♪ host: good morning and welcome to the washington journal. yesterday on capitol hill, dr. anthony fauci testified defending the federal government's response to

covid-19. weant your view of dfauci and the government's handling of the pandemic. republicans, --republicans, (202) 748-8001. [indiscernible] democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. 748-8003. or post on facebook.com/cspan or on x witmany moments from the test yesterday if you missed any of it, you can go to c-span.org. we will show you some moments as we wait for your phone calls to come in. but start with the coronavirus committee chair republican brad wenstrup, also a medical doctor, taking on dr. anthony fauci over covid-19 mandates he says were not based on science. [video] >> while policy decisions should

have been based on scientific data, some frankly were not. the burdensome six foot social distancing rule did not have sufficient scientific report. in your words they just sort of appeared. distancing made sense but the six feet was arbitrary. collins said he has not seen any emp evidence to support the six foot rule. a a rule that will have negative ramifications for decades. more mandates, also just sort of appeared. the american public did not get to see the scientific data to support these mandates. americans were aggressively bullied, shamed, and silenced for merely questioning or debating issues such as social distancing masks vaccines, or the origs of covid.

host: yesterday on capitol hill the committee that is charged with looking into the handling pandemic had dr. anthony fauci before lawmakers. this morning your view of the doctor and the government handling of covid-19. join times has the story on their front page. they are the only national newspaper that put it on the front page with the headline, "fauci denies misdeeds in response to covid-19." dr. anthony fauci said he never tried to -- theories about the origins of the coronavirus distance himself from transference he loves, and rebuffed republicans says he should've spoken out against the six foot social distancing rule. here is dr. anthony fauci later on in the hearing talking about the distancing rule. [video] >> i don't want to be casting stones at the distortions of

what was said. there are a couple of things that come to mind. onm sure will come up later. the issue of the six foot distance. i made the statement that it just appeared. that got taken like i don't know what is going on. they came from the cdc. the cdc was responsible for those kinds of guidelines for schools, not me. when i said it just appeared, it appeared. was there any science behind it? what i meant by no scice behind it is that there wasn't a controlled trial that said compare six feet with three feet with 10 feet. there wasn't the scientific evaluation of it. what i believe the cdc used for their reason to say six feet is that studies years ago showed when you're dealing with time that the cdc made that recommendation it was felt that the

transmission was primarily through droplets, not aerosol which is incorrect because we know now aerosol does play a role. that is the reason why they did it. it had little to do with me since i did not make the recommendation. my saying there was no science behind it means there was trial that proved that. host:auci yesterday. he sat for over three hours before a house committee testifying about the government's handling of covid-19. this follows 14 hours of testimony in private before that same committee in january. don in miami, democratic caller. we are getting your thoughts on dr. fauci and the covid-19 response. caller: i had nothing to do during covid except read a lot of journals and articles and online. they came down to that this was a case of very bad management. dr. fauci burke redfield, they

are no heroes. their lack of initial response failed us. the continuing lack of leadership and distribution and misinformation killed us. scientific america published an announcement of the coronavirus to the global community way back in march of 2018 on page 22 and the need for a vaccine. that was completely ignored. and all published online in the journal of american medical association on january 23 2020, about the need for prompt action and effective response. naid that fauci was in charge of, the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases, they had oversight -- he had oversight of the diagnostic testing. that failed. he was in charge and failed in his primary mission.

finall none of these career bureaucrats spoke up when the prev p house -- that people inject themselves with bleach, a fish tank cleaner chemical. that is all most criminal homicide -- almost criminal homicide. host: don notes that dr. anthony e agency that led the response to covid-19. from the wall street journal this morning, fauci pushes back. sand infectious diseases for board then 38 years and helped lead the nation's response to the cover 19 pandemic under both presidents donald trump and biden. fauci appeared often with trump in the early messages about the ndemic but later became vilified by the right for his supportive safety precautions and for opposing unproven treatments such as the anti-malaria drug pushed by trumpushed by trump and others. edwin in new bern, north carolina.

republican. ller: good morning. dr. anthony fauci is a doctor. he got his doctorate in medicine from cornell university. he got his undergrad degree from the college of the holy cross. i met dr. fauci when i worked at the naval medical research institute in bethesda, maryland, from 1985 to 1989. he got a vietnam deferment in 19 67 to go to nih to work for the public health office. donald trump got three deferments for vietnam and never serv. dr. fauci has done the best job he could in his position. to have marjorie taylor greene show two dogs -- please understand marjorie taylor greene that people medical research institute working in conjunction with nih did

laboratory research on animals. they still do it in frederick maryland. you cannot testing in a petri dish. if she has to -- he was to have some of her family members show com eon. com come on. he was a doctor before he got his deferment to work at nih from 1 he did the best job he could. he was shackled by the trump administration because donald trump disrespected him so many times. yes, donald trump did say i can do away with the virus by putting sun on it and shooting bleach on it. you have got to realize he had a hard job to do, him and dr. ber who havekle -- dr. burke who have done brilliant jobs in their position. we were slow to respond during this whole thing. we started at the starting gate

so that four years ago today there were millions of lives lost because of the delay and because of donald john trump. host: edwin's thoughts, referring to a moment between dr. fauci and marjorie taylor greene. you can find that along with other moments on our website c-span.org. if you hit the video player for the hearing you will see gold stars that appear. you will be able to go quickly through the three and a half hours and see what reports say were contentious moments between dr. fauci and the gop led committee. we are getting your thoughts on dr. fauci and the government handling of covid-19. donald independent alexandria, virginia. caller: hi. i looked up the covid as sort of like a -- the country was in a war. we had 1.1 million casualties.

it was very complex. it was changing all the time and there were a lot of players involved. i felt like dr. fauci had done a very good job of trying to move these parts to get the word out and save lives. i also felt -- i am totally supporting and i was extreme the oppressed. he's ability to remember all the things he did to respond to all the questions he responded to. i think the public would benefit if he would write a paper on his personal habits that have allowed his mind to stay as sharp as it has for all this time. host: it sounds like you watched the hearing. were you impressed with his ability to reca very much so. i'm 77 years old.

