journal" this morning, your calls and comments live. and then the constitutna accountability -- constitutional accolity center's elizabeth wydra andage discusses of former presidentky donald trump'sla of immunity for attempts to overturn the 2020 election. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org] host: good morning, all eyes back on the u.s. supreme court as justices are set to hear oral arguments this morning on whether former president donald trump has presidential immunity against criminal prosecution for his agod role in an attempt to overrturn results of the 2020 election.

we're getting your thoughts on that case and the former president trump's immunity claim. the lines split as usual. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also send us a text. that number, 202-748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you're from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media, on x is at @cspanwj and on facebook, it's facebook.com/cspan. you can go ahead and start calling in now. this is the headline from today's "u.s.a. today." can trump be tried for election interference? the supreme court today has heard htoc case --

>> we have a big case today, the supreme court, our presidential immunity. a president has to have immunity. if you don't have immunity, you're just having a ceremonial president. host: a good place to watch the hearings and listen to the arguments. we'll show you who's talking, of course. when the justices and those kinghe case for former presidd for the govnment here on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and the free c-span now video app.

the question is whether donald trump can be tried on criminal charges of the 2020 election. the court's answer will determine not possible whether his trial before u.s. district judge originally scheduled for march 4 but now on hold and whether the former president's trial and georgia and florida can proceed. that trial is proceeding because the hush money payments, those were alleged to take place before the former president was elected in 2016. we want to hear from you. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats.

independents, 202-748-8002. andrew is up first in d.c., republican line. good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: what are your thoughts on this case before the supreme court today? caller: well-being a washingtonian, we all know no american including the president of the united states is above the law. he lost, he should accept it and move on. we don't want any president that anyone thinks president down to anyone else is above the law in this country. i pray that we hold him accountable so that we can distract anyone from ever trying this again. host: you're calling in as a republican? caller: absolutely. i hold his birthday, and will never change that position.

host: this is janet from ohio, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what? caller: we have to hold him accountable. we have -- [indiscernible] anybody else. he's got to be held accountable. and he's not above the law. he's not above the law. he can't be sprouting all this insanity that he's sprouting. host: slim. good morning. slim, are you with us? caller: good morning, yes. host: go ahead, sir. turn down your television.

caller: all right. just a moment here. all right. host: what are your thoughts on this case today? caller: well, my thoughts on the case today is donald trump can get total immunity for whatever he did. biden can get it too. so what can he turn the tide on trump? host: in what sense? caller: on trump. he wanted to be a vindictive person and go ahead and get all his enemies and he can do the same thing. host: as we show you the scene this morning in washington, d.c., outside the supreme court across from the united states capitol here on capitol hill. there's numbers of media gathered. the line is already forming for

those of the public who want to get the few seats for today's arguments. we'll keep showing you scenes. this is otis in orange park. go ahead. caller: good morning. personally i think donald trump is not immune from prosecution but i think it goes much further. but i think we got people from supreme court whose ideology is totally different than mine. so the supreme court is the ones that's holding up the prosecution for donald trump. they're probably going to say he's not immune but they're going to get him this out to delay the case until he gets elected. no person should be allowed to commit any crime and walk around in favor unless you're immune. and for the american public to

even think that a president of the united states should be immune because of who he is. you can look at the facts on the tv and all other news. npr, c-span, cnn, msnbc, abc, cbs, they all tell the stories about what donald trump did. so i watch fox news. fox news talk about the cloud at the university. they are totally hiding the facts that donald trump is a walking criminal and they will not tell their viewers. fox got over 30,000 viewers that see that. 30 million viewers that see that show a year. if not more. why are we denying the people the opportunity to hear the truth? no. donald trump is not immune. host: that's otis in orange

park, florida. this is a full front page above the fold of the "new york times" this morning. the two stories above the fold on the top left side. it's about those protests growing on college campuses around the country. plenty of protests and growing at universities such as texas, from texas to california, places like pittsburgh and san antonio and of course, columbia and new york. speaker of the house mike johnson making statements in the other story in that lead story spot was about yesterday's event that the supreme court justices divided over abortions in emergency, focusing on that idaho abortion play and the action at the supreme court. just yesterday, the folks of the nation at the supreme court yesterday. will be back there again today. and we're hearing your thoughts on the immunity case that will

be argued in three hours from now. don in california, a republican, good morning. caller: hi. good morning. thanks for the call tell supreme court should not even taken up this case. two courts who have already turned down the immunity clause. clarence thomas should be excused. his wife was involved in overthrowing the 2020 election. he shouldn't even be involved. but donald trump, this is -- you know, they're just playing his fate but i wish his base would listen to the court transcript in new york. david becker, "national inquirer," "the globe," american media enterprise, he intentionally said they intentionally produce fake news. this is what donald trump runs ground on. everybody else is fake news and

all of his forcing is fake news. david becker admitted. it was all fake. fox news in -- we've got to stop these guys. enough's enough of this party. donald trump is a known liar. and a pathological liar that is. have a good day. host: that's don in california. the nine justices will be there today to hear the arguments from "u.s.a. today." john sour who argued donald trump's immunity case before the d.c. circuit court of appeals

before the justices. the former federal prosecutor in terms of who will be arguing for the prosecutors here, michael drebbin will be representing. he was in charge of criminal cases before the supreme court. he's argued more than 100 cases before the court. sonia is out of columbia, maryland, democrat. good morning. you're next. caller: good morning. how are you? >> doing well. caller: kudos to the gentleman that was just talking, the republican who is going to go

independent. please vote democratic for the presidential election. if i do something, i would have been under the jail by now. i think donald trump just pushes and pushes and pushes. and i agree. with the court of appeals that have already said, made their decision, i don't even know why the supreme court is even taking this up. it makes no sense. and we can't just keep on saying donald trump is this and he's that. i am so sick of everything that he has done and then to real ice that -- realize to think there are people that follow him and want him back in office. he should not be immune to anything. he is a criminal. he is a mob boss. he is just like -- i look at the "godfather" and i see him and i think --

host: got your point that's sonya out of maryland. we're showing you the scenes around the supreme court this morning just like during that ballot access case, drawing lot of attention involving donald trump and his access to state ballots for the primary. we want to set the scene for you with some of the folks who have been waiting in line to hear the argument today. for that, we turn to c-span's jamie therengre. >> we are here with johnny who manages to secure the first spot in line. johnny, where are you from? >> pennsylvania, pocono. >> what brought you out today? >> so i'm here today as a gen z american. i wanted to be first in line to ensure that my generation had a voice in the matter, got see what happens, was included and

got to witness history unfold no matter how it unfolded. >> and you didn't hear but john mentioned out here we're here for the trump ballot access case. you spoke with us back then because you were waiting in line for that. tack about your experience. >> now, i wrote a little bit about this online and it was an interesting experience. i walked into that courtroom hoping to witness some sort of decorum, professionalism, watch the justices pay attention to the case as it unfolded, paid attention to both sides of the aisle. i didn't see that. i watched clarence thomas falling sleep. i watched him leave the room at one point and that's very unacceptable to me. today, i'm going to give him the stink eye if he starts playing around. it's an important case and i'm tired of watching these delayed tactics and i want to be able to witness and report back to folks on social media, report back to

folks like me, young americans who don't always get to show up and let them know what i saw. >> do you have an opinion about the case already one way or the other how they should rule? >> yes, i read up on the briefings yesterday. i've been out here for 48 hours. i've had lots of time. and i had the opportunity to also read up on some presidents and past cases and those were the cases, made very clear presidential immunity does not exist. so i would be most certainly expect the court to rule against donald trump in this matter. >> and last time you were here, you barely made the cut-off to get into the court. >> yeah, this time, we're going to be first. we're not going to do this again. i'm glad i did. it was a little bit more camping out. the concrete is nice and fluffy and it was worth it. >> are you hoping to hear anything in particular from the

justices or people arguing the case today? >> i'm just hoping it's not like last time. i really do hope that they pay attention to the hearing as it unfolds and that they ask questions that are reasonable. but we'll see. i'll let you know afterwards. let's talk again. >> all right, thank you, johnny. i appreciate your time. >> absolutely. host: you mentioned he had written about his experience last time online. where did he write about it in case viewers want to read about it? >> johnny, do you want to talk about where you're posting your blog information? >> oh, yes! so i'm on thread. shoutout to my thread family. they're fabulous. i love them. they brought baked goods for us they said hello. that's our little community. it's a nice crowd of love and social. it's great. host: jamie, thanks for that. taking your calls and we'll continue go up to that scene on the capitol hill across from the

united states capital outside of the supreme court to give you a sense of folks waiting in line and likely will be protestors on both sides, members of media already gathered and have been there early this morning. we'll show you all here on "washington journal" as we also hear from you, your thoughts on this case and the arts today. edwin is in portland, oregon, independent. edwin, good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: i can. what are your thoughts? caller: well, my first comment today is just to recite the street cred on topic. if you do the crime, then you do the time. but my second comment and last comment is in response to the "washington journal" caller yesterday and an exchange was taken. the caller also from oregon said

-- was upset that ukraine aid money was going to all the nazis in ukraine and the hostess -- hello? host: i'm listening to you edwin. caller: the host is challenging. how do you not know there are no nazis in ukraine? and then he said i read it and she said well, you know, you can't believe everything you read on the internet. here's what i want on my second thinking of it. when she asked how do you know there are ukraine nazis in ukraine, i would say how do you not know? yeah, she tried. there's a lot of things on the internet you can't believe.

and i would say well, you found anything you can believe? there must be truth some places on the internet. i was reading the transcript of i guess it was the first day's trial. there is the transcript right from there. -- from the stenographer and i think it is true. because there's material there is to read. you can read copies of an end encyclopedia britannica. host: and if you want to watch today's trial, edwin, you can do so. cameras are not allow the courtroom but live audio feed what is the doesllow and we'll show you the pictures of the folks who a they're speaki you can do that herec-span, c-span.org and the free c-span

now video app. you mentioned ukraine aid just a follow-up on that. president biden yesterday signing that $95.3 billion measure for aid to ukraine and israel and taiwan. included in that aid package saying weapons will flow within hours of his signature on that bill. that bill now becomes law. this is charlie in newark, ohio, independent. good morning. caller: are you talking to me? host: i'm talking to you, charlie. caller: ok, i appreciate everything you folks are doing. 84 years old. i watched a lot of television. i've got a lot of opinions. i'm going to try and concentrate on this one thing. immunity. the only reason for immunity is if you're going to tell somebody else who did something worse. if you haven't done anything for immunity, then why would you

need -- i think i'm done. do you have anything to say? host: you can go ahead and watch, stay here on c-span and you can watch those arguments later this morning about a little less than two hours and 40 minutes this is carol from new york, democrat. good morning. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. you know, donald brags all the time about all the judges that he has put in place. and recently on your show, they said that the supreme court had a 40% approval rating. and so this is going to a true test for the supreme court. i don't see how they can grant him immunity. donald has so much experience with the justice system. i googled one time how many

lawsuits has he been involved in and it was over 3,000. so, i don't think you're going to find that with biden. but he is a dishonest person and i don't believe anything he says. but one of the things he says, he loves putin and he says he's smart because he got all that land for free. he loves -- because he got the execution changed and he likes the hungarian guy who's changed everything. he's a danger to this country and i'm looking to the supreme court to say this. i just hope that's what happens. host: that's carol in new york. this case -- these arguments could have a direct impact on the three criminal prosecution on donald trump as that documents case, the january 6 case that's base here in d.c. and then the georgia election interference case.

but there's something larger in this community. they write in their column today like prosecutors and judges and congressmen, a president threatened prosecution for criminal act couldn't exercise their duties with full vigor. the president is a singular head of a branch of government. he gives three examples of imagine how other presidents might have fared if they had to worry about prosecution for official acts. he points to abraham lincoln who have been suspended habeas corpus in the case in 1861.

the chief justice held that the power to spend habeas life and he continued until the end of the civil war. nobody suggested that lincoln be prosecuted for false i want pritchett or kidnapping. no prosecutor suggested they should prosecute him against conspiracy to commit an offense against the united states those charges that mr. smith has brought against mr. trump. -- if you want to read more of

today's wal-mart wallace, plenty of op-eds today. caller: i have a few things to say. why was it ok for hillary to dispute in 2016 and why was it ok for -- [indiscernible] destroying cities because trump won? and then he was arrested. why can't someone dispute the result of the election? i mean, i was here.

why in america can you dispute the results? now, it happens in some country. there was no coup. so [indiscernible] if america is not free enough for someone to dispute the election, then i wonder what really is a free country. trump did nothing wrong. all he did was dispute the result of the election. host: carlos, do you think donald trump was responsible for the violence that took place on capitol hill here on january 6? caller: it wasn't. who do you blame that on? can you blame that on biden?

