>> coming up on "washington journal," we wiltake your calls and comments live. then wall street journal supre court correspondent jess bravin discusses today's expected supreme court ruling on former president trump's claim of absolute immunity. and cliff young, president of polling and societal transfer episodes, discusses rent polling for campaign 2024. and lawrence yun looks arising home prices and the overall state of the nation's housing sector. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning, everyone. our cameras are live outside of the supreme court this morning as we await the nine justices

ruling on whether former president trump is immune from prosecution for his role in the january 6, 2021, attack on the u.s. capitol. we will begin with your thoughts on this case. democrats can dial in at (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. include your first name, city, and state. or on facebook or x. we will get to your calls, texts, and posts in a minute. let's begin with some bloomberg reporting. the courts of you may boil down to this, was he acting as president or as a private citizen? some of the nine justices

indicated during oral arguments april 26 that in their view, former presidents can be prosecuted but only over private conduct while in office. it was a question posed many times in oral arguments. justice ketanji brown jackson questioning former president trump's attorney about his view on the actions of the sitting president and whether they are immune from prosecution. [video clip] >> so i think i now understand better your position in discussions with justice kavanaugh became clear th you are saying that for the private act of a president, there is no immunity. but for the official act of president, there is immunity. is tt your position? >> i agree with that. one thing that occurs to me is that this sort of difficult ne drawing problem we are having with all of these hypotheticals, is this a private act republic act, is being

necessitated by that assumption. because, of course, if offial acts did not get absolute immunity, then it would not matter, we would not have to identify which are private a which are public, correct? >> that is the approach of the d.c. circuit. >> so figure out whether it is private or public, we have to understand that we're only doing that because of an underlying assumption that public acts get immunity. let me explore that assumption. why is it, as matter of theory, and i am hoping you can zoom w out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is perforng his official acts? everyone else, therere lots of folks who have very high-powered jobs and maka lot of consequential decisions and they do so against the backdrop of potentl criminal prosecution if they suld break the law in

that capacity, and we understand and know as a matter of fact that the president of the united states has the best lawys in the world. when he is making a decision, he can consult with pretty much anybody as to whether or not this thing is criminal or not. so why wou we have a situation in whiche would s that the president should be making official acts without any responsibility for following the law? >> i respectfully disagree with that characterization. a president absolutely is required to follow the law in all his official acts, but the remedy is the question, could he be subject to personal responsibility? host: the argument over whether the former has immunity in this january 6, 2021, attack on the u.s. capitol.

cbs conducted a poll two weeks ago were they asked those who participated, on the former president, should the former president have immunity? should all presidents have immunity? that was the question that they asked. this is what they found out on the question of the former president. should he have immunity for actions taken while president? republicans, 67% said yes, he should. independents, 36% said yes. 10% of democrats said yes. 90% of democrats said no, he should not. 64% of independents agreed. 33% of republicans said no, the former president should not. we are getting your thoughts on the supreme court's decision today. today's the last day of the supreme court's term, and the immunity case is one of the big ones left for them to issue.

our cameras are live outside the court, and we want to know your thoughts on it this first hour of "washington journal." more from the oral argument. the supreme court heard from the justice department's counselor to special counsel jack smith. here is justice brett kavanaugh asking him about which specific presidential actions could be prosecuted. [video clip] >> do you agree that there are some aspect of article two presidential power that are exclusive and that congress cannot regulate and therefore cannot criminalize? >> absolutely. >> ok, for other official acts the president made take that are not within that exclusive power, assume for the sake of argument in this question that there is not blanket immunity for those official acts but that to prerve the separation of powers, to provide fair notice,

to make sure congress has thought about this, that congressas to speak clearly to criminalize official acts of the president a specific reference. that seems to be what the opinn suggests. >> justice, i would like to take all of those in turnecause i do not think this court's cases speak on it broad. i do not think that the office of legal counsel opinion stands for this broad proposition tha unless a president is specifically named, he is not in the statute. i do not think that necessary to afford adequate protection for the president's valid article to functions. >> sorry to interrupt, but you said unless there is a serious constitutional question. >> correct. >> it is a serious constitutional question whether a statute can be appld to a president's official acts. so wouldn't you always interpret the statute n to apply to the

president, even under your rmulation, unless congress had spoken with some clarity? >> i do not think across-the-board the serious constitutional question exists on apping any statute -- >> 371 conspiracy and fraud to the united states n be used against a lot of psidential activities historically, with a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president. host: was he acting as president or as a private citizen? bloomberg says that is the question for the supreme court when they issued their ruling on this immunity claim. mike in youngstown, ohio, democratic caller, you are up first. what do you say? caller: i say the country is in sad condition. it is so divided. there is so much hatred out there.