there's no way i could have put up with a quarter of what they threw at him. i want to know what he did to be able to be where he is. host: at he testified for 14 hours privately before this same committee. let's go to sualler. caller: good morning. i think it is terrible the way the treated him. he took us through a really ha there was a lot of stuff we did not know about. there were tests and trials. he did save a lot of lives. him we should be thanking him for the way he acted. i think it is heartbreaking to see a man of his stature go through that. it really upset me. host: a reminder. wait 30 days to call in to the washington journals so we

get a variety of voices. we want you to join the conversation this morning. if you have not called in 30 please dial in. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text. include your first name, city and state to (202) 748-8003. we ask you to wait 30 days on texts as well. this is from yahoo! finance news. an article written a while ago. fauci is president biden's top advisor. that is not the case anymore. he gained visibility through his often awkward briefings with former president donald trump. algae -- fauci was being paid more than trump at the time. the most recent data comes in the public spending transparency opened the books.

it puts fauci's salary at this time at $480,654. the president's salary has been $400,000 annually since 2001. my from madison, wisconsin. independent. caller: good morning. last time i talked to you was earth day. why than half a decade ago. host: ok. what are your thoughts on dr. fauci? caller: the question. th' 'house and senatescience like professor elliott sober? next to dr. fauci? so they can talk to elliott sober, dr. fauci ask questions

and maybe that would educate people. you are asking about the government's handling. let'people to talk intelligently in front of other people and then intelligence will happen correct? host: jeremy's thoughts. from the washington post reporting this money, the former advisor in the trumpet meditation testified before thatpanel. the contentious hearing unfolded for three and half hours. to came amid a battle between thanel's republican and democratic leaders over whether it is focused on -- on whether the focus on fauci is necessary or a waste of time. it is propagating unproven theories about the pandemic and damaging confidence in public health. there is anthony fauci from the hearing yesterday pushing back against that he meddled in research about the

pandemic's origins, including claims he try to sway scientists away from the possibility that the virus came from the lab in china. [video] >> the accusations circulated that influenced the scientist to change their minds by bribing them with millions of dollars in grant money is absolutely and simply preposterous. i had no input into the content of the published paper. the second issue is a false accusation that i tried to cover up the possibility that the virus originated from a lab. in fact, the truth is exactly the opposite. i now quote from an email that i sent to professor for our -- farrar. "jeremy, i just got the phone with chrishe related his concern about the mutation and the spike protein of the virus. i told him as soon as possible he and eddie holmes should get a

group of evolutionary biologists together to carefully examine the data to determine if his concerns are validated and they should report it to the appropriate authorities. i would imagine in the usa this would be the fbi. in the u.k., it would begin my five. in the meantime -- mi-5. i will alert my colleagues of my conversation with you and christian and determine what further investigation they recommend. best regards tony." it's inconceivable that anyone could conclude i was trying to cover up the possibility of a lab leak. mind to the different possibilities. dr. anthony fauci on the origins of covid-19. from the washington post reporting, the panel has not found -- the panel yesterday

looking into the government's response -- has not found evidence that fauci led a cover up or the virus leaked from a laboratory. u.s. intelligence probing the pandemic favor the theory that the virus emerged naturally via animal to human transition. that's the washington post. here's the washington times. several major u.s. agencies say the lab leak is the most likely explanation. that is the washington times reporting. from the office of the director of national intelligence. they their report on the origins. this is from cnn reporting and the office of the director of national intelligence. "no consensus among intelligence agencies. every intelligence agency unanimously agreed it was not developed as a biological weapon. most agencies assess covid-19

was not genetically engineered but no consensus on that let's hear from howard in minnesota, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i think dr. fauci is a national hero. president biden should could hit him the congressional medal of freedom. host: why? caller: i was a health care chaplain during the crisis. patients in icu's. i saw so manywe lost 75 seniors. another facility we lost 55 seniors. this politicization of this issue is adolescent. those lives matter. we need to protect the vulnerable during a time of a health care crisis. dr. fauci deserves recognition for the president and congress. host: howard in minnesota. kyle in buffalo, new york. republican. caller: my thoughts are about

the government question. i will bring it to our state government. each state handled covid a little differently based on the advice. when new york state -- new york city had major problems, buffalo had high numberspeople infected. my wife worked at the covid hospital. the problem is though the governor at the time had encouraged people not to take the covid because it was coming from the trump organization. it was not to be trusted. as soon as joe biden became president they flip-flopped and encouraged -- not even encouraged. demanded. they made it so most people had to take the shot. now we find out that the shot really didn't prevent this.

just defended the effects physically individually. the health care workers, most of them either had to take the shot or refused to do so for whatever reason they had. they lost their jobs. the truth comes out that it wasn't really a vaccine. it just helped reduce your side effects. as far as algae is concerned is concerned it came to the states to make their own policy. i don't understand why the red states had less death tolls in the blue states. i'm still confused and maybe somebody out there can educate me on why the different party states had different effects. as an educator, our kids are so behind because of covid. they said anybody under a certain age or debt risk unless they had -- work at risk unless

they had some major health issues -- were not at risk unless they had major health issues. it wasn't widespread like the elderly and people of a certain age who had health issues. now we are way behind with our kids. we will see effects with this covid with the kids for -- i swear i have never seen kids in schools so far behind and i want to say lazy since covid. the education system made it easy for them to pass. a lot of kids did not have to show up to school. now they got into the routine where they expect the system to pass them and not hold them accountable like we did before covid. host: i want to ask about what you said about red states versus blue states. here is npr's headline from july

25, 2023. republican excess death rate spikes after the vaccine arrives. the pandemic inflicted high rates of excess deaths on both republican and democrats but after covid-19 vaccines arrived republican voters in florida and ohio died at a higher rate than their counterparts according to this study. thank you for the information. at the time it seemed like those states like florida had lower numbers. i don't if they are outdoors during that time when it came out. in our area it was winter and spring. in buffalo, you can see snow going intimate. bethel -- into may. most people were stuck indoors and most of the spread came from the beginning becausero get ready for the shutdown. i think that is one of the issues we had in i don't know . it is a tough time.