[indiscernible] people have to right to go out and dispute and protest the -- what they saw to be a weak election. there's nothing wrong with that. one guy who was to the oval office and he was denied. he had ordered -- and he was denied. he was not been allowed to -- one last thing i got to say. i believe that most of the crazy democrats to call in about trump, those are not real

callers. host: what do you mean not real call centers. caller: they get paid. they call in every day. they put the men on the streets. people in brooklyn. they love trump out there now why is he among the blacks and the hispanics? so this guy did nothing wrong. host: get your point, carlos. this is harold. caller: good morning. i like to thank c-span for the young man -- there is a rule at the department of justice that they don't prosecute a sitting president. they wait until after. they did it with nixon when he resigned and then of course, we know history. president ford gave him a pardon and that him out of watergate and it was a tax evasion case on his orange county property in

california. so, and what i really love about president biden is they asked him. i forget how long ago. it was maybe four, five months ago, they asked president biden if donald trump is convicted, will you pardon him? and he just looked at him and said no. so that young man, gives me hope for america because he sounds really smart and that's the way it should be and my prediction is the supreme court's going to rule against trump 8-1 and the one that's going to vote for him, clarence thomas. thank you so much. host: mark, from maryland, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a total trump supporter. i vote for him twice before and i will vote for him again. i don't understand all this case against him. i think he's innocent. and i do not think they should be prosecuting him. this is a hit job to keep him off the ballot. as far as the court is concerned, i'm really not sure why trump is arguing this case.

i think presidents should have immunity over certain things but not treason. i think trump is innocent of this case. but as far as the supreme court today, i think they should not grant him immunity over what he's searching for in this particular case. because i think this is more personal than it is something that is necessary for america. for example, if joe biden has to attack someone in a war situation to protect america and america's interest, i don't think he should be able to be sued or anything like that but then again, if biden is found conflicted of aiding and abetting an enemy like iran with millions and billions of dollars, that would be treason and against the interest of america. so he should be prosecuted whether he's a president or

outside of office in a later date. host: mark in berlin, maryland. going to be a lot of discussion in the arguments today about official acts of a president, what executes an official act of a president. this in the "new york times" by charlie savage. his news analysis piece writing the results would be a significant change the shape of american style democracy regardless of whether mr. trump wins the election in november. rather than if donald trump wins, rather than a presidency, at least checked by law the country would be ruled by a president who can openly commit official crimes with immunity as listening as enough allied lawmakers remains sufficiently loyal to block any impeachment. he where is that the vision of a presidency operating above the

law dove tails with second term plans that mr. trump and his allies are making to eliminate myriad internal checks and balances on the executive branch and to centralize greater power into his hands. that would include eliminating job protections for tens of thousands of senior civil servants. this is judith in richmond, virginia, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i'm questioning something that does not pertain to the immunity and it's about the hamas terror group here in america. and i would like to know when they tin filtrated here in america, they have articles out that indicate group has --

host: you're bringing this up why? because of protests that we're seeing in regarding gaza? caller: yes, sir. it is so scary. it really truly is. and you just don't know. i have friends that are hebe brew -- hebrew and i'm concerned about their safety. host: mike johnson, speaker of the house outside along style several republican lawmakers yesterday.

>> i'm here to proclaim those who attack our innocent jewish students. this simple truth. neither israel nor these jewish students on this campus will ever stand alone. today, hamas issued an endorsement statement of the protesters on this campus. they call them the future leaders of america. it is detestable. the tradition of this university are being overtaken by radical and extreme ideology. they place a argue on the back of the students in the united states. a growing number of students have chanted in support of terrorists. they have mocked them in reviled them. they have screamed those that bear the star of david. enjoy your free speech.

they've told jewish students who wear the star of david to leave the country. and shamefully, some professors and asphalts have -- faults have joined the mob. now they have come up with the hybrid model where they will discriminate against jewish students. the virus of anti-semitism has spread across other campuses. other universities have a similar form of protest right now. host: speaker mike johnson yesterday at columbia university. that speech, that press conference, you can watch online at c-span.org. back to today's action at the supreme court. the arguments on the former president's immunity claims. phone lines, 202-748-8001 for republicans.

democrats, it's 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. this is nona out of arizona, independent. good morning. caller: thank you. i'm going to make a statement first that we, the people of this country have had enough, period, exclamation point, what is going on in our government is tearing this country apart. this two-sided government has to stop. we need to work together to work towards a free country that we have had for over 200 years. we need to work together, not arguing, not condemning, not throwing things at people. we need to stay as a country.

we need to change our laws to protect the american public. we need to stop having the democrats versus the republicans we need to work as a team. we need to stop the way that there is a twosided government. we need -- why has biden not been charged with his documents when they raided trump's home? this is not too -- this is not the government working as a team. this is a two-sided government. host: that's nona out of arizona. this is harmon in seattle.

good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i'm calling concerning this question here about immunity for this moron. and the first place, i just want to say that those criminals on the supreme court are in cahoots with trump because they keeping that trial from coming up, trying to wait until the election is over with. because any rational minded individual knows that that guy should be in jail by now. and as far as uncle tom clarence thomas is concerned -- host: i will hold off on the name calling. victoria, a democrat.

good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think that actually, he should not be getting immunity claim because he raise his hand on the bible to -- he was agreeing as his gift to the country that he was agreeing to it, impunity for the country. and they find him -- i also have a guess, then he's already agreeing. he's going to take his punishment and like it. host: for more of the scene up there at the supreme court, just a few blocks from where we sit here on capitol hill, we turn to tammy. >> hi, john. you can see people are walking by as people are standing in line to get in to the courtroom. i have a couple more people who

are in line. >> ethan from las vegas, nevada. >> and rick is number four in line. and ethan is number nine. but what brought you out here today? >> you know, i follow the court generally. i did a trip where we came to see a case back in february, the colorado ballot case with a couple of friends and they couldn't come this time but i had a business trip that coincided with this and interest in the court and interest in the case and it just kind of worked out. so that's why. >> and you also spoke with us back in february. >> yeah. it was great. just the experience of being there, hearing the arguments -- actually seeing -- i got a little more from seeing just the -- how the judges, the justices reacted to the different questions that were being asked

at one point. justice thomas got out and walked for 10 minutes and came back. just different parts of the arguments was kind of interesting. i got more from that than i expected. very and have you been -- >> have you been following about the immunity case? >> absolutely. i got a chance to read a lot of the briefs and that are part of the case. so i read a lot about it. try to anticipate what questions are going to be asked and what the main arguments are for each side. >> and how long have you been waiting outside? >> you know, i don't remember. i think the line started forming like midnight, two nights ago and yesterday morning, some time, i think the person beside me said he was in line like 9:00 or 10 yesterday. we got down to 30 degrees. that was two long nights. so i did a little better preparing this time around with

a sleeping bag and some other stuff. >> last time john, you appeared with a friend named susan who gave me some hand warmers. she was very kind. and also out here with us is ethan. and ethan, how long have you been waiting out here? >> since about 3:00 p.m. yesterday. >> and what brought you out here today? i came out here for law school a few months ago. i'm a first-year law student at the washington college of law and we just finished studying constitutional and did a lot of talking about the executive and the limits on the executive and executive privilege. and that unit kind of ends with a question mark, with there not being a case on criminal immunity and for every other constitutional class that happens after me, there's going to be this case. and i think it's really cool that i get to be here to see that. >> and you've obviously been following the case you know the arguments. what are you expecting to

they're today? >> i think that there's a lot of important policy considerations with a question like this. and i think that there's a lot of room for policy arguments in a conversation like this because it's a new question and because it's a question that the justices haven't addressed the way that they're going to address it today. so i expect to hear about the consequences of what immunity is and the consequences of not having immunity. i think those are really important. >> and one last question for you both. do you already have an opinion? do you think that the judges, the justices should rule one way or the other? >> i wouldn't venture to tell the justices what they should or shouldn't do. it's above my pay grade. i do definitely expect an outcome and i'll be surprised if it's not the way i expect it. >> i think it's good when our

leaders have to consider the consequences of their action and that's part of what's at stake here. i wouldn't presume to guess what they're going to rule. i'm worried that they're going to not make a definitive decision and send it back, delay, you know. i'm worried. there's some options here that like don't give us clear answers and that actually probably worries me more than anything else. >> all right, rick and ethan, thank you for your time. host: the media gathering as the public gathering and likely protestors gathering within the next hour or two. arguments set to begin at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will continue to take your calls and hear from you about this immunity case today. charles is in north carolina, republican line. thanks for waiting.

caller: yes, sir. host: go ahead. caller: moved from north carolina, originally. and living the life that i've live and traveled in new york's military. i don't understand why everything's turned like it did. why in the world are we doing the same thing every again? i mean, come on. we're supposed to get better, not worse. i don't understand. and i enjoy listening to the people speaking. i'm just a redneck from north carolina that left and came back home now that, you know, we all try to get along.

we look out for each other's neighbors we still do the same thing that we grew up to do. why in the world in this conflict and i went to college for electronic engineering and we're still -- the technology we have, we should not be arguing about this type of stuff and taking care of everybody but us. host: carl from north carolina, staying in north carolina, joe in butner, north carolina, democrat. good morning. caller: yes, sir. i have some criticism for your program for introducing the law of professors, talking about how this kind of immunity might affect other presidents. sir, this is a situation where a republican president who believeses in states rights into

a federal office took an oath ad then attempted to use his power to go back to the states and fake electors and every other means to change election results. there's no immunity here. this institution is in the execution that he has -- constitution that he has no part to play in individual states tabulating the number of its citizens that express their opinions. he has no immunity. host: thanks, sir. so you didn't want to hear the opinion column from "the wall street journal"? caller: i did not want to hear

it. it is completely irrelevant to the case. they write the situation which is the tabulation of its citizens' votes the president has no part to play. these fake electors or from a telephone call to georgia or anything else. he is committing sedition. host: coming up in 10 minutes here on the "washington journal," a round table discussion on the legal background here on this case. we'll be joined by hans von spakovsky of the heritage foundation and elizabeth wydra of the constitutional accountability center and our viewers can call in and ask them questions as well. we'll break down some of the legal arguments at 8:00 a.m. eastern. sean is next out of columbia, maryland, republican. good morning. caller: hey, thanks for taking my call. unlike your last call, i'll tell you what dedecision is.

