many great tips in america that have not been tested yet. if i was raped today or tomorrow, i would want mifepristone just to make sure i don't have a baby with an animal. until they get the right kit test situation under control -- rape kit test situation under control, the supreme court doesn't have no business in this at all. thank you. host: ok. it was yesterday at the white hoe during the press briefing that the white house press secretary was asked about the supreme court and the case that will be before it.

here's some of that response. >> if the supreme court decides to restrict access to mifepristone, what will the president do, what option does this white house have to interact with -- >> i'm not going to get into hypotheticals. i want to be super mindful here. we have confidence in our arguments before the court. there is a d.o.j.top. it's going to be a process that's going to begin tomorrow. i want to be super mindful but the president and vice president have been very clear we are going to continue to certainly defend f.d.a.'s approval.v science, it is independent. it is a medication as i said at the top that has been around. for more than two decad and this is science-based. host: again, if you want to see more of that white house press briefing and other topic, hs■ie website and the app is how you

can do that. the supreme court case, the oral argument scheduled for 10:00 today. how you can watch that is our main channel c-span right after this program f you want to follow along and hear those arguments there, if you miss that go to our website at c-span.org. you can always access the app as well. when it comes to that n.p.r. story looking at the mifepristone case, one of the first points the story makes is, the impact or potential impact from the decision. it could make medication abortion much harder to get. that at least 63% of all abortions last year were medication abortions. they involved taking one dose of mifepristone. which blocks the pregnancy hormone, and one dose off another. dozens of studiefound the combination of these pills is safe and effective for abortion. the prescribed in a clinic or through telemedicine. last august the fifth circuit court of appeals ruled the f.d.a. should roll back its

prescribing rules to what they were in 2011. that would dramatically cut down on the number of people able to or several reasons. it would shut down telemedication access to the medication, and could undo retail pharmacy's new ability to dispense it. it would also make it only available until seven weeks of pregnancy instead of 10 weeks, along with other changes. thstory the medication could be used as late as 12 weeks. even though the difference between seven and 10 weeks might not sound much, we have the medication abortions happen after seven weeks according to the c.d.c. if you want to read more there about the potential impact of the cases, that's n.p.r.'s take on it. roy in georgia. hello. caller: i can't help to notice this. trump's bond was reduced. you have a whole segment on this. but the other day the president

had been selling see cresse for 40 years, crime family, and we all know that. and you did very little to cover that. very little. and the time you did you limit the conversation on tt. a wholet trump. and these trumped up charges against him. host: he is running for president of the united states which was nd the import of today's question. if you wanted to comment on that, go ahead. caller: but we have a current president that has sold us out all over the world. and you guys give him no time at all. host: we did -- we did air portions of the pwoeb lynn i as. hold on caller, since you called on one of the two t want to com? caller: well, i have heard a caller say something about the bond being reduced. this bond was unrealistic. we know that.

and as trump said it's to stop him from campaigning. to keep him off the campaign trail. so it is political. election interference. it's obvious. host: o that's roy in georgia. republican line. some of you posting on our various social media sights. this is bird in richmond, virginia, saying today is the media and partisan prosecutors make their best attempts to damage the trump campaign, sadly all it seems to wk those goals. that's a text. another text from arkansas. saying donald trump has more lives than a cat. how long a rich man can buy his freedom. also some of the comments, this is a text from angela in maryland. so much for abortion being left to the states. remember when you vote for president, nominate the lifetime appointed justice and federal court justices. that's a text there. and then one more from irene in

colorado. just curious, when did the supreme court become doctors? abortion is not black and white. it's very complicated. the courts need to focus on the law not the uterus. wish at 202-748-8003. post on the social sites. call us, too democrats, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001, for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. dion in new jersey, democrats line. hi. caller: how you doing. host: fine, thank you. caller: i had a couple comments. abortion case going today. you are taking away women's freedoms and men's freedoms. this man wants to be a dictator, donald trump. it's un-american. it's not what this country stands for. somebody made a comment about tony. his testimony was totally incredible. all he did look like was an

angry man with nothing really to say. is not -- those are not the topics for this hour. you did talk about the case before the court. you said it was a loss of men's freedoms. what did you mean by that? caller: as much as a woman, it'o tango. if a man has to be responsible for the child. it's a decision between a man and a woman. not a woman and the court. st. caller: just not right. host: all right. curt in ohio, republican line. hi. caller: hi. host: you are on, go ahead. to k about trump's trumped up charges. every■ year as a business owneri have to secure a line of credit. and every year i have to value my assets. and i go through it and the bank

goes through it and we bicker back and forth. when i secure my] line of credi, especially the last three years, it's been ridiculous. that's a process that's done every year with businesses. and people don't own a business have no idea what's going on. so they shouldn't be able to comment on this. that's what i have to say. thank you. host: before you go, you talk a little bit about that process of evaluating your business. what goes into it. what things do you have to factor in? caller: i have to value every piece of my machinery. i have to value my buildings. i have to -- everything has to be valued. yes, i have to inflate some of it to get the pricing i need to pay all my bills because the inflation is getting so bad. i have had to do this for 20 years. it's a process that goes every year with business owners. i don't know how they can make a big deal about what donald

trump's doing because everybody does it. host: can i ask you a question. you said you have to inflate t you don't have to be super specific. how do you determine how much to inflate it in order for the back and forth that has to take place with the bank? caller: i determine on what i might -- my bills are outstanding because in the construction business every 90 days is when i get paid. i have to pay my suppliers in 30 days. so it all adds up. especially in the wintertime. and that's how i determine how i do t then the bank will come back and say is thishi this. and they'll come back and forth. then they'll say we'll come to a common price. you are maybe a little overinflated. that's up to the banks. host: do you have a sense that the banks give some leeway to that inflation? caller: yeah. i have a leeway, yeah.

i can't value it at -- i got to fire depreciation. host: ok. curt in ohio. thank you for the insight. curt adding his business background to e mix. especially applying it to the case in that bond deficit reduction for the former president. 202-748-8000, for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. lit's hear from our independent line, this is bobby in south calina, you are next up. hello. caller: good morning. i'm an independent libertarian. i obviously don't want government involved in personal choices, individual freedom. i also believe in property rights. so obviously i'm going on against donald trump.