it is sad because it set back our country as far as the kids go. i can't speak for other states. thank you, greta. host: we will go to bruce in california, democratic caller. caller: ti would like to point out what i ÷k was watching at the hearing. behind dr.cinnamon mocking him. -- gentlemen mocking him. they were proud boys who were guest of marjorie taylor greene. when she was done they left with her. beside the caller that was just on, he was wrong about red and blue states. red states had a lot more deaths and it was terrible. i lost four cousins, two uncles and grandfather to covid and is no joke. i hate the fact they getaway telling these lies to people that get away with telling lies -- that they get awaythese people

enter unaccountable. common sense tells you vaccines work. it worked for polio. you have people spreading lies. they should be thrown in jail. fauci should be able to sue marjorieaylor greene. he should be able to sue her. host: let me show you from the washington post reporting. the aring with fauci widely viewed as the face of the u.s. coronavirus response took a circus style environment through a covid attention as the public moved on from the pandemic. a line of would be spectators snaked around the rayburn house office building seeking a seat in the standing room only hearing. the person sitting in the front row wore a t-shirt emblazoned with naijail fauci. you missed the hearing, go to our website, c-span.org. you can find her coverage of the

three and half hours of dr. fauci testimon -- testifying. ruth in indiana. caller: good morning. i don't think they give dr.eserves. we were totally unprepared for it. when the aids epidemic came on, dr. fauci enabled aids patients to live for years successfully. it used to be a death sentence. i'm sick and tired of greene and jordan and every time they speak be the detective -- vindictive towards people instead of trying to solve a problem. we have cattle now infected with disease and they don't know if it will switch to humans. four years after covid we are still unprepared. congress has not taken the time

to look into it and see if we can come up with remedies for these diseases that are coming in the fure. he deserves a medal and i am sick of this circus and congress a comp pushing anything for the mac and people. -- accomplishing anything for the wrecking people. host: the second mission can farmworker, the third human case in the united ates. more from yesterday's hearing. an exchange between dr. fauci and michael cloud on the various government mandates during covid-19. [video] >> i will go through a list of mitigation measures you supported and give you a yes or no if you believe the measures were justified. business closures. >> 5000 people were dying a day yes. >> church closures. >> same thing. >> school closures. >> again -- >> stay-at-home orders. >> these were important when we

were trying to stop the tsunami of deaths that were occurring early on. how long you kept them going is debatable. >> mask mandates for adults. mask mandates for children. children under five. >> going back to what i said before, all of that is in the context of at the time -- >> scientific evidence for that? >> maskfive? >> there was no study that did masks on kids. you could do the study. you had to respond to an epidem killing 4000 to 5000 americans a day. >> max 8 mandates for employees. -- vaccine mandates for employees, students, military. >> vaccines save lives. it is clear that vaccines have saved hundreds of thousands of americans. >> i'm not debating that. we are talking about covid-19. do the vaccines stop anyone from getting covid?

>> i answered that question to the chairman. early on it became clear-- >> they didn't. >> in the beginning it clearly prevented infection and a certain percentage of people. the durability of its ability to prevent infection was not long. it was measured in months. >> it and didn't stop from spreading it either. >> early on it did if it prevented infection. what became clear was that he did not prevent transmission when the ability to prevent infection waned. >> was troubling is when the mayor can people look at the certainty -- american peoplelook at the certainty and people lost jobs and livelihoods. i had rural hospitals in my area that did not have a single case of covid in their rural community that had to shut down and people not get care that they did need for cancer and some passed away because of those kind of things.

time after time we had people lives destroyed. we have not seen the same sort of once the new data came available, we did not see a change of course. host: from yesterday's hearing with dr. anthony fauci. we are getting your thoughts his -- how he handled covid-19 and the federal government's handling of the pandemic. lee in new york, republican. caller: hi. i consider dr. fauci a dangerous man who should be more deeply investigated. in january of 2020, i saw 2017 video of dr. fauci talking to an nih person. he said people stopped taking their influence of flu vaccine. we must make it more infectious -- infection -- infection was so they will be forced to

take their influence of flu vaccine. shortly thereafter we had the pandemic. there was also a reference to an associate canadian virologist. this video was shown on either one america or newsmax. i don't member which one. it was shown twice in one day and then disappeared forever. host: have you googled it and looked see if it is accurate? caller: have a googled it? he was talking to the person. when you say accurate, he was speaking to this person. p was standing behind a table -- he was standing behind a table addressing his associate. host: smam in georgia, democratic caller. caller: first of all i would like to say i am not saying where i'm from but i am

represented by marjorie taylor greene, which we really need to get rid of her. she is a cook. we need to do our research -- kook. we need to do our research. the spanish flu which kille millions of people that it came from a farm in kansas. we need to do our research. we need to not listen to these newsmax's and stuff. sc perfect but science is close. our president at that time did away with the office of -- we had no way of heading off this tragedy. thank you. host: he says representative that he is represented by marjorie taylor greene and congress. ron in new hampshire independent. caller: thank you for taking my

call. hello? host: we are listening to you. caller: thank you for taking my call. we just heard felty say -- fauci say he did not know a symptomatic spread was taking place. he did not know it was airborne, spread by aerosol. he said all these things he did not know. they recommended cloth masks and set of n95s. if we had used n95s at the beginning it would have stopped it. that was a study done by harvard. let me review any mail -- read you and email that fauci was responding to a doctor asking march 1, 2020, the beginning of the pandemic, days after the first death in the u.s. "iope you are well. using n95 if you have them available.

transmission is si emailed them back

and called for a private meeting. after that meeting they all changed their tune except for a whistleblower. we have those emails. another fact. the vaccine was never tested. i don't care what anyone says. look it up. they had to put something out whatever it was. what you are referring to with the gentleman about why people were dying or getting sick 20% more in certain countries was becausearts. that vaccine was never tested.

we have all their emails. they are making money. pelosi with the pharmacies. the children have the best immunity to that. e safest ones and look what they did to them. kept them out of school, destroyed them. this man needs to be held responsible. i don't care what anybody says. listening to your callers blows my mind. they are all on the same path. fauci is a nice guy. they have lost t mind. host: you may be interested in dana milbank' column in today's washington post. "last fall, brad wenstrup of ohio chair of the celexa committee on the coronavirus pandemic made an incendiary public accusation that according to information gathered by the committee anthony fauci was escorted into the cia arters without a record of entering and participated in the analysis to influence the agency's review to say that

covid-19 did not originate from a lab. he reveals allegations. another republican on the panel rich mccormick of georgia declared definitively we now know that fauci had a secret meeting with the cia. fox news, the new york post and the rest of the right-wing conspiracy machine ran with it. then nothing. the subcommittee came up witce to support the claim supposedly made by whistleblower and nothing to challenge fauci's testimony he had not been to the cia in 20 years. g for the panel of public hearing on monday, fauci now retired after decades leading the nih ridiculed the idea that i was parachuted into the cia like jason bourne and told them they sho about a lab leak." that is from the washington post this morning. bob in medford, new jersey. republican.caller: how are you? fauci, in my opinion should be indicted. having said i live in

south jersey. i worked at a hospital. some of the homeless and people that were homeless, they died. they were put in a refrigerated -- in a truck. a refridgerated truckthey would bring them in the morgue and off they went. just to up the numbers to make it more -- to make it worse than it already was. i don't understand why the democrats are so bent to the left to back fauci but when is conveniencet they blaine trump. he's not -- blame trump.