-- sedition is. they stop counting. i've never seen anything like that happen. and the next day, you're down by 1 or 2%. that is sedition. they were not adding up. this is nothing but -- and as far as january 6 is concerned, the man is -- the evidence is right there in his speech. he said we'll march peacefully. he calls georgia and asks them what's up with your numbers? he hasn't done anything. host: you don't trust the results on the 2020 election. are you going to trust the results of the 2024 election? caller: absolutely. there's a different ground game up now. let's use the republicans' tactics to beat them. host: and what tactics are we talking about, sean? caller: tactics of ballot

collecting, harvesting we got documentaries that shows that hundreds are being dumped into boxes. this right now, all i can say to you is you don't want to -- many people are saying oh, you watched it on fake news. i watched with -- fox news. i watched it in my own eyes. why, why, why the hide something why are you hide something what are you hiding? now -- host: what would it take for you to trust the results on the 2020 election? caller: transparency. let's see it. put the same number of judges, republicans, and democrats in each one of these. and i'm a registered democrat. they've gone off the reservation. host: that's sean in columbia, maryland. this is augie in new york, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: i'm doing well. go ahead.

caller: yeah, a couple of things. you know, these are the only two guys who are trying to run for president of this country? [indiscernible] i can't hear you. host: i'm listening to you, augie. caller: ok. but that shows me is i'm -- right people who should be running for president can't. because they're not compromised enough and they're not part of the system. you know? host: that's augie in new york. we'll take you back up to the supreme court now. more of the scene outside the courthouse. >> hi, john. this is the line that we've been talking about this morning. people waiting to get in to the arguments today. a lot of them are just have been here for a while now, including a group of undergrads and law students who are hoping to get in and we have three students

talking with us now. what are your names? >> i'm brooke. >> mia. >> gracie. >> and you're june grads. what's -- undergrads. what's your interest in being here today? >> we're all political science major. so it's interesting to us. this is a really important case and they're talking about the actions of the president and how this is unacceptable and like a real threat to democracy. so we thought it's really important to show up and support what we believe in. >> have you guys been focusing on this case on any of your cases or following the arguments at all? >> yeah. i feel like it's definitely been some of us that have been talking about, especially over like the past couple of years as like things have developed. and yeah, i think this will be very interesting to see the outcome of. >> have any of you stood in line to get into oral arguments before? >> no, we have not. >> so what are you expecting to

see today? >> i am just really excited to see the court proceedings and get a first hand experience of how the supreme court hearings goes down. so i'm really hope thought we get in overall. i'm hoping that it will be good. we're about number 30 in line. so i think we should be able to get in hopefully but i'm just really excited to get some firsthand experience with the justice system. >> and when did you guys get no line? >> we got here at 9:30 last night we camped out. it's been a long 12 hours. >> and are you skipping classes today? this morning? >> no. >> ok. you get extra credit for being out here? >> no. [laughter] >> all right, john. thanks for being with us. >> thank you. host: we'll keep checking in with tammy showing you the scene and we'll keep taking your phone calls this morning ahead of arguments for now. about two hours away from the beginning of those arguments. you can listen to them here on c-span and also on c-span.org

and free c-span now video app as the sun rises on the united states supreme court this thursday of april 25. this is leah in anderson, south carolina, republican. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i respect and have a lot of faith for the supreme court but whether you support mr. trump or not, it is obvious that powerful people with big money are using our judicial system to take him down. right now, you can pay big money to go and sit and listen for three hours to mrs. monica lewinsky and listen to how young and naive she was when she was taken advantage of by mr. clinton inside the white

house. host: so leah, bring me from there to today's immunity case. caller: again, with the supreme court's discussion on this situation, it really doesn't matter. we have seen and watched this play out, how it has come to this, how it has come to the court systems to finally take president trump down. and i believe they're going to do it. host: that's leah in south carolina in terms of how this is played out since special counsel jack smith brought this case. it was last year after this case was brought that trump and his lawyer sought to have this case dismissed over the issue of immunity. the district court judge in washington, d.c. denying that request after that happened.

jack smith taking that to the supreme court ask them to clarify this, this immunity question the supreme court deciding at that time not to take it to allow the process to play out in the lower courts. it did about six weeks later, it was d.c. circuit panel of three judges who upheld the district court judge's decision denying the immunity request at that point. now trump and his lawyers appealed that decision and that led us to today's case. today's arguments at the united states supreme court. it is the last arguments of this session of the supreme court. it's known as the 2023-2024 session of the supreme court. a decision not expected until perhaps june. but i want to take you back the circuit court of appeals argument back in january of this year. one of the federal prosecutors arguing for jack smith and his team pushed back against the notion that limiting immunity

for a president or a former president would leave a former president open to a floodgate of potential prosecution. this is about two minutes from those arguments in january. this notion that we're all of a sudden going to see a floodgate, i think the -- again, the carefulnvtigations and the clinton era didn't resulin any charges. the fact thathis investigation did doesn't reflect that we are goingo see a sea change of vindictive tit for tat prosec in the future. i think it reflects the fuamtally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here. never before has there been obligations that a sitting president hasitprivate individuals and using the levers of power to sub vertical the democratic republic and the loreal system. i think it will be scary if there were not some sort of

mechanism by which treh that. as i understand my frienonhe other sides, a presidentrds is assassinate a political rival and resigns, for example, before an impeachment, not a criminal act. the president sells a pardon, sis, or is not impeached, not a crime c that is extraordinarily frightening future and tt the kind of if we' talking aboutancing and a weighing of the interest, that should weigh extraordinarily heavily on the court's consideration. host: those arguments from the d.p. court of appeals about three months ago today. more arguments before the united states supreme court. time for two more of your phone calls and we'll continue with your calls in our next two segments of the "washington journal" as well. this is joseph in houston, texas, democrat. go ahead. caller: yes, thanks caller: thanks for taking my call. he has immunity, but he has

immunity while he is doing presidential duties. he wasn't doing presidential duties when he was trying to steal the election. if i am right. host: you are talking presidential acts versus private acts of a president? caller: he wasn't doing no president that she wasn't trying to make sure they had a fair election. the next thing. the stuff with israel, israel is in africa, on the african continent. if the jews do not own this -- they were not the first people in israel. so, please stop doing this stuff, like the jewish people are victims all the time. anytime anyone says anything jewish people is anti-semitic. host: just want to stay on this immunity argument, just because it is now taking place in under two hours this morning.

coming up next on the washington journal, we will take a deeper dive into the arguments that are likely to be presented today. elizabeth wydra of the constitutional accountability center join us, alongside hans von spakovsky of the heritage foundation. stick around for that. you will be right back. -- we will be right back. ♪ >> today the u.s. supreme court hearoral argument in the case over whether former president donald trump has presidential immunity against psecution for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. i would live coverage today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> 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 feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline to a makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> don lemon would say that as a man in his prime. >> watched c-span's coverage of the annual white house correspondents dinner, with saturday night live host: joseph as a featured entertainer, as well as president biden expected to give remarks. her coverage begins at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.org and c-span now, as journalists and celebrities walk the red carpet into the event. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, sights and sounds from inside the ballroom

before the festivities begin. watch the right -- the white house correspondents dinner, live saturday on the c-span networks. ♪ >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span features 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your primary source, providing balance, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policies are debated and decided, all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span. powered by cable. ♪ >> friday night, watching c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round up of c-span's campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover what candidates are saying to voters, along with first-hand accounts from political reporters,

updated poll numbers, fundraising data, and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday night at seven: 30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download on c-span now, our free mobile app. or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span. your unfiltered view of politics. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a roundtable discussion today on today's supreme court case. joining us are two panelists who are familiar to c-span viewers. elizabeth wydra is with us from the constitutional accountability center. hans von spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation. what does today's case mean just for donald trump, but for our

understanding of the powers of the president? >> please call me hans. that is easier. folks need to divorce themselves from whether they like donald trump or hate donald trump. what this is about is the ability of all presidents now and in the future to be able to carry out their duties without fear of potential prosecution when they leave office by potentially hostile administration coming in who doesn't like what they did. what the trump team is arguing is that the president has immunity for his actions as president and that the precursor -- that doesn't mean a president can never be prosecuted. what they are brief says is that the precursor to this is laid out in the impeachment clause. you look at the impeachment clause, obviously it is congress that has the power to remove a

president who engages in misbehavior. if you look at the language of the impeachment clause it specifically says that a person convicted can be indicted and tried and basically punished criminally. but the precursor to the federal government prosecuting a former is that first congress had to have acted to impeach him. if congress didn't impeach him, then he cannot be prosecuted. that is basically the argument. the justice department is opposing all of that and saying there is no immunity for a president once he leaves office. host: you mentioned donald trump's legal team's brief. elizabeth wydra, you joined a friends of the court brief on this. if the court gave you three minutes today to make an argument before the bench, what would you say? >> thank you so much. my colleagues and i filed a brief on behalf of a diverse

group of constitutional scholars that really come from the very beginning principle of this country that no one is above the law and the president is not a king. that was really an innovative step for a new country to take, and one of the key things about the president not being a king is that he is subject to the law like anyone else. this is one of the key principles at the time of the drafting of the constitution and one of the key selling points that american people, for why they should support the constitution. at the north carolina ratifying convention james ardell was one of our nation's supreme court justices. explicitly said that the president, if he commits a crime, will be subject to the laws of the country and prosecution. that has been a principal -- an essential principle -- to our constitutional structure since

the very beginning of this country. with the impeachment clause i strongly disagree -- not just me , conservative and liberal scholars disagree with ha ns'description of the impeachment clause. it is a separate process from criminal prosecution. the impeachment process has always been understood to be a political process. the impeachment clause makes clear that the punishments for impeachment, unlike in britain, the punishments here would be removal from office and disqualification from holding future office. in britain if someone was impeached they could be drawn and quartered. so, it is making clear those of the consequences for the political process of impeachment, but it in no way requires impeachment before criminal prosecution. those have always been understood to be separate processes with separate safeguards, and also they serve

separate purposes. criminal curve -- criminal prosecutions are there to punish and deter criminal behavior and impeachment is a political decision which has its pros and cons, and also i would point out that the arguments that trump is making this time are very different from the arguments that his legal team made during the impeachment process. they emphasized that trump would not be above the law, because he could be subject to criminal prosecution, and so that was an argument for why they should acquit him in the political impeachment -- political impeachment proceeding. people can change their arguments. finally, i would add that i think this case is one where i think it is likely that the supreme court, because of the overwhelming weight of text and history against president trump's sweeping and permanent immunity arguments, i think it is likely that the supreme court will rule against him.

one thing i would ask viewers to think about is looking at the timing of that decision. the supreme court certainly could issue its ruling on important cases that implicate fundamental issues of american democracy, and so i think that the supreme court should issue its ruling not just correctly, ruling against trump's claim, but also quickly, so we can have justice proceed. host: i want to get to the political implications of this ruling, but staying on the argument for a second, hans von spakovsky, the idea that no one is above the law in this country, is the president above the law in this country? and if not, why do we have the power of immunity? guest: with all due respect, that is a misleading claim. no one is saying the president is above the law. what the constitution lays out his, if the president -- and,

look, she is correct that impeachment is a political process. you don't have to have committed a crime to be impeached. but the impeachment provision is there so that if a president engaged in such misbehavior he should be removed. or if he commits a crime he can be removed by congress. he is not above the law, because the impeachment clause says that if the president is impeached and if he is convicted by the senate, then once he is convicted and remove -- removed from office he is subject to criminal prosecution. but for the very same reason that in 1982 the supreme court in a case called fitzgerald held that presidents are immune from civil liability because they would be unable to function. if a president new he could be personally sued for actions he took as president, it will

completely hamper a president from being able to carry out his duties, and the fear of criminal prosecution would do the same thing. i give you one quick example. you will recall that during the obama administration he ordered a drone strike on individuals that he had labeled as terrorists, and the result was that u.s. citizens were killed. that raised a great deal of criticism. if a president did not have immunity for such actions from criminal prosecution, then when the next administration came in that was hostile to him, in this case the trump administration, they could have initiated a prosecution against the president for that drone strike under a very specific federal statute. which makes it a crime to, in this country, conspired to kill, injure or maim a person in another country without immunity

obama could have been prosecuted. i don't think he should be, but that is an example of how this question applies to all presidents. it doesn't matter which political party they are in. host: nixon versus fitzgerald. the supreme court ruled richard nixon could not be sued by an air force analyst who said he was fired in retaliation for his criticism of cost overruns. elizabeth wydra, how do you read that case, and why should it be different, the results of that case, then this case? guest: i'm so glad that was raised early, because that is an important precedent that goes against donald trump. he specifically said it applies to civil action, and that is extremely important, because the case was very clear that this was talking about immunity from civil action.