what is it? trump has brought nothing but grief and more grief to our country. in particular, i am tired of the whole thing. i cannot believe it. host: tie your thoughts back to the supreme court case here in the ruling. what impact will it have given what you just said? caller: i don't know. i have no idea. host: all right. alan in arlington, virginia, republican, your thoughts on this immunity claim? caller: hi there. i just want to start by saying that this entire case is a sham, that trump even has to fight this, that he is responsible for january 6. he did not do anything wrong. he asked the crowd to be peaceful. and let's also not forget that nancy pelosi released the

national guard and that fbi agent's were on the capitol that day. so this needs to be talked out to begin with. justice kavanaugh was absolutely right, that any creative prosecutor can essentially find any reason to prosecute a president for conspiracy. so i do not think that they should mess with the immunity. host: all right. this is from bloomberg's reporting on jack smith and what he is prosecuting the former president over in his role on january 6. pressuring state legislatures and election officials, disregard the popular vote, organized fraud unit slate of electors in seven targeted states, attempted to use the justice department to conduct sham election crime probes and

push states to accept false electors, attended to enlist former vice president mike pence to use his ceremonial role on january 6 to fraudulently alter the election results, and excluded the assault on the capitol by a mob of supporters to delay certification. those are the five categories that jack smith has outlined that all stem from the former president's false claim that the election was rigged against him. that is bloomberg's reporting. danny in south carolina, and dependent. hi. caller: no one is above the law. trump should go to jail. two i. host: rick in boston, democratic caller. caller: morning. host: go ahead. caller: as far as the immunity

thing, if he was not committing all these crimes, it would not be a question in the first place. the supreme court, they are a joke. we need to overrule those clowns. they're trying to go against the country. [indiscernible] committing all these crimes and stuff, people giving them all that money. there are people that make no money, low income people, good people. he is giving money to the rich people. and he talked about black -- host: rick, we're going to stick to the supreme court this morning. our cameras are live outside of the court. we expect a ruling at 10:00 a.m. eastern time this morning, when the justices will decide whether or not the former president's claim of absolute -- whether or not they agree with the former president's claim of absolute immunity. again, from bloomberg, several

justices, including the chief, john roberts, discussed asking the lower court to take a closer look at the allegations to distinguish what is part of a president's job and what isn't. some supreme court observers think that that is the likely outcome today. the court kicks it backed out to the lower court, and then the judge there has to decide. what is presidential action and what is private? shirley in stratford, connecticut, democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to just let everyone know that this is such a disrespect to each other. trump has brought nothing but hate to this country, and he has no honor. i am disappointed with the supreme court, because why would they take a job like this or a

case like this that says that the president has to have total immunity and they have to figure out what is his duty and what is not. in this country, we never had a problem or misunderstanding of what the president's job was. for them to say that they don't know and they have to figure this out after this country has been in place for hundreds of years is unbelievable. i believe that, at this point, the supreme court should drop this case, because we know what the president's job is. during his job, he has to do that job. when he is a private citizen, he has to obey the law like every other private citizen, like you and i. i do not understand why they are doing this. host: with cbs a couple weeks

ago, they asked the question, in general, should presidents have immunity for actions taken while in office, and 70% of those who participated said no, should not have immunity for actions taken while in the office, in the oval office. sharon is a republican in new york, let's hear from you. caller: good morning. my thing is, there are different elements of the law. we, as citizens, we understand what the president does. january 6, when they were -- i called them protesters, attacking the building, and the president was in the white house

, never did deploy the national guard, and it is his duty to do it, not the speaker of the house's duty. so if there is a riot in the street, it is the cop's duty to come will secure the building or whatever is going on. so the supreme court has to decide, what is immunity or what is the president's duty? in the constitution i have read so far, i have not seen that they let the citizens going destroy a peaceful transition of power. host: sharon, as a republican, do you think the president should have immunity for his role on january 6? caller: absolutely not. absolutely not. and i love donald trump to death. i love him to death, but that

day -- i do not hate him because i do not practice hatred, but i was disappointed. host: what do you think of this cbs poll? when they asked just republicans your views of presidential immunity, 67% of republicans favor immunity for the former president, but only 45% favor immunity for all u.s. presidents. what is your reaction to those numbers? caller: listen, we have never been in this position before. all my years from what i have seen, there has always been a peaceful transition of power. i have never seen this before. so this is kind of mind-boggling to me. i cannot understand what is going on. it is just like a football game,

when one side wins, you congratulate the other side and walk away. you do not spread propaganda. it causes conflict, and this country is in turmoil. i have never seen anything like this, and i'm 61 years old. i cannot understand what is going on. i do call myself a republican, but i do not fit in this array. the president should never have immunity when disrupting. that is not his job. not knowing what his job is. host: i want to go through the front papers this morning of the national newspapers as we continue here this morning on the "washington journal." because the other story that is dominating the front pages this morning, is the first presidential debate and president biden's performance in it. new york times, biden campaign