he took a lot of information from fauci with him even though others -- he got a letter from over 100 doctors from africa working with covid over there. they told -- i don't member the name of the medicine he said was good. i can't pronounce it. they said it did work with two other medications. if you get covid, it would take the symptoms and make it much less and make it go quicker through your system. i don't know why fauci was so set against that. ordered doctors -- if i said i want what trump said, they could not give it to me. the government made it against the law. host: chuck from charleston with virginia. democratic caller. caller: good morning, greta.

it's been 56 days since my last call. three years ago, i retired from the west virginia bureau for public health after 20 years. dr. fauci's testimony yesterday was of great interest to me. i listened for as long as i could greene came on and started talking about torturing beagles. at that int i had to turn it off. i have a background in public health. i remember when this first started nobody knew what was going on. back around the beginning of nobody really knew what was going on. dr. fauci and public health experts all around the world people were talking about dr. fauci as though he was the only public health person in the dealing with this. after things shut down2021

or 2020, our governor jim justice, who is probably going to go into the senate, he got on tv and issued anerdown, you know,ers. there was nothing to do. it porch listening to the radio listening to these horror stories coming from new york about how bodies were being loaded into refridgerated truck's and thinking to myself, is this it? is this the big science-fiction movie? is this the big global pandemicsure enough, it was happening. we did not know everything about how it was transmitted. just wanted to get a vaccine into arms as soon as possible. donald trump of all people came up with what he called operation warp speed. a project to get people

vaccinated on an emergency basis as quickly as possible. i have to trump for coming up with that. i was in line for my vaccine as soon as it was available. yet all these people who were praising donald trump and celebrating him for operation warp speed later on were saying i'm not going to get the virus. the not -- host: the vaccine? caller: yeah, the vaccine. host: i will leave it there. want to weave in other news and get a few more phone calls before we get to the top of the hour. washington johnthe hunter biden gun trial. the jury has been picked and the trial continues today. on the front pages of many national newspapers this morning 's news about president biden preparing an executive order to alu heard rumors and reporting about this. president biden would take executive action. president biden is expected to do so today allowing him to

temporarily seal the u.s. border with mexico to migrants from crossing. a move that would suspend longtime protections for asylum-seekers in the united states. expect to hear more about that today in washingtom in illinois, republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning.i had covid in september before donald trump stopped the jets from flying around the world. right before that we had run items from world war i, from the spanish flu. the spanish flu did not quithe soldiers were moving back and forth from the war. we actually lost more soldiers from the spanish flu that we did in thear.

anyway i was also a county board member. we had to continue with county board meetings. somebody had to do the county's business and pay the bills. we had to implement a bunch of stuff that the governor made. well, the governor was flying around the country. pritzker. he was buying horse farms and doing the stuff. did not stop anything. me. i couldn't go across the river into iowa and when i came back i could not leave the state again for 14 days. we had all these really, really stupid rules.in our county, until july of that year willie had three cases. we had threewe had people coming to our board meetings. they were all going broke. they were going broke because we were actually implementing our land taxes on all these

restaurant owners and even the people that took care preschool people. they were shut down and they were going broke. they came to the board meeting and said what are we supposed to do? we have to pay taxes and we don't have money. i wascourthouse. i wanted to set the taxes back six months so they had a chance to make some money so they could pay their taxes. ññevery time i went to a meeting there was always a threat that you could get covid because you were meeting a bunch of strange people. people have to use common sense. host: i will jumpour gavel-to-gavel coverage yesterday. i want to show you a lighter moment. congressman john wrote saying, "this is what i get for telling my son guy to smile at the camera for his little brother."

that is from congressman john rhodes. he tweeted about this moment from the house floor yesterday. [video] >> mr. speaker i rise to address the terrible precedent set in our country four days ago. using the justice system to engage in a politically driven prosecution and no conviction of a major political party nominee runninespecially on the charges brought against donald trump should greatly concerned every member of this body as well as every american across our country whether they be republican or democrat for donald trump over against him. regardless of one's opinion of the current republican nominee we would be well served to remember the long and cherished traditions we have in this country of settling our political differences at the ballot box. for nearly two and a half centuries our nation's elected leaders have properly resisted the 10 tatian to oppose their

political rivals through the weaponization of our justice system. equal justice for all. an overall trust in the justice system is fundamental to who we are as americans. those who would desty that hard earned trust just to score cheap political points should be held accountable. as an attorney, i can tell you that may 30 will be among the moredates in american history. host: from the floor yesterday. you can also find it on twitter at c-span's account and online as well. when we come back we will be joined account. we will take a break care when we come back, we will be joined by derrick johnson. naacp's derrick johnson joins us to discussn 2024. later, the ethics senior fellow ed whelan joinss to discuss

issues before the supreme court, including the flag controversies surrounding justice samuel alito. ♪ >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing a, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where policy is decided, all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> friday nights watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop discovering what candidates around the country are saying to voters, along with first-hand reporters, updated old numbers and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign

trail friday night at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span your unfiltered view of politics. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting or newsworthy highlights. these appear on the right hand side of your screen when you hit play on seleimeline tool makes it easy to get an idea of what was abated. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our options come

including apparel, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now, or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us of this morning from jackson, mississippi is naacp president and ceo derrick johnson. thank you for your time this morning k let's talk about a recent cbs poll based on exit polls from 2020 that showed the black share of -- biden's share of those in key voting groups for black ovters, his support was 80 7%. in 2024, according to a cbs news poll, it is now at 76%. why do you think that is? guest: first of all, you have to believe the premise of the

validity of any polls. we have seen, historically, exit polls have not been accurate in accounting for the sentiments of am general particularly african-americans. we have seen, over the last four election got it wrong. polls were showing that romney was winning the election, only for the outcome to be very different in terms of president obama. for the naacp, we move away from notion of to polls because they have shown to be an advisable. what we do know is it is important for -- host: when you talk to black voters or members of your group, what are they telling you about their support of the president? guest: as a nonpartisan organization, we are less concerned with which candidates voters choose, particularly our members and african-americans in general. we are more concerned with

ensuring we protect this democracy, that every voter can cast an effective valid, and we understand their choices voters must make is not only about the top of the ticket, iis down ballot as well, but it is the policy issues of concern. it is whether or not families can have gainful employment. weave record unemployment ov years, the largest trend in over 50 years. we have seen student debt cancellation which drastically impacted public service workers teachers, police officers, and others, who went to school and were saddled with debt. we are advocating to make sure low income military veterans are relieved of medical bill debt. medical is the number one debt load americans are impacted with, so we need solutions. we need candidates whoolutions, individuals who care about democracy, and individuals who care about the future of america. host: who is the best candidate for that?