and there are key differences between the civil litigation process and criminal prosecution process that makes immunity inappropriate for the criminal processes. a few of those are that it comes to criminal prosecutions there are multiple layered safeguards that protect against frivolous cases being brought. constitutional safeguards. there has to be an investigation by a governmental body. there has to be a grand jury indictment. the grand jury was seen as a bulwark of liberty and protection. that procedural safeguard is important. all of the burdens of proof that are required for criminal prosecution, as opposed to the lower burdens of proof in civil action. the importance of this criminal context could not be overstated. because in civil action's you can imagine that thousands of

people could maybe bring a civil action and the barriers to access to court for those civil actions are lower than in a criminal prosecution. there are already built-in procedural protections against the flood of litigation that will come toward president for committing a crime. secondly, as that statement just suggests, the public interest in having a prosecution for criminal acts by the president is much greater than having civil actions be allowed to go forward against the president. that is something that also is a key distinction. i think that the supreme court is going to take this fitzgerald precedent as something that weighs against donald trump in immunity -- donald trump's immunity claims. host: we will continue with this conversation until the top of the hour at 9:00 a.m. eastern. if you have legal questions about this case, a good time to call into very good guests to

help answer those. it is (202) 748-8001 for republicans to call in. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. plenty of callers are ready for you. andy has been waiting. lexington, kentucky. andy, go ahead. caller: good morning. i always thought the president was the chief law enforcement officer of the land, and he can interpret the law anyway he wanted to, just like the supreme court can. the supreme court ruled many years ago about abortion that it was legal. why can't we go back and sue them or make them not have immunity? just like with the border situation? how does president biden said that that is constitutional when we have laws, clear laws, that says what he is doing is not constitutional? can't we get rid of him?

as far as what is the mechanism of doing that? that mechanism is by him being impeached. at the moment we don't have the great need because the people feel like we have to have these people in this country to help out and because we have killed all and homosexuals do not procreate. there is another ruling about gay marriage so, they don't procreate and you kill all of these babies, 65 million that we would've had grandchildren by now, and you were forcing my body, my body, my choice, to pay for that woman's body, my choice. host: elizabeth wydra, do you want to start on this one? guest: a lot to say, but i will stick to the topic of the hour. it is important to get back to what hans said. this is an about whether you like or dislike president trump or other presidents. including presidents of other parties. it is about the principle that

no one is above the law and the initial start of the comment about the president being able to interpret the law as the chief law enforcement officer, the idea that the executive would be the one to determine the law is something that we saw in the british kings and european monarchs, and something explicitly rejected when it came to the american constitution. we wanted to make sure that is our separation of power principle and principles enshrined in our constitution that the president would not have unlimited ability to state -- say what the law is, and some of the other things that the caller talked about, about disagreements with, perhaps, policy outcomes. those are not criminal acts. we have not talked yet about the actual crimes that are being alleged against former president

trump here. namely, the use of force and deceit to prevent the transfer of power after he lost the 2020 election, and seeking to nullify the votes, the cast and recorded votes, of the american people in the 2020 election. this is not a policy disagreement. host: i wanted to ask hans von spakovsky about those federal charges. in the d.c. case, conspiracy to defraud the united states, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, aempting to obstruct official proceeding, and infringing on a person's right to vote. guest: i think there are a lot of -- look, we are not here to discuss the validity of those chemical charges. we are here to discuss immunity. although i think there is a lot of problems with the charges

that jackson smith has brought. look, whether he was right or wrong it is very clear that president trump believed he had won the election and that there were eligible voters whose votes had not been counted, and ineligible voters whose votes had been counted. and he believed, whether you think he is right or wrong, that the election was wrongly decided . the idea that you can be criminally prosecuted for, for example, speaking to state officials, i think is absurd. speaking to state officials, state legislators who have the ultimate power under the constitution to determine electoral votes for their state, is not only well within the president's power, but well within the first amendment which gives all americans the ability to petition the government for redress of grievances. that is what you are doing when

you are talking to state officials. but the real issue here -- look, this case and the principles go all the way back to marbury versus madison. that is the most important case ever handled by the supreme court. what the supreme court said in that case, and what courts have upheld, is that because of the executive vesting principle -- in other words, the idea that the president is the head of the executive branch, he is the ultimate decider, as folks have said before. and because of separation of powers the judiciary does not have the authority to make determinations and judgments about his discretionary carryout of authority. one of the issues the caller brought up, for example, yes, congress passes the laws but

neither congress nor the judiciary have the power to force the executive to enforce every single law in every single instance. that is prosecutorial discretion, and that is a long-held principle, and that kind of comes here in that what they are questioning is the president carrying out what he believes to be his official duties. to go back to the fitzgerald case, remember, but the court said there was the immunity from civil liability goes to the outer reaches of the president carrying out his duties, which in essence was telling the court they are not going to be in a position to determine what that outer limit was. host: carrying out the duties of the presidency, elizabeth wydra, i did want you to weigh in on that. the briefing from donald trump's lawyers. the president cannot a function

-- cannot function and the presidency cannot maintain its indepe if the president faceprecution for official acts once he leaves the office. it goes on from there. official acts. i feel like that term is going to get a lot of attention today. what is an official act? what is not an official act? guest: i think on that point, i think that it is hard to really credit the argument that seeking, you know, if you take the indictment on its face and look at the alleged acts, it is hard to accept that forwarding one of the most important constitutional actions, this peaceful transfer of power, and seeking to do that is an official act of the president, but putting that aside what is really extraordinary here -- and

i'm always delighted to talk about marbury, but particularly on this day -- is to the extent that there are people who think the president does not enjoy immunity from prosecution, importantly even those folks would limit it to while the president is in office, not after he leaves the presidency. so, there are some conservatives in particular, presidential scholars who would assert the president enjoys immunity from prosecution while he is in office. but everyone, including republican offices of legal counsel, have said that criminal prosecution can take place after the president leaves office so that while they are sitting they are not going to be involved in a criminal trial. marbury, importantly along those lines, absolutely does not stand for the proposition that a

president's official acts can never be heard in court. that is more about joining a particular president. there are many cases stretching from the founding that refuse the idea that a president's official act can never be examined in court. host: back to the phone lines. brent has been waiting. when see, michigan. line for democrats. caller: good morning. the question is are we going to go back and grant president's the divine right of kings? trump was impeached twice, as the gentleman says. he was impeached twice, he just wasn't convicted by his republicans in the senate. and he has, in fact, immune, because the republicans defend him regardless of how heinous and arranges -- and outrageous

his crimes. if trump, as the gentleman says, believed he won the election, despite all of the evidence, despite what is attorney general told him, despite what is computer experts or cyber experts told him. despite all of the evidence that is an insanity plea, in my opinion. so, the war criminal vladimir putin is biding his time in the hope that the 2024 elections will give him his funders -- fondest wish, and prudent will stand before his people and gleefully point to the united states as proof democracy is a fool's dream, just like in russia, a dystopian freak show. host: that is brent in michigan. hans von spakovsky? guest: you're obviously upset that the u.s. senate acquitted donald trump after the house

impeached him twice, but, frankly, we are a nation based on the rule of law, and that includes the constitution. in the process for removal of a president and removing his immunity from terminal prosecution is impeachment. and the impeachment clause, as i have said, is very clear. if a person is convicted by the senate, then they are subject to criminal prosecution. again, the president is not above the law, but congress has to act first. and if congress acts, then they find he is acquitted, then he is immune from criminal prosecution. and the opposite of that. would set up a system in which sometime down the road a jury of 12 people would be the ones determining whether the

president's actions were within his official duties or not. that, to me, is an unbelievable situation. one clearly not contemplated by the constitution. host: how do you deal with this hypothetical? some future president uses seal team six to kill his political rival, and then resigns before impeachment, thus getting away with actual murder? guest: ok, that is one of those extreme examples that i think -- that is just never going to happen, and it is an insult to the u.s. military. the u.s. military has a long, honorable history, and no military leaders, no military individuals would obey an order like that. that is just not going to happen. and the situation there, i think he would be impeached so quickly

-- [laughter] he would be impeached so quickly there is no way he would get away with it. that is one of those extreme hypotheticals that is never going to happen. that is an insult to our military, we swear an of to uphold the constitution. they don't swear an over the loyalty to the president. host: elizabeth wydra, you have joseph. caller: let me just make a couple of points. sometimes you let democrats ramble on, so let me make three points. first, president trump is the executive. we are talking about the 2020 election. there were things done unconstitutionally, the state legislatures are supposed to make the rules and that was not done. nobody wanted to address that. the court didn't hear it. they said he lacked standing. the fbi. i am supposed to trust the fbi after what they did to president trump?

they didn't investigate any of these election fraud. they didn't want to look into it. second, the guy before talked about trump being a russian tool. who is the one locking up their opponent? was it putin or joe biden? elizabeth, you are talking about nobody is above the law. then why isn't president biden -- why wasn't he convicted with the documents case? why wasn't he? host: elizabeth wydra, i will let you respond. guest: first, on the election claims, trump and his team did over and over again try to present these claims to the courts, and they were substantively rejected by even judges that were appointed by trump himself. so, over and over again these claims of so-called election fraud were considered by the courts, by trump's own department of justice, and were found to be without substance at all. i think that is important to

point out in relation to the caller's comment. but i think with respect to the other points he makes, you know, i understand that the special counsel appointed to investigate hunter biden, over some of his actions, has been able to proceed on his own and, you know, the decisions that are made about prosecution are made individually and on the facts, but the key point is that no one -- not president biden, now president trump, is immune from criminal prosecution. host: the question specifically was on the biden documents retention issue. guest: yes. my understanding -- again, that is not what our brief was about in the case being considered by the court today over trump's immunity claim. my understanding is that they did not find there was willful

retention in the same way they found in the trump case, and similarly there was cooperation when they started the investigation. again, in contrast to the way trump and his team tried to stop, obstruct, as alleged in the indictment there, the classified documents. different cases, but those were the decisions made by the prosecutors. again, in either case neither of them enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution. it is whether or not the facts of the case support criminal prosecution or not. host: just about 25 minutes left with our panel this morning. elizabeth wydra is from the constitutional accountability center. hans von spakovsky, the heritage foundation. james is in newark, new jersey. the line for democrats. good morning. caller: how are you doing?