president trump. and i would say the same thing if it happened to biden. property rights are the cornerstone of america. the constitution. individual rights, that's what government is supposed to secure. and i don't like it when either party encroaches on either of these things. i think both parties are playing to the extremes. everybody's becoming really one issue people when we actually agree on probably 90% of everything. everybody's falling into these little boxes it's really pulling the country apart. ask yourself as a republican or democrat, do you like the direction the country's going in? do you like properties being seized? do you like them in your wife's uterus. do you like them telling you how to live to conduct every aspect

of your life. host: that's bobby in south carolina. related to the court case before the supreme court today, news nation and others reporting that a number of self-managed abortions using pills obtained outside of former health systems in the six months following the supreme court's overturning of roe v. wade. it was published in the medical journal, journal of the american medical association, there was an increase of more than 27,000 self-managed abortions outside the health care system from july to december, 2022 after the court struck down the constitutional right to an abortion in june of that year. before roe was overturned, providers were prescribing abortion pills to about 1,400 member per month. in the six months afterward that average jumped to 5,900 per month. the study also found that the number of abortions obtained with formerral health care systems declined by approximately 32,000 during that same time period.

that's related to the supreme court case on mifepristone that. comment on that if you want to. or the bond reduction for the former presidentb1 post online. send us a text if you want to. in arkansas, democrats line. j.d., hello. caller: yeah. pedro, can you remember what exactly trump did to michael cohen to get him to turn against him like he did testify before congress and all that? i was trying to remember what it was he actually did to cohen. i know cohen went to jail for evasion. tax evasion. what did trump have to do with that? host: jamie, jamie in florida, republican line. you're next up. caller: am i on the phone? host: you are on. caller: ok. three quick topics. number one, i hope america takes it to heart what they are doing to former president trump isn't fair. they are trying to shove their

opinion■e down our throats. that's not fair. they are going to do anything to him, they need to do it to him after the presidential e vote fr trump, they shouldn't use the court system because nobody's perfect. everybody's got some type of -- something that they are not proud of. they shouldn't bring things from the past to use that to make us. another thing talking about the small business. they are not talking about how president trump has always put s finger on the immigration. i'm an immigrant myself. i have been here over 30 years. the immigrants coming now illegally are coming after the people wars. host: before we go down too there. still to your first point about the courts. your concerns. is this related to the bond issue that took place yesterday? caller: yes. no, everything that's been going on for the last six months.

it's unbelievable how they are trying to use the court system to make us choose our president. we need to stand up and say this is not fair. america, we need to stand up whether it's for biden or whether it's for trump. but do not let them use the court system because nobody's perfect. but donald trump i know that when donald trump was president the economy was a lot better for me. because they did not let all these illegal immigrants. i am for legal immigration. host: we got your point. we'll go to ed in maryland, independent line, hello. caller: yes. donald trump has defrauded new yorkers for decades. finally i give credit to a.g. james that she has taken up a step so that equal opportunities will be available to everybody in new york. the bond reduction, i don't

understand on what basis did the appeals court reduce the bond when he failed to put up the money for the appeal. i just don't get it. because everything was lined up correctly. there is another case against -- who are in baltimore that his son-in-law just lost. people who are lined on chargeda additional fees where they could not even pay the rent. they could not catch up on the rent because of the late fees. jared kushner lost that case here in baltimore, maryland. the courts ruled against him. it just shows that the trump family is nothing but fraud. host: ok. roger in kansas, democrats line, hi. caller: hello. i just feel like donald trump

has beenic think, because this court problem he's having i can't figure out who the victim is. i have to ask myself where does this $175 million go? who does it go to? there is no victims. anybody who's been in business, i ask what did he do wrong? a lot of my friends say, well, he used his wealth -- he got favorable interest rates. he got favorable insurance rates. if they had been in business -- i'm in a pretty large business. everything i do has to be scrutinized by a bank. like the gentleman said earlier. the credit line. you don't just go in there and ask for a credit line. you better have something to back up that credit line better be two to three times the value of what it is. as far as interest rates, that

is all handled by they have a basic interest rate you are going to pay two points over that no matter how much equity you have. i just feel like they have been picking on trump for no reason at all. other than they just are jealous is the only thing can i come up with. host: roger in kansas. former president not only commenting on the bond ruling made toward him but also commenting on that april 15 start date for that hush money trial that's set to take place. he made those comments yesterday. >> you plan to testify -- >> what? >> the trial here. >> i don't even know they have the trial. i don't know how you can have a trial like this in the middle of an election. a presidential election. and this is, again, this is a biden trial. these are all biden trials because colangelo works for biden. they take a guy out of d.o.j.

and put him into the attorney general's office and manhattan d.a.'s office to go after trump. these are all biden trials. i don't know that you are going to have t i think we'll get some court rulings. >> will you testify at that trial? >> i would have no problem testifying. i didn't do anything wrong. >> that a conviction, if you are convicted, could cost you the election? >> it could also make me more popular. the people know it's a scam. it's a biden trial. this is a biden. there is no trial. this is a biden trial. host: those comments made yesterday in newor can see theme and the app if you want to check them out there. north carolina, republican line. hear from john, go ahead. john in shelby, north carolina, hello. caller: yes. hello. i'm concerned with the supreme court and all the republicans

because i want to know why did they think they god. host: you are calling as a republican. why are you concerned about your own party that way? caller: because i am a black man, i am a third generation er who was born in 1869 when was alive was the oldest voting republican in mecklenburg county. he was able to vote on the grandfather clause. if he was alive today he would definitely say this is not the party that freed but they are acting to a fool. and all these so-called christians who are nothing but heretics because there is nothing in christianity, in the bible, that says you are supposed to force an individual to do anything. host: to the issue of the bond reduction i assume that's why you're calling, what did you think about that? caller: i was talking about the

abortion pill. hostwh caller: that's what i'm saying. i don't think that the supreme court needs to even be messing with that.everyone needs to leae that alone. because if you are going to say you're a christian, then god says is mine says the lord. only god through jesus can save us. host: ok. james in michigan, democrats line. hi. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. there are two sides to this tax thing. he raised the amount his properties were worth when he was getting loans. he was lowering it when he was ge lowers it and cheats the taxpayers, that's what he needs to go to jail for. he's done it like 630■p 60 times. there was one time he had a fake company, he filed for $500 million tax return on a fake

company. he needs to go to prison. host: what did you think about the bond reduction yesterday then? caller: i didn't like it. i think he should have had to pay up. i think he needs to be held accountable for a change. it's never held accountable for anything. host: james in michigan there. this is herbert in north carolina, independent line. caller: yes. thanks for taking my call. thanks, america, for giving me a chance to express my opinion which is about 300 million or 400 million of them in america. any way, trump i heard him saying he did■ñ there's a lot of people in prison because of what he said. who gets to tell a judge i can't come to court because i'm running for a job.