guest: that is the choice for individual voters. at the naacp, we say here are the options. in this election, in many cases we look at the difference between a functioning democracy in something less than democracy, so we will err on the side of democracy. we want a candidate who cares about the future of americauct of fascism, not fall to the davis of nature we see the climate in, and ensure, regardless of our differences rights are protected. host: how much money will the naacp spend down campaign 24 and how will you spend it? guest: this election cycle, we are focused on infrequent voters. those are individuals who do not always vote. we are concerned if americans sit at the election, particularly african-americans who will not get the outcome in policies required.

we will spend upwards of $24 million in this election cycle part of which is invested in local communities, so organizations, including our local branches, who are more effective in figuring out how to turn out their neighbors, as well as drill down on a message to talk about protecting our democracy and advancing public policies. host: for african-americans in those infrequent voters, is it that people are telling you they will not vote because of a headland like this from politico -- biden's black voters are setting out alarm bells. the message from focus groups is that the president's problems are real and he is running out of time to fix them. guest: well, publications like politico and others are less focused on policy issues americans care about. they focus on headlines for

click date, headlines to generate ad revenue, and instead of what are the policy choices that americans need to make? we need to confront the reality that we are in the midst of a is resorting in far too many individuals who are unhoused. we are in the midst of a crisis about what is the future of work and the impact of artificial intelligence, and how do we re-tool our workers and train our young people? we are in the midst of a rise of hate crimes that we need to table, so we are not living in a 1950's america but in america that must compete in a global economy. those are the conversations we need to community, as a society, so that we are competitive globally and move away from the level of tribalism we have seen emerge over the last several years. host: what do you think is the appeal of former president trump for some african-american

voters? guest: well, i do not know what his appeal is, because he is a bottom feeder in terms of divisiveness and other-izing and he proven to be untrustworthy. now, we have a convicted felon who is the top of the ticket of one of the leading parties, who has proven not to be honest with american voters, not to be honest in the court of law, not to be honest about the true nature of what he is doing. but what he is doing has less to do about the citizens of this country and more to do with egotistical behavior that has been displayed. we are looking at an individual who cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn tried to cover it up by paying people off, a violation of campaign finance law. why is this even a conversation when we are at the juncture of being a relevant country in a global economy, looking at global conflicts we need to

resolve? it is unfortunate that the citizens of this count are forced to make these type of decisions, and i hope,future, we will not be at this juncture ever again. host: will the naacp be campaigning against the form president? guest: again, we are nonpartisan. we do not campaign for or against any particular candidate. we will raise critical issues. we will hope our members and african-americans will take the right choices when the see what is in the best interest of their best interest,ir best interest, their community's best interest, and democracy's best interest. host: here is south carolina republican senator tim scott talking about what he believes set former president trump apart from president biden. [video clip] >> the issues that drive the results of this november for the election will be can donald trump close the southern border? the answer is he already has closed the southern border.

can he bring inflation down under 2%? the answer is it was 1.4% when he left office. can he create jobs for americans? good news is he created over 7 million jobs with the highest percentage going to women african-ic and asians. what we know about four years under donald trump we have low unemployment, low inflation high enthusiasm, law and order in our streets. we have had the exact opposite under joe biden. we have had credibly crushing inflation, leading to higher interest rates crime in the poorest communities devastating single mothers, like the one that raised me, and we have had the greatest invasion in american history across our southern border, left wide open, unsafe, because joe biden, on day one, started unraveling border security. host:

response? guest: well, i am not really for sure what facts senator tim scott is speaking of, because the reality is, in many cases it is the complete opposite. we had an unfortunate scenario on the border with the taking of children from parents. there was a promise to build a wall along the border. the wall was never built. we have the track record of the prior administration having the worst record in job creation in the history of any president. i could go on and on. unfortunately, the spin doctors of the cen you do a fact-check, most of that will not hold up. it sounds rate in soundbites, but factually -- it sounds great in soundbites but let's go to nathaniel, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thank you so much for having me

on. first of all the naacp has been a bedrock in our community for years and years and years, so i want to thank them for their service. i think, coming from the black have so many of our members in our community saying they are not going to vote. i do not think they truly realize the ramifications of not voting. when you d not vote, you vote for the opposite side. when you allow these maga people back in office we are already seeing the damage they are doing on our country. they want to push back all of our rights. they do not want us to have anything. they want us back in a level of indenturedwe do not understand the gravity of us staying home and not voting. and our forefathers fought for us to have the right to vote. it is our response ability to vote and understand the power of voting. i wish mr. johnson could speak

more aboutif you do not vote, you vote for the other side. that will hurt us tremendously. thank you, mr. johnson. i will step off line to hear your response. guest: absolutely accurate. i was talking to a group of young men in detroit about two weeks ago. one of the young guys, he is about 28. he was doubting whether or not he should participate and whether it would matter. i listened to them -- it is important for us to listen to young people, to voters treference, because we all come from different points of reference. when he finished, i asked a few questions. i said what does your mother do? i knew his mother. ther is the chair of the parole board. i said not much is changed however, your mother is sitting in a seat t because we got participation -- you are

living in a household that shows progress. and voting for a third-party candidate is throwing away a vote. there is not an option here. we have a two party system, and that is the reality of what we have. more importantly, if you do not dissipate and cast a ballot, that means you are throwing your opportunity away. you're going to now become null and void and we cannot afford that. it is an opportunity for us to really demonstrate not only the force and power of our collective vote but our ability to understand that decisions are not made in one transaction in one election. decisions are made over an arc of time, and the more we engage, the more we participate, the more we inform our decision. you may not get everything one time you vote, but you already sure to be listened to and get

what you need over the arc of time in which you were participating. we must vote, as american citizens, because that is what democracy is built on. host: let's hear from tim in illinois independent. caller: thank you. thank you, mr. johnson. i want to say i am also nonpartisan. and the previous caller was from the same region that i grew up -- i am white, but it doesn't matter. he spoke the truth. now, i got one quest you just to lighten it up, just to make you smile. there was a in the 1980's called "self-destruction." i've been texting everybody emailing everybody, they should redo that song, because too many black people are dying. thank you sir. guest: thank you for thacomment. i remember the song.