i am a blue dog democrat, which is more or less a moderate. i have to comment both people. i've got some good news. right now we have 75 constitutional lawyers. the [indiscernible] case, probably 3000. the heritage foundation, my mother was active. i had to be difficult. [indiscernible] host: jim, i want to stick on this case and the immunity issue. let me bring in curtis out of carlisle, pennsylvania. caller: my things are, as far as

justice thomas should be recused from this event -- from this court case, because of his wife is part of the conspiracy. i don't know how he could be, you know, partial, and as far as seal team six, what if donald trump asked proud boys? the proud boys to go after somebody, or somebody who doesn't have any more rights? donald trump really has control over these people that nobody else does. even january he could have asked the people to stop, and he didn't. many hours later. host: let's take up this issue. hans von spakovsky, on recusal for thomas? guest: under the rules that apply to the court there is no

reason for justice thomas to recuse himself. there is no reason for any of the democratically-appointed justices to recuse themselves either, despite many of them having all kinds of connections with the democratic party and democratic legislatures -- legislators and others. i'm sorry, i don't want to keep repeating myself, but if the president -- if the former president engaged in misbehavior, if he engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors, and it was up to congress to impeach him and for the senate to convict him. if that conviction had occurred then he could be criminally prosecuted for any actions he took that violated the law, but he was acquitted by the senate twice and that is part of the process we have to protect a president -- all presidents -- from the potential of criminal

prosecution. i might just quickly mention, look, they keep talking about the unprecedented nature of this criminal prosecution. but we also did not have an impeachment of a president except for andrew johnson in almost the entire history of the united states. it is in the last 30 and 40 years that politics in this country have become, frankly, very vicious and in the last 40 years we have had impeachments for president three times, almost a fourth time, except that president resigning before he could occur. so, the idea that this would never happen again, criminal prosecutions for actions he took during his time in office, i think is not palling to the reality today and the hostility that administrations, the last

four administrations. host: is it time for this supreme court to draw a hard line under immunity? guest: yes, the same way they did with civil liability. in 1982 they said a president has immunity from civil liability to the outer reaches of his carrying out of his duties. i think they need to put out a certain rule on criminal liability so that this president, the current president, and future presidents, know what risks they run once they leave office. host: elizabeth wydra, on that, and you think claire and tom -- clarence thomas should be on the bench today? guest: want to get to hans'point on the impeachment clause. he keeps saying it as if it is accepted, but it is an extraordinary reading that the

clause would grant immunity to a president unless congress first impeaches and convicts him. that is inconsistent with the text and structure of the constitution and the expressed opinions, intentions, values, and practices of the framing generation. the impeachment judgment clause says that -- says the opposite. it makes sure that it is clear that president can be accountable for his actions before the court of law, regardless of an impeachment process. it was very clear to the framers that impeachment was designed as a political remedy and that the criminal process was a parallel process that was separate. james wilson, for example, one of our pre-minute members of the founding generation, described impeachment as entirely separate court trials. he made clear they were founded on principles, are governed by

different maxims. he said, for this reason the trial and punishment of an offense on impeachment is no bar to a trial and punishment of the same offense at common law. so, they have different processes for different purposes. don't have to have committed a crime to be impeached. you obviously do need to be indicted for a crime in order to be subject to the criminal process. they are simply different, and that has been the understanding throughout history by the drafters of our constitution, by the people who ratified the constitution, and by the courts. and, by, frankly, the people who voted to equip president trump. several senators said they were voting to acquit, assuming that if president trump had committed criminal acts would be subject to criminal prosecution. host: james in myrtle beach, south carolina. good morning. caller: thank you.

first of all, i would like to let this man know donald trump is not going to court because of impeachment. donald trump has got criminal charges against him. this is a criminal court. number two, i would like to correct them on donald trump not thinking that he just lost the election. that is absolutely wrong, because jack smith has three or four witnesses he's going to have on the stand that donald trump told them straight to his face -- their face -- that he knows he lost that election. i don't know. i'm not even going to go into that mass. we know he knew he lost the election. host: hans, did you want to pick up on something about that? guest: that is not the issue.

what are basically saying is, if an individual who ran for office says they actually won the election, they believe they won the election, if they say they won the election they should be criminally prosecuted. that is an absurd -- that is an absurd version of america and what our constitution protects. that is not the issue here. the issue is immunity for a for actions he takes while he is president. as elizabeth said earlier, we should point out that the u.s. justice department under every administration, whether it is a democratic white house or republican white house, everyone agrees that a president cannot be criminally prosecuted for actions that they take while they are in office. the reason for that, obviously, is that such criminal

prosecutions would not only interfere with the president being able to carry out his duties, but the fear of that would cause them to potentially not carry out their duties, particularly the ultimate sensitive and important decisions that a president makes as the top official. it doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever for everyone to say no criminal prosecution while they are in office for actions they carry out as president, but the moment they -- they leave office they can be criminally prosecuted for actions they took while president. the same fear of that kind of prosecution would cause presidents, potentially, to not take the kind of actions they need to take while president, like barack obama ordering a drone strike that ended up killing u.s. citizens. guest: i'm sorry, can i weigh in on that? of course it makes logical sense

to make those distinctions. that is why they have been made. even the people who think a president enjoys immunity while the president is in office believe they can be criminally prosecuted after they leave, because they would not be subject to a criminal trial and criminal process while they are engaging in the public actions, public interest in the office. immunity is not about actually, in this case is not about the person. it is not about protecting the president. immunity is are there to protect the public. in the public interest here is in having a chief executive who can engage in the public's business. once that executive is a private citizens at immunity calculus changes. and that is why -- and there are people that think even a sitting president should be criminally prosecuted. but it is true that there are many people who think a sitting

presidential not be subject to criminal prosecution but as soon as they leave office they can be, because precisely that public interest changes. they have a public interest in holding even the highest officeholder in the land accountable according to law is so strong. and, frankly, the president should be afraid of engaging in criminal actions while they are in office. presidents of any party. the interest in holding criminally accountable the chief executive is different when they are out of office and a private citizen versus when they are in the office, and it is different from the civil liability in the fitzgerald case. host: let me take two calls here and i will let you weigh in on what some of our callers bring up. andrew has been waiting in michigan. republican line. andrew, go ahead. caller: yes, i think this is more about election interference than anything. we were doing good under trump. i don't understand why everybody is attacking the sky.

i mean, i loved it when he was in office. our stocks were doing good. our fuel prices were doing good. of course he needs some immunity. i don't understand why the supreme court doesn't step in and say, he is not going to get a fair court in new york. they are all democrats and they are working against this guy from day one. but you look at it, why would you want to get a racehorse out of the race when he is winning? and he is winning on all vectors. host: this is jill in woodward, iowa. it morning. caller: i wanted to ask the heritage foundation guy if he was involved in, writing the 2024 plan? and how political that attempts to make our entire civil service government? no, they are talking about that impeachment should be a prerequisite. congress is inherently political. you know, we don't see our

courts as being political. the current supreme court. and they are constantly be biden and saying he should be prosecuted, which if you read the 2024 plan and what they want, everything is what the president wants, and anything he wants is legal. host: hans von spakovsky, what is the 2024 plan? guest: it is simply an expansion of the kind of transition team transition policy plantings every president does. i think she actually is talking about project 2025. project 2025 -- and this is very public. people can go to the website of the heritage foundation, and there are they will find a huge book that our analysts have put together on what the policy should be of every executive department. you know, dealing with all of the issues they deal with. people are looking at that as if it is some kind of attempt to

take over the government. no, it is a plan that we are happy to hand over to whoever is elected president in 2024, with all of our recommendations on which policies should be carried out in each different agency department. i wrote the chapter on the federal election commission where i serve as a commissioner, and it is not any different than what you presidents do, like joe biden, like barack obama, like donald trump, when they get elected and they set up a transition team to come up with the different policies they are going tampa men in the different departments. except they have a very short window to do that before they are not curated. this is a project to help set out an actual plan for the government. like i said, nothing secret about it. you can go to the website and see the policy recommendations we make.

every single branch of the executive department. host: project2025.org. the federal election commission mission and overview. all available for you to see there. elizabeth wydra, from those last two calls? guest: yeah, you know, i think that 1.i think is important to voters and that highlights the different purposes that criminal prosecution and impeachment have in our constitutional structure, and frankly the limits to both, are that we have seen donald trump. he has been indicted in several different courts. on many different counts of committing legal violations. in both state and federal court. we are already seeing in the -- the new york prosecution, which one of the callers mentioned, is already underway. even assuming that president

trump -- former president trump -- is convicted and sentenced as a convicted felon to prison, because he has not been impeached for the other issues on which he was impeached by the house, which would carry a political consequence -- that is, being removed from office and disqualification from holding office in the future, those of the punishments that can be made it out if one is convicted in the impeachment process -- that doesn't apply to the criminal process. even if he is criminally held accountable, it still would fall to the voters to hold him accountable at the ballot box. that is kind of democratic political sanction. so, we can see from these two different punishments and the limitations of each the ways in which it is important to have

these parallel processes and camino, why they are not directly tied together, because there are two different types of punishment that are made it out -- meted out. one in the impeachment process, and the other a jury in the criminal process. we are talking about two different processes. people probably might be surprised to learn you can run for president, even if you are in jail, but you can. there is nothing in the constitution that says otherwise. so, we are just talking about two different things. the idea that trump is putting out now that you have to be convicted of impeachment, the political process, in order to be held criminally liable, is a deep misunderstanding of the way our constitutional structure is set up in the reasons for why these are parallel processes. host: just in situational awareness, it is about 70 awareness -- 70 minutes from now

the supreme court case on donald trump's immunity claims will take place. you can see the scene outside the court. about 40 minutes from now, that is when today's hearings, toda'' as part of donald trump's ongoing hush money trial in new york city will continue. donald trump, expected to arrive sometime between 9:00 and 9:30 for that trial. there is always a camera there waiting to see if he does say anything when he enters the courthouse. let's see what happens in the next 40 minutes. hans von spakovsky, on donald trump in the new york case, it is specifically on gag orders and how donald trump has treated gag order's. i wonder about your thoughts? guest: i think there have been severe first amendment issues with the gag order's ordered by these judges. there is no question that a judge can issue an order preventing a defendant from, you

know, encouraging attacks against mrs. or trying to intimidate witnesses. but simply saying that a defendant, a criminal defendant cannot comment on the bias of a prosecutor, the potential bias of a judge, to not talk about the bias of a witness, no threats or intimidation, but just talking about the bias of a witness, particularly that witness themselves have been out there giving statements, violates the due process right of a defendant and violates their first amendment right. i think the gag order's that have been issued have, frankly, gone too far. that whole new york case is very problematical, because you have a local prosecutor who is claiming that the state law was violated through a violation of federal law. in essence, he is claiming that

payments made by donald trump and his lawyer were a campaign-related expense, and that should have been reported as a campaign-related expense. i used serve on the fec as a commissioner. it is a federal agency that has the authority to enforce federal election campaign laws. the justice department also has criminal authority. agencies looked at this and said, this is not a campaign-related expense, and did not put any enforcement actions in against it. i think that case is extremely problematical. host: elizabeth wydra, we could probably do another hour on that case. on the gag order side of this? guest: i think that there has been a root must -- a robust hearing about the gag order. i think the judge is taking it

very seriously, weighing the speech interests of the defendant, donald trump, against the need to protect the jury. i think in particular people who are -- you know, my understanding is that he has allowed criticism of himself, but it is more the family members, the juries, the witnesses, places where it could be appropriate and seen as intimidation and an inappropriate influence on the process, particularly when you think about the power that donald trump has when he makes statements, his followers react to that, in sometimes violent ways, as we saw on january 6. host: let me take two calls here and let you comment on both. terry has been waiting in akron, ohio. caller: i wanted to ask liz, why do you think the supreme court even took the case in the first

place? and to hans, do you think that richard nixon believed the way that trump is trying to say? to me this whole thing is upside down. i don't trust the supreme court at all. if they had their way in this whole thing the people that are supporting trump, the whole criminality thing would be inherently political. because all he needed to do was just get republicans into congress and the senate, not -- to not convict him, and he could get away with anything. so he could be above the law. i'm going to hang up and listen to your response. host: two good questions.