man, i got to do my job. i can't be up here. and thank you. host: herbert, how does that specifically rate to the bond issue yesterday, the reduction in the bond, how does that relate to it? caller: people get reductions in bonds all the time. to get out of jail.t in jail. i don't see anything wrong with that. host: ok. herbert there in north carolina. we'll continue taking your calls if you want to keep calling in. 202-748-8000, for democrats. 202-748-8001 for rublicans. independents, 202-748-8002. aside from the events regarding the former president and the court case today, there is an event you have probably seen out of baltimore, maryland, concerning collapse of a bridge there in the early hours of this morning saying that a major bridge by a container ship sending several vehicles plunging into the water below. emergency responders were searching for at least seven

people who are missing and two were rescued from the water after the ship clydeed with pailar supporting part of the francis scott key bridge that carries interstate 695 over the patapsco river. the incident captured in video which showed smoke billowing from the vote. a live stream showed cars and trucks on the bridge just before the collision. the boat did not sink. lights remaining on. that was in thening hours about 20 people at last report. missing perhaps there may have been updates to that. just to let you know about that. ann in kentucky, republican line. hello. caller: good morning. i am the lowering of the bond. as far as property taxes and soe property values have gone up over the years. so a house five years ago is

triple what the -- the price now is triple. why are people complaining about what he or not worth. it goes up and down. host: ok. ann in■y giving us the thoughts. james in arkansas, democrats line. go ahead. caller: are you talking to me? host: i am. caller: i got a couple of things i want to say to all of these americans who called in and said trump was best president we ever had when he came in riding on and another thing trump is a crook. he's always been a crook. and the bonou been -- if it was lowered, it should have been lowered to half not 170-something. that's whites privilege. every black person in the united states should understand that. and stop this mess that's going on. he's a crook. host: how did you come to -- when it meond how

did you reach that conclusion specifically? caller: white privilege. if that would have been a black man it wouldn't have been lowered, period. you should know that. any person of color wouldn't have got a lower bond. and another thing is when he was president, he fied up all the trailers with dead bodies from covid. host: jeff in michigan, republican line. hello. caller: hey, good morning. i just like to say first of all god bless america. and it's wonderful to have this discussion. trump bond cut, i guess maybe bond maybe there's a lot of murders and stuff that get out and shoplifters. no bond. trump, there was no victims. the banks were happy. and the one lady, i think she was from

buy and sell, you don't understand the-- host: wasn't it the problem with over valuation in the first place, though? caller: was it? was it? listen, when it comes to real estate, what's it worth? what do you put your house on the market for? i don't know. throw a number out there. somebody will buy it. or they'll negotiate it down. that's the way the game's playedgx, dude. did you ever buy a house? host: this isn't about me. it's the former president. about what did he for his properties. are you saying -- caller: listen. host: are you saying that's commonplace? caller: i favor trump -- is he perfect, hell, no. he plays the game. he knows the game. you got to know the rulings of the game. and you know what? if you don't like the rules, guess who makes the rules?

congress. host: you're saying it's possible the valuation is commonplace, is that what you're saying? caller: is it over valuation. if somebody buys it it's not overvalued. somebody wants it. i don't like it, either. i don't like the game, that's the rules of the game. it's capitalism. host: ok. jeff there in michigan. hear from mark in new jersey. democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i really think trump got caught a deal with the bond reduction. a third off, as my friend from arkansas just said, that's a bie privilege or something. it's ridiculous. i grew up in new york. i personally know people that trump ripped off. he's always been a crook. what he would do is make a deal with somebody for $10 million, then his lawyer would show up with a $3 million check and said

you're taking this. if you don't take it, we are just going to tie you up in court. so he put lots of people out of business. yeah, the chickens' coming home to roost now. i wish it didn't take so long. host: your automatically assume it's privilege? caller: because. he's a rich white man in america. it's the way it i'm a white man. i'm not trying to be racial here. i'm just saying that the man from arkansas was correct. this is america. trump is a white supremacist. and people think that he's special because he's wealthy. he's not. he's a crook. just like any other crook. just like a guy who goes into a bodega and steals bread. it's the same thick. -- thing. he's a lowlife. i can't believe he scammed his way into the host: that's mark there in new

jersey. what it comes to the issue of abortion, reports senate republicans are warning former president trump that ■lrestrictions on abortion shoud be left to the states. and that proposing a 15-week national abortion ban ahead of this year's election will be a major political blunder. republican lawmakers have argued for years states should have the authority to set parameters on abortion and hailed the supreme court's decision in dobbs v. jackson, the women's health organization in 2022 for handing that power to the states. now the former president has thrown a wrench in the senateise themselves from the national debate on abortion rights by signaling he would support a 15-week abortion ban. the dobbs decision returned it to the states and i long said this is an issue that belongs with the states. that's why i think it belongs, senator pete rickets, republican of nebraska. voicing an opinion. widely shared by republicans in congress. even some of the president's strongest allies in the senate say the state legislatures and governors should make the laws not laak is next.

chicago. independent line. .a. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. my comment on the bond reduction here. i'm not a trump supporter. i do feel that the bond reduction was the correct decision to be made. i have looked at these as much as i can in new york. former president trump really was treated differently. the hush money case in my view never, ever should have been brought as a criminal case. the valuation case here with the bond reduction never should have been brought. just should not have been. this is business. people might not like t i might not like t -- like it. i might not like it. as far as the georgia insurrection case, if president trump was an insurrectionist, i'm not defending anything on january 6. if he truly was, and the justice

department should have indicted him for that. host: back to the bond decision. what makes you think that the form president was treated differently in this case concerning his bond than other cases? what makes -- what convinces you of that? caller: well, what convinces me is simply this. what i read about those type of cases and the fact that the attorney general has the discretion to either bring those cases or not, based on what i have read, he was treated differently. this is something that is commonplace. we may not like it. a lot of us, it's done. it's commonplace. and it's it just was not a case that in my view the attorney general should have brought. host: ok. bob there in chicago on independent line. sheri next in mississippi, republican line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i was