i grew up in the 1980's as well. too many americans are dying. drills, now, for young people, blackno asian elementary school children, little children. it is no longer a fire drill it is a gun violence drill. we have far too many people die because we are wrongheaded on our gun policy. i'm a hunter. i enjoy hunting. but i do not need an automatic machine gun to deer hunt or bird hunt. we need to reform how we look at our criminal justice system, how we look and treat the concerns of the right, because it really is a decision between do we want to keep our young people safe from all communities from all economic levels, or do we want to have individual gun rights that is is proportionate to the quality of life that we want to have? host:d is in tennessee, a

republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: i've got a question for you. we have been asking for -- the illegals come over here, and theyet billions and billions of dollars. how come they can't give that to man for what they did years ago? i think you ought to preaching about that. guest: thank you for your comment. let's be honest about what is taking place here. human beings are human beings. -- unless you are native to this nation, we are all here from somewhere else. the can never fall prey to an us versus us paradigm.

we need to truly look at what is equitable, what is important, and how do we live in a society in peace and wrote the other side of that is far too many industries recognized that we are running out of a workforce. so individuals who are migrating here from under -- other countries are being lured by corporate entities seeking a cheap labor force care that is what is really taking place. like iigrants who came here from european countries in the 1800s and the early 1920's, african americans who were forced here from the continent of africa -- we came here to be exploited as a cheap labor force. when we begin to look at who was really profitingallowing the divisiveness of race an ethnic and gender differences create a profit margin for the billionaire class when we should be looking at what is really at stake.

what is at stake is who is getting taxed, who is not taxed what those tax dollars are spent on. that is what we should be talking about. when it comes to reparations anytime you have a cause of death, there should be a repairing of that. in many ways, there is both monetary repairing but also policy repairing. i want to right-sizde the conversation so it is not an us versus tus paradigm but what is and ethical policy construct we want to have. host: as a reminder, president biden set to announce an exit of order on migration flows at the southern border. here is the wall street journal. he will seek to tighten the border, the order to limit silent to limit crossings ahead of is their headline. from the washington times, it is a daily average takes

effect if the daily average of c.j., democratic caller. caller: hello, good morning. like to break the issues out that i've been hearing, because i do not think they speak to the issue, which is the issue of, like, you know, our true heart our american heart. i know it sounds wishy-washy poetic but you know, my activism days goes back to dr. benjamin hoke's times in college -- host: can you get to your point? we have others waiting to talk to our guest. caller: ok. does mr. johnson think that

pinpointing, like, the so-called black issues, which, to me, are sort of like when people say the abortion issue. it's not an abortion issue, it is an economic issue, it is a social issue. it has not morality with what women are up people, historically, are up against and our culture -- host: mr. johnson, are you following? guest:respond if the caller is finished. host: go ahead. guest: i absolutely agree. our issues are affecting all americans with one sick distinction. our racial identity has been

used -- with one distinction. our racial identity has been used. we are always advocating for equality under the law. members of the naacp have a profiled view of the world. we grew up in segregated america. he became a lawyer, a judge, the first black chairman of the fcc he was active with the reblican party, headed up the naacp -- one of his most favorite speeches was talking about who wilgo and really address the issues that america is confronted with? those issues are under a racial construct that has used ourracial identity to prevent equal protection under the law. those issues that

confronted with our american issues. whether or not there is opportunity to ensure our children are prepared or a future, a future world that is different from the past. it's whether or not our racial identity would benefit in terms of not being confronted with housing or discriminatory practices aroundbut those issues are also american issues. in terms of the heart of who we are, as a nation, we must accept we have both a prosperous past but also an ugly history we must learn from so we do not repeat the ugly history of the past as we move to a global reality of the future. host: let's go to john, ohio, republican. caller: i would like derrick johnson to address this problem. 200 years ago, slave owners broke up families and forced illiteracy. today, these two problems still

exist. would he explain why? guest: those still exist because, once we abolished slavery as a system support our economy, there were years of what was called reconstruction. after those 10 years, major corporate interests from both political parties cut a deal to usher back into a system of segregation. in that system, industry maintained domination of control over the education of african-americans. they minimized the support for school districts as a result of a supreme court decision of separate but equal and forced states to treat the level and quality of education of african-american children from then the majority white children

and poor white children to have a lesser education. that continues to persist. most leaders of the nation recognize the important -- they transformed the education some 30 years ago. that is why they have some of the highest literacy rates because they see education as a national interest. in this country, we are trying to our education system through vouchers and charter schools as opposed to understanding it is within our national interest or train all young people to a prosperous future. you look at the city of seattle where you have major fortune 500 tech companies, they will settle with ringing in individuals around the globe under a special visa as opposed to invest in the seattle public school district and train all of those talented young people to serve

that economy of the future around tech. that is unfortunate. until we see the delivery of quality education, public education for all children as a national interest, we will continue to have the same problem. it is not just african-americans, it is poor whites, latinos,unfortunately, it is something that will create a lasting problem for this nation. host: we will go yvonne, independent. caller: good morning. hi, mr. derrick. i have three quick questions i need you to speak about. one, how is it that this government finds money to give to the immigrants that are crossing the border? and we still here, in this country -- i am a product of

slavery, family who was enslaved. why is the hr 40 bill still sitting on the table? why are we as black people in this country, constantly giving our black votes away, and we get absolutely nothing to catch up the economics in this country? thank you so much, sir. please speak on that. guest: thank you for the question. first of all, we should look at what is the priority of this nation and its spending. quite frankly, we give more money away to foreign nations than we d ensure that we re-tool the workforce for the future. status for everyone. secondly we should never fall into the lowest common denominator of why is that them and not us when there is more at the table for everyone. we give more corporate tax breaks than we do to any single

community. that is unfortunate. we watch as company after company benefit from american citizens who pay more than their fair share in taxes, only for those corporations to have tax breaks that most american citizens are not even aware of. for the naacp, and for all of us we need to move away from that comparative conversation that is a distraction and really look at what is the funding priority of this nation? how do we write a funding priority to benefit all citizens particularly african americans citizens, to ensure we are competitive? that is the real conversation we need to have, and that is a conversation we can only have if we actively engage in our votes who understand our interests

not fall to the destruction of race and gender and other morality arguments. host:our viewers, one can go to the naacp website to learn more. the president and ceo, derrick conversation. guest: thank you for the opportunity. host: when we come back, a discussion on issues before the supreme court including the flag controversies surrounding justice samuel alito. stay with us. ♪ >> today an unprecedented our moderna land on the shores of normandy.