elizabeth wydra, why did you think the supreme court took this case in the first place? guest: i think it is important that the supreme court took this case. jack smith himself asked the court to take it earlier so that the trials could proceed and justice will not be delayed. this is a really important case about fundamental principles we have been talking about this whole hour, of whether or not a former president can be above the law and can enjoy this sweeping and unprecedented claim of immunity that donald trump is making in this case, even after he has left office. i think it is important for the court to have taken the case. again, i think the court perhaps should have taken it earlier, but at the very least i hope they act expeditiously. and they can issue an opinion very quickly. we have seen in other cases that

are important to democracy the court acting quickly and getting out opinions quickly so that they can be acted upon. i think not just the speed with which an opinion is rendered, but also the clarity will be important to watch. host: hans, do you think nixon thought about immunity the way trump and his lawyers are arguing about immunity? guest: i don't think he was really thinking about the criminal liability aspect of it. he just wanted to resign office before he became the first president impeached. in u.s. history. listen, i agree with elizabeth on the importance of the supreme court taking this case. but i have to say one thing. this caller is frankly importing -- insulting the court. saying they are acting politically. that is not true. elizabeth and i have debated before, and we have civil disagreements on substantive

constitutional issues. but i believe both of us would agree all nine members of this court were nominated by different presidents, they were confirmed by the senate, as the constitution requires, and even when i disagree with particular opinions, particular justices -- and elizabeth too, i know she disagrees with opinions issued by particular justices -- i respect of the court. i respect these justices. i think all nine of them are doing the best job they can. and anyone who says that all of these justices, they just act politically, that is an insult to the court and just not true. host: final minute here. do you agree with the letter but why drop -- with elizabeth wydra on moving this along as fast as possible? guest: the supreme court has never issued a ruling on this issue. this is as important if not more important than the decision-maker issued back in

1982 we have mentioned, the fitzgerald opinion. and they will be setting out a rule that will govern future conduct of american presidents and the justice department. host: do you think weeks, not months? guest: i think they will try to get this decision out as quickly as they can. host: elizabeth wydra, agree? guest: i certainly hope that is true. i would urge them to act expeditiously. host: elizabeth wydra, the president of the constitutional accountability center. and hans von spakovsky with the heritage foundation. appreciate both of your time this morning. guest: thanks for having us. guest: thank you so much. host: coming up, as the clock ticks down on the beginning of those oral auments at the supreme court, just getting your thoughts on today's arguments, immunity claims, phone lines as

usual, for republicans, democrats, and independence. you can start dialing in and we will get to your call right after the break. ♪ >> do you solemnly swear that in a testimony you are about to give? > will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth soho you got saturday, watch american history tv as congress investigates, as we explore major investigations in our history by the u.s. house and senate. each week, authors and historians will tell the stories. we will examine the impact and legacy of key congressional hearings. this week, lawmakers held hearings in 1973 through 1974 to examine events surrounding the 1972 break-in at democratic national committee headquarters

at the barnegat complex in washington, d.c. the investigation led to the resignation of president richard nixon. 7:00 eastern on saturday on c-span two. ♪ >> look tv every sunday on c-span two futures leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 9:00 eastern, timothy carney, argues that modern parenting is producing a generation of children with record rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness, and believes a more old fashion is needed then susan page recounts the life and career of barbara walters in her book "the rule breaker." watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online at booktv.org.

>> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online story. browse through our collection of products, apparel, books home to corner, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan, and every purchase helps to support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: all eyes back on the u.s. supreme court as justices are set to hear oral arguments this morning on whether former president donald trump has presidential immunity against criminal prosecution for his alleged role in his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. it is the final argument scheduled for this term of the united states supreme court. those arguments beginning in

just under one hour from now in the wake of a unanimous decision from a three-judge panel in the u.s. court of appeals for d.c. that said donald trump could be prosecuted for his alleged efforts to disrupt the results. donald trump's lawyers have appealed that decision. here we are today on this april 25. scenes outside the supreme court. we will be talking to some of the post waiting in line to try and get into hearing arguments, some of the protesters that have started to gather. we especially want to hear from you our viewers. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. this is teresa in waco, texas. republican. good morning. thanks for calling in. caller: good morning. my opinion is, yes, the president has absolute immunity.

i am sure the supreme court will come back fairly quickly to that effect. host: this is ameen in temple, texas. democrats align. caller: good morning. everyone forgets, because he is president, he is not god. if you listen on tv, they did it so that they could win the election, and they did wrong. now somebody gets busted in a black neighborhood with a bag of crack. they want to give him 30 years. they want to say this man, who has cheated our government, tried to take over our country, that he is all right? no, he is not all right. he is a criminal. if somebody does not do anything to him, i am through with the

american justice system. host: this is our color in hamilton, virginia. good morning. caller: one of my big opinions about trump and the republicans right now, they are the epitome of gas lighting. if you say something 1000 million times, they believe it. 60 court cases prove there was no fraud in the election that would have changed anything. the other thing with this supreme court case -- the seal team six thing is a bit absurd. what if trump had slapped his wife? that is domestic violence, some places a misdemeanor, some places a felony. a gentleman on before says you cannot prosecute him. what if mark meadows comes out and says i saw donald trumpsmack melania?

that is a crime. he cannot be prosecuted for it according to their logic. it is just not right. i'll be listening to the supreme court today and flipping back and forth through the new york trial also. host: is there a difference between official acts and private acts as a president? caller: absolutely. 100%. that is the thing they ignore. in my opinion -- and i'm not a lawyer. i wish i was but i'm not. when he was running for reelection and trying to get people to come to his rally at the ellipse. we all know that he sent them to the capital to try and stop the transfer of power. peaceful transfer. we know he did. that was not a presidential act.

that was his act as a candidate for president. that is outside his office responsibilities and he should be prosecuted for it. host: that is brian in hamilton, virginia. from social media, linda in ohio, can american taxye file a class action suit for the money they have spent on donald trump's trial? robert says no president is above the law. we proved that with nixon. he knew that, which is why he decided to resign. talking about former president nixon. bill saying i'm looking forward to the vindication of former president trump. tom saying why he is he the only one out of 46 presidents that need immunity? it's a rhetorical question. because he is a crook. linda says equal justice under the law, america is watching. live scenes from the capitol,

separating the supreme court from the capital, next-door on the right side of your picture is the library of congress. you can see some of the signs and the folks that have gathered there. we will continue to show you those pictures as we hear from billy in missouri. democrat payment good morning payment caller: good morning. how are you? i just want to say, it is really laughable. i just watched the guest. host: hans von spakovsky. caller: that's right. i sit there and listen to somebody having these thoughts and opinions with a straight face, and knowing exactly what he is saying is wrong. i just don't understand it. host: anything you want to say about today's trial, argument?

the trial is in new york. caller: i believe the supreme court should not give him immunity. host: that is billy in missouri. rich in marion, ohio. republican. good morning. caller: great conversations. what happened to nixon, did he spy on the other party, is that what happened? we hold him up and say he got thrown out of office? host: what do you mean, you are talking about watergate? caller: he was spying on the other party. right now we have in spades our current president into obama spying on with the fisa more rent. they are still in office. every time they want to pick something up, they said nixon did this. what about these guys? they are spying on the other party.

the fbi is looking through the information. host: that is rich in marion, ohio. we are showing you sights and sounds from the united states supreme court, also talking with some of the folks standing in line. c-span's tammy is with some of those folks this morning. >> the line is a little bit shorter now, about 50 people have been let in. rest are waiting to see if they will be let in once everyone is settled, know how much room they have left. someone open to get in is right here with me. what is your name? where are you from? >> charlotte, north carolina. >> why did you come today? >> in support of trump. >> have you been following the case? >> pretty much. >> what did you think of the case itself? >> beautiful opportunity to be here and be involved. >> you were in new york earlier

this week and you came down specifically for this. what were you doing in new york? >> i was at the trial in new york city, the trunk trial. >> what was your experience there? >> it was wonderful. this is another history making situation. so i think it was great. >> what was your experience in that courtroom? >> shall i tell the truth? to me, it was'the difference between trumps attorney being very professional and prosecutors attorney, elementary school. that is the example that came to my mind. the prosecutor seemed to have their mind already made up, a lot of the press did. trump's attorney was very open and truthful, and that is what i got out of it. >> you been following the immunity case. what are you hoping to hear or see if you get in? >> a better understanding of

what all this means for our country and also transparency as well a lot of healing for our country. >> it sounds like you are in favor of the justices doing trump immunity, correct? >> i'm going to be frank with you. i don't understand what it is all about. i have come to learn a lot more. i think the answer should be yes, but in all honesty, i need to research more to find out exactly what all this is about. that is another reason i'm here. all i know is that trump is an innocent man. so -- i was a missionary in washington. i know what i'm speaking about. i heard threats against trump, his family, all white people, i heard a date given, predating january 6, which makes trump a free man, i've made it clear that i would testify in federal court on behalf of him.

i'm a missionary on behalf of trump. when i lost those -- when i watch those two boys lost their lives at the hands of blm, they were shot to death, heard blm say that we are going to have angelica pain over his blood so the police never find it. i decided to come and testify before the house and senate, all of this. i have risked my life for the sake of trump. i've had many things, even to the point of my backbreaking, and it's verified. i still believe trump is an innocent man. i will continue. the lord's praise to wear trump, on the sidewalk of west palm beach, every day that i am there, he is there. the man didn't have to but the man stopped and looked me in the eyes and thanked me. i'm like, if that is not a grateful person, i don't know what is. i've also met many, many of his employees all over the country, and i have not met one disgruntled employee. also i met the descendant of the

first black man that trump hired to come over the rich bridges in west palm beach of which now the commissioners you know didn't like that. i am like how they can call him a racist when he risked his own life and situation and status, whatever i want to hire black people, when no black people were allowed? this was in the 1980's, so it was not like he was running for president then. i've had my own life threatened. i've been jailed twice for the sake of standing up for trump. i was told by west palm beach, you are never coming out of here. i was jailed because i cannot physically wear a mask. the evil side is doing this throughout our country. it was verisign -- verified by a commissioner, the west palm beach commissioners are involved. it came out of their own method they will not be satisfied until i am six feet under.

i am just saying, this is a lot, too much, and it needs to stop. >> thank you for taking the time to talk with us. hope you get in the courtroom today. >> i hope you all get in the courtroom. [laughter] host: that is the scene from capitol hill across from the united states capital at the u.s. supreme court. we will continue to show you some of the sights, sounds as we hear from you, viewers from around the country on today's argument donald trump's immunity claims. bill is waiting in illinois, independent. good morning. caller: hello. my name is bill. i have been listening for several hours on the presentation. the problem is not as simple as it seems to be. over a period of time, we have migrated from a point of a government of law to a government of privilege which

has allowed bias to enter on both sides. i worked in my youth for a person who had won elections on both sides. back when opposite sides of with one another. it used to be that we had laws that allowed a presentation of time on abc, cbs, nbc, equal time. now it has changed where there is division caused by the media. i watch both sides of the news, both sides give out prejudicial sides, and it's gone to the population. we are a divided country now. we don't listen to one another. in fact, to the point, close friendships don't do it.