glad they dropped the bond on president trump. i think he should have been totally made zero because isn't that the new york way? they let everybody out on zero bond. host: ok. joe in missouri. joe, democrats line. caller: yes. i think that for trump's bond they should just make a deal. we'll have the trial for the documents and insurrections right now, then he won put up any bond money. host: one more call, that will be from zee in alabama. independent line. caller: good morning. i'd like to say that sometimes we get ourselves into situations that we judge people not the process. i think that myself personally i

think that trump should not have been judged through process. when you want to take away a person's rights, you are taking away a part of his life. i think that he's been prejudged too much. i am an independent. but my focus now has totally changed as a lot of americans is that we have to vote for the person not for what people in their country has put him through. i think he is not guilty of all the things. if it had been a general pss and done it the right way, we wouldn't be at this stage right now. host: ok. zee there in alabama finishing off this rou you who are participated. if you want to see that supreme court hearing or at least hear the supreme court hearing on mifepristone, can you do that by staying on this network just after 10:00 is when the oral

argument is expected to take place. follow along on c-span. as always watch after the fact on our website and our app as well. two guests joining us to talk about aspects of campaign 2024. ou morning is kelly dittmar, from the senate for american women in politics. she'll discuss the role that women will play in campaign 2024later on in the program, yol meet marine veteran, rye barcott, with the group with honor action. discuss efforts to increase the number of veterans in elected office. those conversations coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> march 19, 1979 march the 45th anniversary of c-span which for the first time allowed americans to watch live coverage of the u.s. house of representatives. to celebrate this occasion, shop error c-span 40th anniversary sale at c-spanshop.org.

save 25% are best-selling items in apparel, accessories and home decor. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. scan the code on the right to shop during our 45th anniversary sale going on right now at c-spanshop.org. >> since 1979, in partnership wi t the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors, to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat of how issues are debated and decided. with no interruption and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪

announcer: if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it any time online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this time table makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. friday nights watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, weekly roundup of c-span's campaign ■coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover what candidates across the country are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, and campaign ads. what c-span's 2024 campaign trail, friday at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download as a

podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app or erev podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> "washington journ" continues.. host: a first guest of the morning is kelly dirmar with the center for american women in politics and serves as research dictor and scholar to talk about the role women will play in campaign 2024. good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: tell us about the center, what do you do there? guest: the center for american women in politics is a nonpartisan, nonprofit center at rutgers in new over 50 years and lot of our work is centered on advancing women in american politics in a lot of different ways. with research-based strategies, observation and analysis. we are often known for keeping the number of how many women are in office across levels of

office, by party, race and ethnicity. in addition to collecting that data, we are doing large-scale research projects to understand why the numbers are where they are and what we would -- what we can do to increase them. our programmatic work includes work to inspire women to run for office, train and prepare them to do so and get younger women to see themselves as public leaders. host: can you give our viewers a snapshot of the influence women currently play in elected offices? guest: women have been increasing their political representation across levels of office especially in recent elections since 2016. we know it was a record year for women running and winning across levels of office in 2018. in 2020. we've seen the number of women in office rise but they are still underrepresented acrs at the congressional level, women hold about 28% of seats.

at the statewide executive level including your governors and secretaries of state, we are at about 31%. almost one third of state legislators across the country are women women are over 50% of the populations a while we've seen those increases, we are still seeing across the board. we have more work to do to ensure that we not only recruit and support women who but then we support them and increase their leadership and capacity to have an influence once they are in office because political power is not just holding these positions but it's also being able to navigate political institutions in ways that allow you to haveomes. host: would you say there is several reasons behind tháe underrepresentation for lytic office? guest: one of the things

numerically as we know women are still a smaller percentage of all the candidates. when we look at congressional candidates this year for example, women are under one third of all the candidates running for the u.s.outhat's unn consistent in recent years and in u.s. history. already, women are starting as a smaller proportion of the candidate pool but then the question is why. there are lots of different barriers, there are clear barriers to recruitment where for a long time, we had a lot of party and other gatekeepers who have been dominated by white men who see themselves as more likely to win and more electable. even perhaps more preferable in these positions. there are hurdles at the gatekeeping and recruitment station but women are also making decisions for themselves and looking at this politicaenvy toxic to women and people of

color and saying maybe the benefit is not worth the cost, maybe this is too dangerous, maybe it puts my family at risk because i still bear the burden ar responsibility. there are a lot of challenges as well in that decision-making calculus for women that don't always exist in the same way for men who share less of that burden at home at least across the board. that's changing and also have more recruitment. folks are tapping them earlier to say you should run for office or you are capable of this. we think you are electable. there are some of those factors and lastly i would say money is always a factor in u.s. politics. women aren't raising as much is men. they can be successful but the research indicates that it might be harder. they are raising money in smaller amounts and women are

well underrepresented as donors. they don't have a pool of their peers in terms of gender to tap from in those hurdles are even greater for women of color. host: if the numbers from your organization, they tell us that 151 women serving this congress currently, 25 in the u.s. house and at the same time, a lot of women in congress deciding and announcing they are leaving congress. what do you think about that trend? guest: we have to be watchful of this. progress is not inevitable. this is true different institutions and arenas but certainly for women in politics. we can't assume because we've seen record years and gains record levels of representation for women that we will be able to sustain it. one of the numbers we are watching closely is how may women have decided not to run again. some of those women, of will

leave about 15 women in congress who are not running again for their current seats. some are running for other seats and that's great, they running for the u.s. senate where they are running for governor. some are also just deciding its time and they are done in this particular time of their lives in public service. in terms of thinking about women's political representation, we have to calculate that number two how many women we will gain and how many new women are being recruited, supported and will be elected in november to help fill that gap. right now, that's a real question. we have 15 women we know we are losing area we know two of the women who are running for senate were defeated in california so they go into that column of we have to replace them. when we look at how many women, new women we are gaining, those numbers process are not very high. that's how we will calculate whether or not we sustain the

level of representation currently especially in the u.s. house or whether or not we see a slight dip in representation or a slight gain. host: if you want to ask her about the role that women play in politics in campaign 2024, (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, independents (202) 748-8002. for women in the audience were interested not only in politics but perhaps running for office one day, if you are interested in talking about these issues, call the lines and you can text us at (202) 748-8003. what was the impact of nikki haley's run for a president as a woman running for the office? guest: i think we have to look at her historical trajectory. she was one of the first to women of color ever to be elected governor in the united states. this is an important history the