-- an unprecedented and armada landed on the shores of normandy. >> these are the man -- men who took the cliffs, these are heroes who helped end the war. >> 2 million suns from 15 countries jumped into the skies into -- >> they mounted their own attacks at that exact moment on these beaches. the forces of turned the tide of the 20th century. >> the road was hard and longy it weary and valiant men. history will always record where that road began. it began here come with the first footprints on the beaches of normandy. >> more than 150,000 souls set

off toward this tiny sliver of sand upon which hung more than just a war. but rather the course of human history. >> today we remember those who fell in honor those who fought right here in normandy. >> watch c-span's livecoverage of the 80th anniversary of d-day thursday, featuspeech from normandy, france. >> to be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's about books with current nonfiction book releases as well as industry news and trends through interviews. you can learn about it on c-span

it now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at our table this morning ed whelan . we are talking about the supreme court in upcoming decisions they are yet to issue by the end of june. i want to start with justice alito's letter on calls for him to refuse -- recuse himself from cases. he said about the flags at his home, is that i had nothing to do with it. as soon as i saw it i asked my wife to take it down. my wife and i own a virginia home jointly and she therefore has the legal right to usees fit. there were no additional steps i could have taken to have the

flag taken down more promptly. you agree with him? guest: i agree with his decision not to recuse is easy. the broader question that was spelled out years ago in a different was, a spouses views and actions however passionately held and discharged are not imputed to her spouse. it is the exact situation we have here. it is in stark contrast to other get little attention. back in 2016 during the presidential campaign that ruth bader ginsburg gave interviews in which she spoke very harshly of republican presidential candidate donald trump. she called him a faker and said she couldn't understand how he hadn't been required to disclose his tax returns. she even said i can't imagine what the country would be with donald as the president. i can understand her saying those sentiments but sing them

in national interviews and she never recused from cases involving the 2016 election. and when the case come up on donald trump's release of the taxes, she didn't recuse. you had the justice herself engaging in conduct that presented a stronger case for recusa here in the conduct of justice alito's wife. in the ethics it themselves in a proceeding wheret lega questioned, when unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of relevant circumstances would doubt the justice could fairly discharge his or her duties. in the new york times when he writes about the letter to congress he says notably at the justice alito letter does not dispute that the upside down flag conveyed support and before

the court this term is a case dealing with a january 6 brian turk. -- january 6 rioter. guest:guest: in the legal aftermath of this ugly neighborhood dispute this reporter went down and determined this was a neighborhood dispute. mrs. alito said that this was a sign of international distress. no one back then thought this until two weeks ago and i can't imagine one person in 100 in this countryside down flag with the movement. justice alito did not address the points. it was irrelevant because whatever she meant by it had no

bearing on his obligation to sit in this case. you cited the standard for recusal that what comes first is the general obligation. host: there was another flag, the appeal to have an flag that was flown at a different property in a different state. and this from the politics in nation from the washington post, today it is an emphasis that the movement that has become ever more comfortable with the idea that political be necessary to save america from those largely imagined in the left. extremists say they are fighting communism and satanism that they blame for societal ills talking about the appeal to heaven's flag. guest: the same appeal to heaven flag flew over a san francisco hall for decades until they decided it last weekke it down. flags can have all sorts of

dierent meanings. this is a flag george washington authorized and is flown widely. the idea this is some sort of symbol that we understood as stop the steal is far-fetched. host: interpretations very and it is said they appealed to have that flag broadly to host political id that mythologized his revolutionary history are a precedent for a modern-day uprising. guest: the san francisco city hall was flyinthat flag over its building as it was for decades up until last weepretation is far-fetched. host: the january 6 case that i referenced talked about the decision before the court that these justices had to make and the impact of it. guest: the question before the court is whether a former president has criminal immunity

from federal criminal charges for actions taken as president and if so, what the extent of the immunity is. this is a question that relates not just to donald trump's conduct on january 6 but to his course of conduct in the aftermath of the 20i was and remains very conduct during that period. atter and legal question whether he has immunity and we will see with the court rules in the next few weeks. host: what do you think about not getting that decision yet from the justices? do you read into that or not? guest: that case was argued barely a month ago. the court is right near the end of its term. still half of the cases are yet to come out. it is a very intense and busy time for court. i would be surprised if the

ruling had come out by now especially given all the issues that were raised by lots of different justices thinking through the consequences of this issue. i think it is very likely the ruling will come down in the probably day of the term. host: this is an opinion piece from msnbc where they say the court delay on trump immunity gets more outrageous by the day, each day without a ruling on immunity from the justice is an intentional delay. this was written by a former house judiciary committee member. he writes in the piece that what is more unbelievable is the supreme court had the chance to consider the issue in december but chose not to and decided to take the case in late february. the case. guest: with all respect is far-fetched

reading. no one would expect a case like this with such consequences and importance to be decided so quickly. the justices want to think this through and get it right. there will probably be more than one opinion. i don't see how anyone familiar with the operation of the supreme court could fault the court for taking two months as it will probably to issue the opinion in this case. host: other decisions we are waiting on from the court as well. want you to join us in the conversation to talk abou you can do so if you are a republican at (202) 748-8000 democrats at (202) 748-8000 and -- republicans at (202) 748-8001 , democrats at (202) 748-8000independents at (202) 748-8002. what else are you watching it

for from the court this term? guest: you are testing my memory on those yet to decided. host: if you have the two abortion cases. do you think those are key cases to watch? guest: they are certainly interesting and important cases. one is involving the fda approval of the abortion pill and that presents interesting questions on standing. we will see what the court has to say on that. host: a legal test for a standing, what do you need for that? guest:ing is legal jargon for whether or not a plaintiff has a right to pursue a claim in court. there is no general tax payer's standing. i can't file suit and say i object to the weigh money on x, y, or z. that is a case for how am i suffering particular injury from

that. the question is the plaintiffs, the doctors a have suffered recognizable injury and will see decides that question. the other abortion case you referred to is a very complicated one involving how a federal law and how it fits with idaho's life of a mother exception for abortion. i think the court will end up determining that federal law does not override the state law but we will see. host: there are also a couple of cases before the court dealing with social media companies facebook and content moderation. what do you think the court comes down on those cases? guest: aren't cases i follow closely i have to acknowledge what based on oral argument it seems the court may not have a lot to say on those.