the presidential situation has progressed slightly toward an imperial president where every decision has ultimately gone right to the decision of one person. the timing of this has resulted in the supreme court indicating a bias. i have advocated from the beginning, whenever i study the candidates, at the beginning when trump was first coming into the political process, i thought there were things that were totally inappropriate. he had campaign manager that had ties with putin. that was manafort. he had the contact with putin in helsinki. he trusted putin with regard to ukraine.

he was trying to force the ukrainian president junk on someone else. and then there are issues that i don't understand why they are not highlighted now. the open sky treaty. this allowed nato nations with american airplanes to survey along the border with russia, that there was compliance. host: we will take your comments. a lot of folks waiting to check today. thomas is next in winston-salem, north carolina. mcgrath. caller: good morning, john. you could have invited a constitutional professor from northwestern university or one from notre dame university, people who are basically unaffiliated. instead, your previous guest, all it was was the old crossfire thing to have invited the

heritage foundation is like dumping poison into the discourse. host: did you take anything from what hans von spakovsky have to say, did you not want to hear his arguments? caller: i screamed at the television with almost every comment that he made. he was wrong and certainly inconsistent. he ducked the question altogether, the extreme example of the president assassinating a rival. he ducked the question altogether. you didn't hold him accountable, didn't do a follow-up. he said it was too extreme, the military would never carry out that order. you let him get by with that without addressing the issue. the point i am making, though, it is irresponsible to have presented that discourse with that crossfire approach. you could have gotten neutral

constitutional law professors and given us an illuminating discussion instead of a one-sided insulting discussion that we had. i think you should screen your collars better. one caller called this morning, i'm just a redneck from north carolina and i don't understand. there is no value in that conversation. even high school, you have to pass before you go to 11th grade. host: we are taking calls from any, that wants to make their opinions known. we create an open forum or people to call in. this is one of the few places where you can talk back to washington, d.c. happy to chat with callers who want to engage with us. bob is in hometown, illinois. republican. bob, go ahead. caller: good morning. love c-span.

good luck finding a neutral law professor these days. the gal you had against hans, i don't know how she can say with a straight face that trump sent people down there to act up. they were there peacefully. trump is being treated so unfairly. he is not perfect, we know that. in new york, for example, they didn't take the case for months. . alan brown didn't want it, but then the guy who wrote the book chastised trump. half the country sees how totally unfair it is, how biased callers are. the first two callers said they were republican but they sounded like democrats to me. the young man that tammy talked to at the supreme court, if he is any indication of our future,

he is very biased. i wish she was there with just an open mind to watch and learn but he is already opinionated to the point where you have trump already guilty. the country is in bad shape right now. biden, i wish his wife would take him off the campaign trail. even if we get kamala harris, so be it. that man should never run again. i hope independents come out for trump so that we can save the country. we are giving $6 billion to ukraine. that will not go a long way. yesterday they said 60 billion should last by the end of the year. $10 billion a week, a month rather. over $2 billion a week. host: bob in illinois. you mentioned the new york trial. the hush money trial set to get underway. in the next 10 minutes, we may hear from the former president.

he often talks with reporters gathered at the courthouse, going in and out of the courtroom. the president briefly spoke to reporters earlier when he made campaign stops in new york, asked about the immunity case before the supreme court. [video clip] >> we have a big case today. the judge isn't allowing me to go. we have a big case today, supreme court, presidential immunity. if you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president. host: former president donald trump earlier today in new york. he is in new york today for that hush money trial, it continues today. we will hear from him this morning, if we can get those comments that people make to reporters. usually does it on the way in and out of the trial.

peter in gardner, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. it is obvious donald trump doesn't understand the idea of immunity, he has just latched onto it as something he can throw out there. you can tell he doesn't understand it by the way that he talks about it. the idea is based on sovereign immunity where a sovereign ruled a people, and in so doing, the acts of the sovereign discomforted or even harm to the people. for instance, if someone comes to your house with an axe -- host: let me pause, donald trump is addressing reporters. >> we are honoring teachers because teachers have been very badly aligned with some very poor leadership. we will be honoring the people that make new york work.

we will be doing a number of large rallies, it will be exciting. we think we have a good chance of winning new york. swing states, we are beating and everyone of them, and by a lot, not a little. the difference, the 1.6%, when you look at 1.6 gdp, that was a number nobody thought was possible. that is a real bad number. looks like the projections are heading in the wrong direction. that is why the stock market is down big today. in the meantime, i'm at this trial. my constitutional rights have been taken away from me. every single expert, every legal scholar, every respected scholar has said there is no case here. this is just a political witch hunt. thank you very much. >> [indiscernible] >> i think the supreme court has a very important argument before

it today. i would have loved to be there but this judge -- i should be there but he didn't allowed to happen which puts him above the supreme court which is unfortunate, isn't it? the argument of immunity is important. the president needs to have immunity. this has nothing to do with me. this has to do with a president in the future, 100 years from now. if you don't have immunity, you cannot do anything, you become a ceremonial president. you are not going to do anything. you are not going to take any of the risks good and bad. you are going to make some great decision to save the country, some decisions are unfortunate, but that is the way it is. you are not going to do anything unless you have immunity otherwise you'll be prosecuted after you leave office. going into an area, going into a country, lots of things that you wouldn't be doing. we don't want a ceremonial

president. we want a real president. you saw that for four years when i was president. we were respected all over the world. we had the best economy and we have ever had, we had no wars, we defeated isis, we had nothing. we were respected all over the world. now it is a disgrace. we also have the single best border ever in recorded history of our country, the best border ever. we built 571 miles of wall, were going to build 200 miles more, far more than i said we were going to build. we had a country that was respected, and now we have a country that is a joke, is being laughed at all over the world. riots at all universities. the only place that is locked down is the courthouse because they don't want supporters, don't want maga here. this thing is locked down like a buttoned up vest. if they did the same lockdown at

columbia and nyu, the colleges and universities, you would have no problem whatsoever. there you can put tents up, stay as long as you want, but this court is locked down. not a person within five blocks. more police here -- and i call them new york's finest, because that is who they are. they don't want to be doing this. they want to be straightening out conditions, they want to be at the colleges. what is happening at the colleges is a disgrace. all over the world people are laughing at us. this is the worst run country right now probably anywhere, just about, you don't get much worse. we have a president who is a disaster. we have a president who is the worst president in the history of our country. all you have to do is look at the millions of people coming in from prisons, mental institutions, coming in at levels we've never seen before. i am going to go in now and sit

in front of a case, election interference, this is the way that they think, but based on what i'm looking at -- [indiscernible] thank you very much. >> [indiscernible] host: former president donald trump heads into today's proceedings for that new york hush money trial. in half an hour from now, his case before the supreme court, and appeal after losing the argument in adc circuit court about presidential immunity when it comes to his federal prosecutions, arguments for that case begin at the united states supreme court. there is the scene outside capitol hill just across 1st street. in his remarks, the former

president referred to gdp, this news out this morning. gdp growth slowed to 1.6% in the first quarter, well below expectations. consumer spending increased to 2.5% in the period, down from 3.3%. numbers in the fourth quarter of last year, below what wall street estimated. 3% is what they were targeting. those are some of the numbers at the former president was referring to. back to your phone calls on this last half-hour of "washington journal." we hope that you'll stay here on c-span and listen to the case. we will show you who is talking as we take that live audio feed from the supreme court and give it to you uncut in its entirety here on c-span, c-span.org, free c-span video app. chuck in charleston, south carolina. republican. thanks for waiting. caller: you are welcome.

i watch that thing with hans and elizabeth. what i saw was hans was pretty much sliding the constitution verbatim about impeachment and prosecution. that is exactly what the constitution says. the gal, elizabeth, she did everything she could not to touch the text, you know? what we have got now, go outside washington, d.c., anywhere in the country, it is chaos. people are not paying attention to the text in the constitution. then you have media outlets that are 24 hours a day, telling people anything, like your opinion matters. your opinion doesn't matter. what matters is what keeps this country together, the

constitution of the united states. host: that is chuck in south carolina. this is debbie in madisonville, texas. independent. good morning. caller: i do not believe a president deserves absolute immunity. no one deserves absolute immunity. and i also believe that the supreme court is about as crooked as it has been in the 70 years i've been on earth. it is very sad. host: what is it about this court? caller: the ethics, they have none. host: that is debbie in texas. gus and martin's very, ohio. democrat. go ahead. caller: i don't even know why trump is going in there. he is going to win the case. the supreme court is stacked

with right-wing republicans. even when mitch mcconnell, obama was supposed to pick the supreme court nominee, then mitch mcconnell comes in -- we are not going to let obama do that because we are going to wait for the next presidency. these right-wingers keep on saying constitution, constitution. it doesn't apply to these people. , to me they are all sleeper agents for putin's doctrine. trump is a nut. i am just so mad. i don't even know why he is going to the supreme court. they are going to give him the immunity claim. host: back up to the united

states supreme court, just outside standing with the folks in line, c-span's tammy. >> you can see there are still several dozen people waiting, hoping to get into the court. they have let about 50 people in, just waiting for things to settle, see if they have any seats left before they let people in. you people waiting are jim and lynn. >> we are from douglas, georgia. >> what brought you here today? >> working in maryland, have been following these cases pretty close. we are avid voters. we know that today is a day of history, history making day. not many people will be able to experience what's about to go on in the courthouse. it is an epic time, it really is. to see what these judges have to say about a man who is claiming immunity that insists he is not guilty. we just cannot figure that out.

interested to see how his attorneys argue that point today. that is why we are here. >> have you attended oral arguments before? >> we have not. >> you came up just for this? >> we came up just for this. >> what are you hoping to hear from the judges asking the questions or from those present in the arguments today? >> we are not sure what we are going to hear. we are not here to make a judgment about whether trump is guilty or anything. that is decided by a jury of his peers. we have no opinion on whether he is guilty or committed these crimes, but we know that he is not immune. if that were true, then biden would be in office, immune as well. you have a republican in the house right now that is actively seeking to indict the president and impeach him while claiming that trump has immunity for things that he committed while in office. it makes absolutely no sense. we are just interested to see how the judges do it.

we watched the colorado decision closely. we were not here but we agreed with the judges, 9-0 consensus on that. we will abide by what they say here today, but i think it will be another 8-1 or 9-0 against the immunity thing. you cannot make this man immune. he has to face his day. any indicted person cannot say i am immune because of such and such. cannot. >> agree with exactly what he said. no one should be above the law. that is why justice is supposed to be blind. with a blindfold. >> thank you for your time. host: tammy thueringer there. was that a jogger that you had to dodge? >> yes, there are people here walking dogs, jogging. it is a pretty narrow sidewalk. they have it fenced in, people

are pretty much to one side, but it can get pretty congested in this area. you can probably see people walking by right now. everybody else is kind of off to the side. host: interesting place to jog. in the meantime, we hear from richard in savannah, georgia. republican. good morning. caller: good morning, john. it's been a long time. i'll probably get a smile out of you. last time we talked, you had brian seltzer and michael have a naughty was the discussion. brian got fired, michael is in prison. last night on sean hannity, michael avenatti called in and said this is all a witch hunt. he was stormy daniels attorney and this is all a witch hunt against trump, that trump is totally innocent. you should pull up what he said

last night on sean hannity. not only did he say it was a witch hunt, but the biden administration is more or less like the brownshirts of germany going again donald trump. i wish you would play that michael avenatti, here how innocent trump is, and that was the attorney for stormy daniels. host: richard in georgia. we will let you listen in a bit about what is happening on capitol hill. >> many dozens of times implementing their policies for their good. obama gave the internet to the united nations, the stakeholders run the internet. if you say something that disagrees with the stakeholders, big pharma, big alcohol, big electric, big solar, then they will censor you.