not everybody maybe recognizes. th■g■at w only in 2010. that's relatively recent history. we've had no black women ever serve as governor of the united states we have these milestones left to break and she was a trailblazer in that way. when she was running, she worked , simply by running and being a competitive candidate, she does disrupt the images and expectations of who can and should run for president and potentially who can be successful. at the same point, she engaged in some strategies and messaging that were very much ali wld tale status quo. when folks run for president, especially recently, 've seen donald trump really embrace the idea that being masculine is the standard by which we should measure presidential fitness. there were some moments on the campaign where she played into that as well, talking about her

heels as a way to issue brute force in the campaign and try to slip her being a woman into something to say i also have these masculine credentials and i'm just as tough and strong, i am the margaret thatcher of this race. in those ways, she played to the crowd, a particular republican base of voters who value those masculine traits and ologies. that was less disruptive and in my view less progressive in terms of moving the needle forward to think differently about what we value in our president. i think it was a mixed bag in terms of how hard she push the needle but you have to give credit to her for taking on what was going to be a very difficult race and doing so in an environment where there is still a lot of sexism and racism among which she faced. host: she wasn't afraid to bring up being a woman in this campaign wasn't afraid to bring up issues of age particular with a two top candidates.

do you think that was a plus for her or that helped or hindered her? guest: when you look at the polling, there were some polls done to say how much age -- how much of a concern is age to republican primary voters. you saw low percentages. they were not that concerned in regard especially to down from but maybe more so in regard to joe biden. while she was trying to point to that as a contrast, it wasn't something that was really resonating with those voters and it wasn't something that was going to bable to get her over this larger hurdle which was the strong support of a republican base for donald trump. it was clear she could not get over that especially in these strong states for donald trump. host: when it comes to the influence, what is the iluce of having kamala harris is vice president? guest: again, we have to look at

the ways in which we start rethinking and shifting our expectations of the poo is at this high level of leadership. by having a woman second-in-command in the united states, somebody who's in the oval office influencing decisions and agendas, it should again start to dispt our thinking about who is qualified, who can serve and hopefully, as we get to future presidential elections, push back against some of the concerns that women or black woman or an asian american woman are not at all electable in this country. atcandidates especially the democratic women candidates in 2020, they really faced that electability bias, could win and therefore we cannot support them even if we like them. having a woman at this level of leadership and having kamala harris in this role hopefully starts to chip away at that. at the same time, we've seen her be the target of racism, sexism,

doubts about her ability to do the job or she's not doing enough. she also has a burden that has been distinct from other vice there is clearly more expected of her that go above and beyond the role. folks are saying she is the first and she should be doing more and having a greater im..pact. i think that's a difficult wind at her and her staff in this white house has been walking. host: our guest is kelly from the center for american women in politics. the democrats line starts us off, go ahead. caller: good morning. the irony of this is not lost on me. i literally to diddy -- two days ago, i decided to run for the maryland state legislator just legislature. i worked on so many campaigns as a campaign manager and hoping to fundraiser events.

i find myself wide-eyed about doing this. i'm 60 and has taken this long to get the courage up to do this. i'm part of a group called immersed which is training democratic women to do this. just to run and to win and i wonder if you could speak more to the state legislature at all in the types of programs like immersed maryland which is training women to run. i haven't on the program myself but i raise money for them. do you have any comment on the state legislatures at all? maryland has among the most women in the most diversity in our states. host:hank you for the call. guest: congratulations to diana and q does for making that choice. it's not an easy choice to make especially in this environment.

kudos to that choice. we know that state legislatures are the place were some of the most important policies are being made. more dysfunction we see of the congressional level, the more that things are getting done in major decisions are being made in state legislatures. we want to see more women of diversity in those offices. it's great when women are willing to put their names forward and run for those seats. in terms of the trends in state legislatures, they are consistent with what i've been talking about. women have increased their state legislative representation over the past decade pretty significantly since 2018. we also are seeing theottial soe want to see more women running for office. to diana's question and thoughts about the emerge, it's a great program among many training programs that provide women -- i

would talk about a support infrastructure with insight about how to run but also how to support from other women who are likely to run or have run where they can talk about those challenges and how with some camaraderie to navigate through them. we see programkewe have a progry to run in a similar program to help women make the decision whether or not they want to give tools to run and also support people who work on campaigns. as diana noted, working as a campaign manager is really important as well. we need more women in those roles. host: a viewer asked this question -- guest: great question.

women are more likely to be democrats so it's not exactly a 141. overall, if you look at the population breakdown in terms of party identification, women are more likely to identify as democrats but ey are much more likely to be in office as democrats. there are different ways to break it down but the majority of elected officials in congress and state legislatures and statewide elected officeholders who are women, the majority are democrats. an even better down the data is to say of all democrats in office, women are -- depending on the level of ofcethre usually at least or around 35-40% of those officeholders when we look at state legislatures. i think we are at about 20 states that have a female majority among the democratic caucus so when we talk about■ getting parity, we are seeing that much more often on the democratic side of the aisle. on the flipside among republicans, women td anywheref

officeholders and that willrangs well. in no place are they at or near parity with their male counterparts. thereisan disparities and that means as we think about what we do to increase women's representation, we have to think about how those strategies and approaches might need to differ in terms of the democratic party and the democratic electorate versus the republican party and electorate. host: this is a conversation with kelly ditmar you can call us at. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, republicans (202) 748-8001 an 002.and it women in the audience want to talk about issues of policies and running for office, this is joe in new jersey, republican line. caller: hello, i don't really think it matters whether a

representative is a man or a woman, as long as they do an adequate job for the american people. it sounds as if your guess is more interested in increasing quotas because they are women. i would like to ask your guest what she thinks are the unique qualities that women bring to the process of legislation that makes them qualified than men to be legislators? guest: that's a great question. etthere is a false perception tt what we are arguing is that we need to just check a box. rms like quotas and say is not meritorious and women don't have the skills or qualifications, we shouldn't just let them in. we know that's false. there is lots of research that shows that diversity and