people are loong at some decisive ruling may be disappointed. the court takes cases with big issues and they end up being decided often on narrow grounds. host: we are waiting for the justices to decide on a case dealing with the january 6 rioter who is accused of guest: this presents a technical statutory question about whether a provision of an act seems to be dealing with destruction of records can be interpreted more broadly to relate to any interference with a proceeding. it has implications for the prosecution by the actions of donald trump in that oneof the charges against him are rooted in the same provision. possible the provision could be interpreted in a way, even if it doesn't

apply to this one protester but might still apply to donald trump. interesting and challenging questions. we will see. it wouldn't surprise me if there is a broad ideological consensus on that one. host: let's circle back to the idea recusal. what to think about some calling for justice thomas to recuse himself based on his wife's actions? guest: it gets back to the same standard set forth in a case in which a ninth circuit judge's wife had participated in a very case in which she was sitting. the organization she led wrote brief and she had conflict engaged in strategy sessions and celebrated on the ruling. judge did not recuse himself and they told the

supreme court a spouses views and actions however passionately held and discharged are not imputed to her spouse. judge reinhardt is not presumed to be the reservoir in carrier of his wife's beliefs. that broad principle is co in that case it was conquered by the fact that judge reinhardt's wife had participated in the very case by submitting briefs andave recused. theer principle answers some of your question about justice thomas. host: let's go to david in gaithersburg, independent. caller: thank you for including me. it has been interesting to listen to the comments in the juxtaposes with something you all aired recently. there was a panel with people dismissive about the alito, which i kind of agree with and putting that against

the panel where they were accepting of the new reporting and how could he not recuse himself in hearing the gentleman talked about that he thinks probably the state law, and how on the panel, i can't believe i have sent mention the supremacy law. i just mention these because i hope others like me find themselves not at all on either of those pages. i hope when it comes to the media and the left and with the gentleman that if i had an upside down american flag stening to rage of the machine. at the same time i wish we would look at alito on the merits. he is an embarrassment as a jurist and so is thomas. some who may be leaning a little left can draw a line between folks like cavanaugh who seemed to be trying to get into the administrative questions of the

places. question is, how do you feel about the i am asking that you may want to see it go but do you have a read on the justices? and also the immigration case where dhs keeps not doing with the court says. do you think they will rule the same way. guest: i don't think i have been dismissive of the news reports. i've tried to put them in what i think is pon the case i haveon the legal issues but he raises another interesting case being decided this term involving the so-called chevron deference, should judges continue to defer to agency interpretations of federal law so long as those interpretations pass a minimum threshold ofreasonableness. i have been supportive of

chevron than other conservatives and it is difficult to come up with just the right test should be but i think there are some conceptual problems with chevron and i think the court may at the very leasta bit. i am not familiar with the dhs case as familiar as i should be. host: ray ohio, democratic caller. caller: it has been 50 years ago in august that richard nixon resigned. president ford pardoned richard nixon. as such that would appear that they both knew that richard nixon had no immunity. all of america knew richard nixon had no immunity. the appellate court held a hearing for why there was no

immunity for president trump. why is the supreme court taking this case up? it is politically motivated and why the court would be taking this case up when most of america those who know the history of america know that a president does not have immunity when it comes to criminal when out of office, that the hello -- have no immunity when it comes to the law. host: let's get a response. guest: it is true that gerald ford pardoned richard nixon and it arguably applies to could have been a prosecution. notion that the former president enjoys absolute immunity. the supreme court took this case because there are interes that there may be more limited immunity in certain contexts and there was criticism of the d.c. circuit judge case, around some of its reasoning. i think the court believes it ought to address the issues and

give an authoritativethem. host: what part of the reasoning of the questioning? guest: well, the d.c. seemed to say that there would be no at all by some and sitting as president for which that person can be immune fromink the court in looking at the view invited the parties to address whether there were some circumstances in which there might be immunity. host: public versus private acts, is that what it will come down to? was the president acting in a public capacity or private act? guest: public, private official, unofficithose are some of the questions. i think there is a lot to be said for the argument there

is no criminal immunity at all for former president. i would not be surpris if some justices rule on that ground. that was my read on the case that i was expecting to go on my own thinking. we sought in oral arguments twists and complications. host: what were those complications for those who may want to go back and listen to the oral argument. we covered it on c-span and you can find it on our website. give your insight as to what parts or who should they be listening to. guest: that is the tough question. oral arguments reading tea leaves, we alli would encourage people not to go back and read the oral argument but just to sit back and wait. view the opinions carefully when they come down. i think there is concern about

how expensive some federal criminal laws are(o and how open to abuse they would be. some discussion and oral argument about how some laws could have been deemed to apply against fdr's internment of japanese americans or against actions of drone strikes taken by barack obama. i think the court is really trying to figure out what are the sound principles here. my answer to that is, if anything goes as far as prosecutionse left to the local processes and there are not discernible standards for deciding when immunity exists and when it doesn't. host: trent is in monroe louisiana, independent. caller: i will bring this right back to the appeal to heaven ag. i wanted to tell our guests that

the president of the ethics and public policy is to be kind to meet years ago. every once in a while i would call him and he would talk to him and ask intelligent questions and he was very helpful. you guys have been on some fascinating think tanks in bc and on your website is an article about how can we save evolution. it is about the evolution of man and i have been talking to olson about that. c-span on sunday it ran a lecture about cs lewis' abolitionam using both of you guys to ask my question here and to tell you what middle-class americans are feeling such warmth about theppeal to heaven because we are in such frustrated decision -- a right now. host: speed it up i will ask

because the house is ready to gavel in. caller: do you want me to wait? host: no, just hurry up and make your point. caller: it said once christianity is evicted from a society, a host of devils will rush in. do you feel like thate a political position we need to exert. it is middle america. guest: thank you for your comment about the ethics andpublic policy center and about my late colleague. i appreciate that. the of religion and religiously guiding moral convictions in public policy is a crucially important one. those who are critical of morally guided religious beliefs perhaps now may have more insight to what the alternative is and that may be much less

favorable. we live in a society that is founded on judeo-christian moral beliefs we can see lots of problems in our society from our straying from those. host:, scum a fillet -- dennis, philadelphia, real quick. -- caller: i will try to be as quick as i can. but to follow up on the ohio caller, it is not just the fact that the supreme court decided to take up the case but also the fact that they waited until late april to hear the or arguments, especially when the events in colorado took place only a month after they decided. host: comments? guest: there was a vote in the court wanted to decide that case before then and it did expedite it. i don't think anyone here has made a strong argument there is

any great advantage to rushing the decision. two months for a case like this is not a long time. host: thanks for the conversation. we appreciate it. the house will begin work on the first federal spending bill for 2025, for military construction projects and veterans affairs as well as imposing sanctions on the international criminal court officials for seeking an arrest award against israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. that is on thegavel-to-gavel coverage right here osp