we are in a time of incredible censorship. there is also the fake news, this contention. you are saying there is not free speech. is there free speech or is there not free speech? >> spent $40 billion and he was against them. >> he is being attacked right now. >> he is being attacked because there is hate. >> welcome to the world. >> europe learned its lesson in world war ii. hate speech has no place in our debate. all it does is create hate. >> advocating censorship right here. host: that is the scene on

capitol hill outside the united states supreme court. we will keep showing you some of the live pictures ahead of this case, beginning at 10:00 eastern you can watch on c-span, c-span.org, free c-span video app. samuel in charleston, south carolina. line for democrats. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. they are talking about all of these things that trump does, they impeach him, and he still thinks he is not guilty. all of these crimes that he has got shows that he is guilty. he doesn't show his tax. what kind of president army going to have the doesn't show their tax and doing all of this stuff against him? to me, he is guilty. i am not a judge saying he is guilty.

that is just -- he has so much on him. he is showing that he is wrong on things that he is doing. host: bradenton, florida. this is david. independent. good morning. caller: if the court rules that he is immune, the president can do anything. then the president could do anything he wants to including assassinating his political opponent. in that case, if the court rules for him, president biden could have him -- trump assassinated and get away with it. this is exactly what putin is doing in russia. that is an interesting concept, isn't it? also, trump has been a womanizer

all his life. long history of being -- whip ped. host: evelyn is in shrewsberry, pennsylvania. republican. good morning. caller: wake up, pennsylvanians. do you want four more years of biden? what trump just said is all true and it is all a hoax. was it illegal for biden to let all of the illegals in? my grandfather came from italy and learned english and did it legally. do you want four more years of biden? the country is in a turmoil. thank you. host: 15 minutes before arguments are set to begin at the supreme court. by the way, if you stick around, here is who you'll be hearing

from besides the nine justices on the bench of the supreme court. john sour argued donald trump's immunity case before the d.c. circuit court, would do so again before the justice today. he clerked for the late justice antonin scalia, former prosecutor, former solicitor general of missouri. for the special counsel, michael drebin is representing, more than 30 years in the office of the solicitor general, in charge of criminal cases before the supreme court. he has argued or than 100 cases before the court. he has not worked -- she worked on the special counsel robert muller investigation in 2016. those are the two main attorneys you'll be hearing making arguments today. the questions i we always come to expect in a supreme court argument. the final argument of this term of the supreme court. we are not sure when we will

hear the decision from this case. but this is the last case on the docket to be argued this year. supreme court picking up this case after a d.c. circuit court, panel of three judges, ruled against donald trump, his immunity claims. donald trump appealing that to the supreme court. here we are today. rick is in florida. democrat. good morning. caller: isn't it actually -- absolutely surreal that our supreme court is even considering an immunity claim for donald trump? why is it that in over 200 years in this country this is never come up before with any other president? i notice the people c-span has been interviewing, live at the capitol, and it scares the heck out of me. especially the woman earlier who said that she was there to get educated, and then she went on to talk about how great trump is. what i want to know is where are people like me going to run and

hide once trump becomes president? where is jimmy kimmel live to go, rachel maddow going to go? it is over, jimmy. the people calling in get their news from fox and c-span, -- fox has been shown to be lawyers and everyone knows that and these people still listen. why are they still allowed to broadcast their propaganda? why is sean hannity allowed to do this? host: you say the supreme court has never taken up this question before. we will be hearing about this question of immunity and reference to nixon v fitzgerald from 1982. the supreme court ruled then that former president richard nixon could not be sued by an air force analyst who says he was fired in 1970 in relation to his criticism of cost overruns. this from the new york times story about it, quoting the physician, this is what they said at a time.

in view of the special nature of the president's special offices and functions, we think appropriate to recognize absolute president to immunity from damages liability within ask in the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. that a civil case, not a criminal case. the supreme court has taken up the image to issue before. caller: but as you said, that was a civil case, this is a criminal case. and why is clarence thomas allowed to sit and pass judgment on this, when it has been proven how involved his wife was with trying to overthrow a free and fair election? john, it is over. democracy is dead. they finally killed it. it was an organized effort, it has happened. now what do we do? i hear people calling and talking about chaos out there. i am not seeing it. if people would go outside instead of watching fox news,

told how bad things are -- they don't know how bad things can get. they have no idea. they are absolutely spoiled rotten. host: is it bad when we see people showing up at the supreme court dressed as kangaroos in justices robes? nine of them standing there to make their point, i assume, about a kangaroo court. caller: exactly. it is a kangaroo court. it is nothing but a politically stacked court now. as the man mentioned earlier, when obama was president, not allowed to put his people on the supreme court, and then turn around and look what trump did, stuffing amy coney barrett down our throats within a couple weeks of the election. john, is it me, am i missing something? host: this is skip in kansas city, missouri.

independent. good morning. caller: how are you doing this morning? i just have a few comments to make about what i think is probably wrong with this country. the feeling i have is that the majority have lost control of democracy to the chair of the minority. the danger to democracy is when in politics, and organize minority becomes a political majority. that is a quote from jesse jackson. i think this country is being held prisoner and hostage, in bondage, slavery by radical, fanatical evangelical religious silence such as marjorie taylor greene, lindsey graham, josh hawley, jim jordan, roger williams. just a terrorist organization. i think they restrained -- i

think that they are addicted, addicts to trump. host: calling in on the independent line with that criticism of the republican party, likely presidential nominee, mar you an independent versus a democrat? caller: i voted for george wallace, ross perot, i raised 10,000 signatures for ross perot to be voted on in missouri. i voted for bush. i voted for obama. i have been all over the place. i am 81 years old, so i've seen a lot in this country. what scares the hell out of me right now is that we are losing our democracy and i think we are heading for a dictatorship, and it is the evangelicals, 13% in the congress in 2018 to 168 members, 31% in congress today. host: skip in missouri.

back up to the supreme court, tammy thueringer. >> we are still waiting to see if people get into the oral arguments, about to start in 10 minutes. two people who are hoping to get in are with me now. what are your names? >> carol rich. >> robconkel. >> where are you from? >> st. thomas virgin islands. >> you got in last night and decided to come here? >> yes, we did. we knew before we came that this morning would be at historic argument so we decided to see if we could come down and witness it. >> have you been following the arguments and the immunity case at all? >> absolutely. of course. ever since this began. it's been amazing. i cannot believe this man is making this thing. i think it's good the supreme court came in for this now. i know people are saying it is waiting too long until after the trial but it is really important to have this decision made by the supreme court.

my wife doesn't agree. she is the active lawyer. >> you are a lawyer. what are you hoping to hear today? >> well, pretty much from all i have read and heard about the case, know what each side will argue. i would love to hear the questions from the judges. i think that will be the most interesting to hear what they say, how they frame their questions. particularly from the ones that we are less certain of where their position might be. i think there is sort of no doubt on where certain people on the court probably stand on this. on others, it would be interesting, based on the questions they ask, to get a window into what they are thinking. also just an historic event to witness a supreme court argument, particularly this one, since i'm so familiar with the underlying facts and issues. it would be more interesting, then for instance, listening to some obscure case about the commerce clause or something.

mainly, i am just hoping to hear them really question the premise of this appeal. the idea that any person can be absolutely immune for everything they do while in office, regardless of what it is, including two attempting to overthrow free and fair elections is appalling. i think a lot of people share that view. i don't think there is much concern among anyone as to the court finding the absolute immunity, but the fact that they took the case, our hearing it on the last day of the term, may not come out until the end of one they released their decisions in june and july, probably means there may not be enough time for the january 6 case to go forward before the election. that would be unfortunate. >> what kind of law do you practice? >> i have a general practice.

commercial real estate, business law, that kind of thing. >> have you ever been up here for oral arguments before? >> no, i have not. i have listened to live audios of oral arguments, kind of follow what is being court does, but never witnessed one. that would be awesome. >> what would you want to see if you got inside today? >> i want to hear what questions ketanji brown jackson and elena kagan would ask because they are amazing. i think they will ask some amazing questions. i want to hear how far the lawyer representing trump is going to go, whether he will stick by his position that trump could order seal team six to murder his political opponents, could not be prosecuted for it unless he was impeached. that is an insane argument. i want to see if you will actually say that again. >> i am kind of hopeful that the trump attorney would be better than we expected.

i think that we are going to see a little better decision from them as well. >> thank you for your time. host: that is the scene from outside the supreme court. both the folks in that interview mentioned the importance of timing when it comes to this case. this is adam liptak in today's new york times, longtime supreme court reporter. the headline of his piece today in the case before the justices "trump can lose in ways that seems like wins." two attractive ways for him to lose. mann, even if mr. trump categorically loses this case, each passing week makes it more challenging for jack smith, the special counsel in this case, to complete his trial before the election. it's also possible the court's ruling, even if issued promptly, will inject additional legal complications into this case that then takes more time to sort out. once again, the trial is

delayed. adam liptak, if you want to read more about timing and what it can mean in this case. we have about five minutes of timing before the supreme court comes in today. we will spend that time hearing from you our viewers. this is diane in dade city, florida. independent. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. before i get to the immunity thing, i just want to address some of the lie that trump was telling when he came out, when he was on his little platform. he talks about the crowds not being allowed to get in close to the courthouse. that is not true. i have family members in new york. they say you have free reign to roam around. that is not true. i will tell you who is not there, his family members are not there supporting him, or anybody else. i don't blame them. he just gets out there and tells all his lies. i think anybody in this country should be upset that this had to

go to supreme court, the immunity claim. this is a person who is trying to discount thousands and thousands of votes. that is what keeps us a democracy, our freedom to vote. so that makes me upset. also, can you imagine working somewhere, and in the course of your job, you cook the books or expose the company and got fired and then you try to claim that you cannot be prosecuted because it was in the course of your tenure of your work? nobody is above the law, not even the president. even though i understand the immunity claim as far as some of the duties of the president, wartime duties in that kind of thing, there should be parameters on that. it cannot be free reign to do whatever you want and then you

are free to go, free pass. host: that is diane in florida. this is a gym, washington. independent. caller: i just want to say that i cannot delete how many people -- believe how many people out there will vote against their own best interests. i mean, right now, we have 20% increase in everything that you go to the store for. we have wars going on all over the world. we have regulations that are shutting down small businesses in california and all over the country because people want to just tax everybody to death and regulate everybody to death. you know, i wish trump would have been successful in overturning the election, because what we have got now is just -- joe doing his job, and a terrible job. host: michael in oregon. democrat. good morning.

caller: good morning from the great northwest. i am a researcher of history. i am also a member of the senate of confederate veterans. i'm also a regular republican. i remember in church down there in my southern baptist church, we were listening to our future -- preacher talking about reagan from the pulpit. i also researched hitler extensively. i just happened to catch trump on tv on interviews like on oprah or something. the one that he was talking about dating his daughter. the man has created an

unbreakable cult. the thing about cults is they don't go away. i watched the attack on the capitol on november 6. i thought it was sickening that they were trying to just totally go against our constitution. the thing that concerns me, trump is allowed to actually run for president again. host: that is michael, our last caller in today's "washington journal." live coverage of the case today before the supreme court on former president donald trump's immunity claim set to begin momentarily. until then, live sights and sounds from just outside the supreme court. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

{unintelligble speech] >> we can barely hear you. you need to talk a lot louder. it's loud out here. >> c-span live at the supreme court and the justices will hear trump versus united states, looking at immunity claims by former president donald trump. the case would determine if the former can avoid criminal just criminal prosecution for his alleged role in trying to overturn the 2020 election results.