representation in elected office in other areas of public leadership does make a difference. what the argument is as joe said that women are more qualified but in fact there are showing to office with more qualifications because of their to be more quad in order to be successful. putting that aside, our argument in the argument of the research to date including some from our own that the conversations change when women are at the table. if you assume that there are no differences in how men and women experience life in the united states, then sure, it might not make a difference but if you look at every statistic by every measure, economics, health, education, we know that women have distinct lived experiences. they have less accrued wealth, they are more likely to have specific health challenges including areas of reproductive

primary caregivers of not only young people but the elderly. they are more likely to experience sexual violence and assault. what that means is when they are not at the table making policy, that perspective, that lived experience, those concerns are not being raised or prioritized. we saw this very obviously in aca debates■m when there was a male senator said i don't understand why we should be covering maternity care. it took a female senator saying to him that i think your mom or your wife or your daughter probably does understand why this federal health care should cover an area of women's health. we could go through all the examples of when and where women have fought for those perspectives and have pushed the envelope in terms of what we prioritize. i think we spend a lot of time trying to argue that this is a bout just checking a box when we

well know that the experiences of men and women are different and among women, we want to have a diversity of women at intersections of race, sexuality, class because all of those will bring different lived experiences that translate into impact in office. host: independent line from virginia, hello. christopher in virginia? i'm sorry. caller: i'm actually calling on behalf of my sister who has lyme disease and she wantedearound te into government, there was a record number of women eering government. she is wondering if that number has generally stayed the same or if it has fluctuated and if it has fluctuated, in which

direction, negative or positive? thank you for your time. guest: thank you for that question. we did see a record high of women running for office in 2018 as the caller noted with women like aoc among that of a new class of young, diverse women running and winning elective office. i think being quiis way of our expectations of who could and should run. since then, we saw high levels of women running again in 2020 though the records were more on the republican side. that was a year where we saw an increase of republican women. would suggest that part of that was because they saw the democratic women's success in 2018 and said this is not the only party that can elect more women so you saw a record number of republican women in 2020. in 2022 at least as of nowthis o

watch for and be attentive to the progress. to encourage women to run and also support them. there was a recent study put out by our folks at the bnncenter te violence, harassment that women face when they are in office but we know this is true as well for candidates and we distinct in ways for women and people of color. they are racialized, harassed in the sexual violence they face in a makes a more difficult for somebody to say i want to serve in this environment. we have to address those problems as well to ensure that we continue the encouragement and support for women who do want to run f o that caller wasm virginia. abigail spanberger and now she would run for governor in 20

ve when you look at states that haven't had women governors, we still have quite a few states that have never elin this case, trying to make history in her own way there. for her to make this declaration early d get this campaign going, that is really important. we know running for governor is something that is expensive and hard. starting early may prove to be advantageous to her and we want to identify other places and states where women have the potential to be successful especially as we look ahead to the following year when we will have more gubernatorial seats up in 2026. host: let's hear from alyssa, independent line. caller: i have a question. i had a felony in 2001 in indiana.

that disenfranchised me from being able to vote. i've voted in 2008. i moved here to tennessee and i'm having a really hard time getting able to be able to vote. i don't know what to do. i've talked to the county and i've talked to them, the voter registration people and they say i've got to talk to the county or wherever. it's where i was disenfranchised. i cannot get any kind of answer. there's no communication with anybody. i really need to vote. host: stay on the line and keep listening and we will get a response.

guest: i'm sorry you're having that problem. i think this is indicative of the f people their constitutional right to vote. this is something that a lot of organizations are trying to fight against. i ntioned the brenna center about some recent research they had done on officeholders but they also do a lot of work on voter access and voter enfranchisement and i wonder if that might be a good resource for you, somebody outside of government if you are hitting walls for folks inovernment at least in your state. you might reach out to some of these nonprofit organizations who are doing work on voter enfranchisement and reach out and see if they can provide assistance to you to make sure you're getting to the right folks to make sure you have that right. it is a constitutionalyou to be. i would appreciate the time you are taking to make sure that you

have that right. the brennan center is one example and there other voter rights organizations that you might seek out that can tryté■ço assist you in navigating what can often be a confusing bureaucracy to make sure you are on the voter rolls. host: to look at this coming election in november when it comes to appear at, they estimated"g biden and then the 36 percent of women who voted for former president trump , you go back to 20, those margins were for candidate biden 55% in president trump 44%. overall, the role of in the issues important to them this november, how would you list those? guest: i think what we are seeing again as we see in most elections is the top issues are how are people feeling in terms of their economic security, their actual security in their communities, guns and violence.

people are focused including women on their day-to-day lives and how they can protect and do well themselves but also their families and their immediate communities. you will see questions around cost-of-living, cost of groceries, cost of gas. those things are putting pressure they will be equally important to women as men and often, women more because they often manage budgets of households and things like that. those are top of mind i think that's not unique on any election cycle. in addition to that, we will be watching other issues that are distinctly gendered in terms of their impact. reproductive rights obviously is something that campaigns are using to mobilize voters and it is mobilizing to women but we have to understand that's an issue that is actually more

partisan than it is divided by gender. there are men and women who are very pro-life. there are men and women who are very pro-choice but we do see women more on the progressive pro-choice side be even m issue. you will see the democrats use that issue to try to energize and engage women voters coming into this cycle. it's t the most important issue to women voters but it is something that is on that list and may motivate them as see challenges to reproductive rights across state legislatures. host: california, republican line. caller: hello. women can be in politics and can do a good job. i was just talking to -- just stick to the truth and stick to the facts and don't exaggerate anything like elizabeth warren claiming she was an indian and

aoc crying at the border. hillary clinton gunfire. maxine waters getting in people's faces and kamala harria and her hometown and nobody was out there waving flags for her. all right, thank you. host: do you want to respond? guest: yeah, we just have to be equally critical. we have a former president who now the nominee for the republican side who is in fact been convicted of lying time and time again and most recently inflating his own economic background and data. thism for politicians across the board but i think we weaponize it often against women even more if they are ethical violation or we don't

like what they are saying, it's often a point of critique to say they are liars or exaggerator's. we should be really critical across the board to folks engage in that type of hyperbole or misinformation. host: this is kelly dittmar of rutgers university and you can ask your questions of the role women play in politics, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans and independents (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us your thoughts, that's (202748-8003. guest: we are a research organization. t work on any partisan issues or support so we are nonpartisan. it doesn't mean that we don't work alongside groups like emily's list which is a organizn

the republican side. organizations try to support republican women. where we work with them often is to have conversations and use them as a source of information often direct folks who come to us were looking for partisan support to go to them and we also analyze the work they do to try to say how successful or how impactful have these organizations been on moving the needle. we are very awa aeful on both se aisle that these organizations exist to support women but we don't directly support them or engage in shared projects on a partisan or candidate supporting side because that would be outside of the scope of our work. taking look at the topic of rethinking women's political power. for those of don't have the ability to readjust, what are wo

five states. what we wanted to challenge was the idea the percentage of women or the number of women in office was enough to tell us how much political power women have in any given state. we tried to examine political power and defined it within five state ecosystems, illinois, oklahoma, georgia, nevada. nevada is a state where women have majority of state legislative seats in oklahoma being one of the states of the lowest representation of women across the board. we talked to about9 a dozen political actors across the state and dug into where the sites are for power and influence, are they all elected? what are the unelected sites. how do we support women to ensure they are across and in all of those positions of

influence and in doing so, we also tried to look at and address partisan barriers in racial and ethnic barriers and intersect with gender to make it hard to accrue that power. we want to challenge everybody to think a little bit differently about how we measure political power and identify sites and support systems to get more women in those positions of influence. host: the work can be found at their website if you want to check it out. let's hear from maylacaller: i t she thinks aboutd7 abortion that the democratic party platform allows up to seconds before birth. guest: i would just say as i noted, our organization is a nonpartisan research don't taken issues including abortion.

i would leave it there and leave my personal opinions out of it. host: lou in illinois, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to thank you very much for what you are doing. granddaughters that are counting on you. ■■'my second comment is the menn this country depend upon intelligent,ional women to go forward because women's issues affect men's issues. women's economics affect men's economics. for example, the abortion issue is a man's issue as well is a woman's issue. a man gets a woman pregnant, his whole future and life can depend

upon whether she continues with that pregnancy or not. i want to thank you for all the work you are doing. thank you very much. guest: thank you and thanks for being -- we talk about the language of allies and advocacy and it really matters that men are in this work and men recognize the value of women's representation. often, men have been in positions of parent to decide whether or not women are recruited to run and whether they have the financial support to be successful and even in the home whether or not they are given the support they need to be able to go out there and run for and served in elective office. it's always important to well as in the strategies to change these dynamics we've been talking about. host: dittmar, what faces

women of color as they run for office? guest: it's not universal to say all women of color face x but we know race and ethnicity and particularly the very deep-seated racialized biases we have in the united states oncrol ecosystems create distinct environments for black women, four and injured us women, latinos and asians. we have to understand the unique chle3+ example, for black women, they have been the face and the fodas of voters but they have not always got the return on their investment in terms of party leaders saying we are going to support you to run statewide. we have one black woman in the senate. we have no black women who's been governor. those challenges to bees supported both financially and

politically at the highest levels are distinct. if you look at the asian committee, there have been challenges within the community culturally to see women in positions of high level leadership and see it as appropriate. that's among their own members of the community and that has been true in some aspects of latino communities where womenao change the dynamics and expectations for what we are supposed to do. and when we think aboutear that strategies that target and support women of color, we have c competent solutions that are run and led by women in those communities really understand what those challenges are. as i mentioned, we talked about financial challenges -- when you have communities that it been historically disenfranchised and left out and marginalized in our economy, of course that will create challenges when we get to

expensive job of running for office. host: springfield, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: hi, i was wondering if you could tell -- i might have missed it while i was talking to the guy on the phone. could you tell me what party you are aligned with more or less. i had another question but i can't think of it right now, sorry. guest: no problem. as i said before, our center is nonpartisan research center so we approach our work in this capacity as somebody who is not worried about partisan orientation but looking at the ways we can move the needle for women whether it's democratic or republican. or even thinking about the role of women in third party politics. host: let's do one more call from ginger in delaware,

democrats line. caller: hello. host: you are on. caller: i just wanted to put in a good word for our representative and g tcomment af women's politics in delaware. our congresswoman is lisa rochester and she is going to be running for the senate seat because senator carver is retiring. i'd like to hear her comment -- we have had a woman governor. election. guest: absolutely. caller: what do you think of her chances? guest:v'm glad that you raised this issue because as i was saying, there is only one black woman currently in the senate and only three blacker served i. lisa rochester is currently a member of the u.s. congress in delaware will be running and

very likely to win that race in nol likely be the first black woman to serve in the u.s. senate area with their other black women running throughout the country but she is best poised and could potentially be the only black woman again as we go into 2025. reminder to both celebrate that milestone and celebrate her representation and her trajectory but also remind us that the fact that we are still talking about only for black women ever in the senate with potentially only one black woman ot more work to do to create the path that somebody like lisa rochester and then ran it was successful at the house level now running for senate, how do we create that level of support and trajectory for other black women across states? host: what would be your message to women who want to become more

politically engaged either by running for office or addressing boating issues? where should they start? guest: i would first say we need women to be engaged and involved in whatever that looks like for you whether it's in voting, participating through advocacy, being an unelected citizen of public service were ewe take th. i think you can go to the center for american women in politics where we have a political power map. you can find it as a research of different organizations that do support women in politics not only to run for office but if you are interested in that, there are training and financial support and leadership develop in programs and that might be a place to start to get the nuts and bolts. if you are interested in issues, find the issue that motivates you the most, learn more and look for organizations and communities that are advocating volved host: cawp.

rutgers is the website. thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up in about half an hour, all abou the veterans in issues of politics and will be joined by the marine veteran to talk about the groups efforts on the role veterans will play. first up, open for them. you can participate at (202) 748-8000 for democrats, republicans (202) 748-8001 independents (202) 748-8002. those calls an open forum "washington journal "washington journal as" continues. ♪ >> celebrating the 20th anniversary of her annual studentcam documentary competition. ■fmiddle and high school studen, look forward while considering the past. highlighting the milestone of the anniversary, they were given

the opportunity to look 20 years into the future or 20 years into the past. we received thought-provoking documentaries from students across 42 state, through in-depth research and interviews with experts, they tackled topics such as social media. eliminating entire fields of work. >> challenges in climate. >> we can no longer sustain. discussions about criminal justice. >> race, bias and the criminal justice system. >> we will share the winners in the middle school division, from isaac brown middle school in mountain view, california. the documentary, beyond sci-fi. it delves into the world of artificial intelligence. the high school eastern divisions word from montgomery blair high school in silver spring, maryland for his film, the promise of langley park. climate change and reimagining the future of american suburbs. two om the central division with unsung heroes, the caregivers of america. from the high school in california, earning first prize for the fast fashion industry. and the grand prize goes to nate coleman, 10th graders at the high school in connecticut. there documentary, innocence held hostage. it deals with the timely and sensitive subject and features interviews with a former iranian hostage. >> instead of saying, you are free to leave, i was blindfolded, handcuffed, stuffed into a car.

>> it brings me great joy out of all the students that participated tye >> thank you so much. >> this is such a huge honor. thank you a lot. >> we extend our gratitude to everyone who supported each of these young filmmakers on their creative journey. congratulations to all of our winners. do not miss out. they will be broadcast on c-span starting april 1. you can catch them online at any

time on studentcam.org. join us in celebrating these young lives as they share their opinions on issues that are important to them and impact our world. ♪

>> "washington journal" continues.. host: this is open to form and if you go outside the supreme court today, people who are supporting or opposing issues as to the distribution of the abortion drug, the cases is being heard before the supreme court at 10:00 a.m. it's a sign of some of the protest going out. if you want to listen in on the oral argument, you can do so on this network after this program shortly after 10:00 where you can followlong on our website at c-span.org for our app at c-span now. when it comes to the collapse early this morning of the francis scott key bridge in maryland, there is reporting about the president's awareness. biden has been briefed on the bridge collapse and search and rescue efforts on the white house is -- he is

scheduled to depart the white house today. more comments on the bridge collapse in the early morning hours as the day progresses. the house is coming in for a short pro forma session. that will take place in about tenants from now. we will go to it when the house goes to it and we will come back to your calls right afterwards. form, let's hear from kimberly in california, independent line. caller: yes, can you hear me? host: you are on. caller: i would like to make a comment from the last guest on your show. she was mentioning about women in politics. i'm not sure if it would be a smart idea to have too many women at the top offices in this country because every job i've ever held has been led by women and it's been a disaster. most of the jobs i've held that

were run by males ran smoothly. women in politics, should not make these major decisions. host: what is the difference between the two in your opinion? caller: men seem to look at the team as a sport. they are more strategic i would say. not to put women down because i am a female. i think every job i've ever held , i'm 59 years old, everyone ñthat was run by men ran smoothly. host: kimberly in california. let's hear from louis in florida, democrats line. lewis in florida, hello? you are on go ahead. caller: ok, i've been hooked on your program in the last few months. i just had to get through to you.

ma great again. this guy is going for the presidency of the united states of america, the greatest country in the world. this is a guy who says if i win the election, it's not fixed but if i lose 's fixed. i don't know what you call that. i don't know if we guide two different hearing systems. inthere was a call from georgia and all of a sudden a person that sounds like mr. t■é iomeone vote. i think you call that a fix. i think these people said will -- should watch the what you call it channel. i got so excited, sorry. host: thanks for cling and

thanks for watching. let's hear from david in texas, republican line. caller: good morning, i wanted to talk about the reduction in the dollar amount trump had to put up yesterday. you had a caller earlier from the construction industry talking about what they go through and evaluations with banks. he was right. that's the construction industry, is different from real estate. i worked at a real estate investment trust in california and san francisco for a number of years. i worked in the hotel division and was involved in doing hotel appraisals. we bought hotels for the company. we wldlwaysd nobody ever relied on anyone else's numbers. people need to understand that they never talk about it in this

case or any other have sobo buil building. it's not based on how much it cost to build. it's based on what it's■+ worth operating as a business what money it will generate to the shareholders, that's it. you do these tests as an example, the first hotel we looked at was one in scottsdale, arizona. the guy built it for 7.5 billion jailers -- dollars and he wanted more two years later. the only way to account for that is to say that he put together such a good business operation and you run a forecast five or 10 years down the road. you look at the last year of that operating forecast based on what you think your marketing people can do and you say the previous people didx dollars and

we think we can do better. st: if that's the case, what is most applicable to what the former president faces? caller: the problem is you have this guy, the judge talking about $18 million for mar-a-lago. there are lots with 1/10 of the acreage that are selling for $200 million. it's ridiculous. the judges in no condition to make a forecast or do anythi like that. people involved in these things done except anybody else's numbers anyway. host: i apologize but thank you for the perspective. kathy and kansas, democrats line. caller: hi, i just want to say and i'm assuming other americans even though i don't hear that much, it seems like our■ upset with the justice system and how they are allowing trump. what kind of example are they setting?

he's getting away with stuff. this $450 million bond. they reduced it down and he's just getting away with everything. like they say, justice delayed is justice denied. it's so unfair for the poor, average american who could never get away with anything like that. what are you saying to us poor americans who can't get away with stuff like that? if you are rich? he's admitted he has this money. why did they give him 10 more days and lower the amount? than the judge in florida delaying, delaying and now he's not going to trial. ■i'm so upset with the justice system, so angry and so disillusioned. i'd like to see people stepping

up and saying more and doing more, thank you. host: congress is coming in for the pro forma session in a few minutes, let's hear from the republican line. caller: good morning, my fellow americans. i like to congratulate donald trump with his ultimate when also, i'd like to say that i like to get in with kelly and i tried like crazy. o know what she would have thought about what was said about women that they are a bunch of nags in that type of thing. he's been discredited on both sides but i like to know what her thoughts were on what he had said. as far as donald trump's money, they took off with billions of dollars, thousands of people. he had a $10 million bond. the other guy that had the

commercial, billions of dollars in billions of dollars, same thing with him. but we are going to go after donald trump and take his business. but the man made a billion dollars yesterday. he started on the new rk stock exchange selling on his true social which we should all join. thank you, america. host: like the viewer had said, reporting today that true social is joining nasdaq and it will be trading under theettersejt. that's the axios headline. support all of the maga supporters if he is innocent he would want a quick trial and quit believing all of the lawyers he is paying.

common sense would tell you to get it over with fast if he is innocent. host: is what to expect throughout the remainder of the day as we told you before you can tune into our main channel on c-span and stay with us to watch the supreme court hearing over the drug mifepristone. you can follow along on our main channel and follow along on the website and follow along on our app the house is coming in for a pro forma session. once it is done we will return to your call so we take to the house of representatives.