says days cleaning up a 90 minute mess. wall street journal this morning, biden's top allies urge party to stick with him. show of support contrast with private worries over his debate performance. this from usa today, can biden overcome damaging debate? also this morning from the washington post, a push to save biden's 2024 bid, debate prompts of frenzied effort within the party and ours worked to reassure and calm anxious democrats. finally, the washington times, democrats weigh options with biden wavering after lackluster debate performing. we are going to talk later on

here on the "washington journal" at 8:00 a.m. eastern time with clifford young, polling and societal trends president of ipsos, about their polling following the debate on thursday night. there is also a polling from cbs on the question of the presidents mental clarity. some troubling numbers. the former president has troubling numbers on the question of truth telling from the first presidential debate. we will talk about that in our second hour of today's "washington journal." this morning, the supreme court, we are waiting for the justices to rule on the immunity case, and our cameras are live outside of the court. that decision expected around 9:00 a.m. eastern time. roland in detroit, and independent. caller: hi. i do not know what i am missing, but what did trump do on january 6? i mean, immunity from what?

are they saying it is the -- is the justice department saying he should have gone over able horn to say go and -- that he was on a bullhorn saying to flip nancy pelosi's desk over? i do not get it. host: the indictment did not break down former president trump's alleged conduct between two categories. the document instead describes the manner and means in which, this is jack's mixed -- jack smith's documentation, the former president allegedly conspired to object and deceased the federal government after he lost the government. it was broken down into five categories that stem from the former president's false claims that the election was rigged against him. pressured state legislators and election officials to disregard the popular vote, organized fraudulent electors in states,

attempted to use the justice department to conduct shame election crime probes and push states to accept false electors, use the vice president's ceremonial role to go against the results, and a mob of supporters delaying certification. your reaction to those categories? caller: absolutely allegations. i have got to go, there is an announcement -- host: a democratic caller from arkansas, jb. caller: this is a very bad question. i am not sure any one law could cover every instance of things that a president would do. for example, to take it worldwide, with vladimir putin because it a war criminal for

what he's doing in ukraine or netanyahu for what he is doing in gaza? i would say if you're going to make a law of any kind like this, it would have to be something that a president did in the interest of national security. for example, like harry truman dropping the bomb on japan. he was doing that in the interest of national security. other people might say he is a war criminal. but if he did it to help the country, he should get immunity for that. but there are so many different ways that this thing would apply, i am not sure any one law would cover it all. i think each case might have to go before the supreme court on its own. host: that is -- hypotheticals like the one you just gave came up during the oral argument on april 25.

let's listen to one of them from justice kagan questioning former president trump's lawyer. [video cli >> how about if a president orders the military to stage a coup? >> as the chief justice pointed ou earlier, where there is a whole series of guidelines against that, so to speak, prohibiting the military to follow a blind unlawful act. if one adopts the fitzgerald test we advanced, it might be an official act. in response to these hypotheticals, has to be impeached and convicted before criminally prosecuted. >> well, he is gone, let's say, the president that ordered the military to stage a coup. he is no longer a president, wasn't impeached, could not be impeached, but he ordered the military to stage a coup, and you are saying it is an official

act that is immune? >> it depends on the circumstces. >> what does that mean? he was the president. is the commander-in-chief. he talks to his generals all the time. and he told the generals, i don't feel like leaving office, i want to stage a coup. is that immune? >> if there is an official act, there needs to be impeachment conviction before him. >> if it is an official act -- it an official act? >> on the way you described that hypothetical, it could well be. i just do not know. it is fact-specific. >> that answer sense to me as, under my test, is an official act, but it sure sounds bad, doesn't it? >> it sounds bad, andhat is why the framers have a series of structural checks that have successfully prevented that very kind of extreme hypothetical.

that is the wisdom of the framers, they saw the risks tt needed to be guarded against, not the notion that the president might escape criminal prosecution for something very unkely in these unlikely scenarios, but what is much more likely and much more destrucve to the public. >> framers did not put an immunity clause into the constitution. there were and some state constitutions. they did not provide immunity to the president. not sourprising, they were reacng against a monarch who claims to be above the law. wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law? >> two things in response to that, they did put an immunity clause in. it was originally understood that an immunity principle was set forth in marbury against madison, and they did discuss

and conder checks on the presidency. they did not say we have criminal prosecution. benjamin franklin says we do not have that, that is not an option. everybody cried out against that as unconstitutional. pages 64 to 69, it is clear. >> thank you. host: from april of this year, the oral argument in the former president's claim of immunity against prosecution for his role in the 2020 election. jack smith, special counsel prosecuting him for election interference in 2020. as we noted, there are five categories of prosecution. the supreme court taking up this case in april. today's the day we expect them to decide. it is the last day of the supreme court's term. the immunity case, one of the bigger ones from this term, expected around 10:00 a.m.

eastern time. this post was put out this ing on xth will be the final na ithe coffin ofny integrity which scotus still possesses, regardless of how they rule. by sitting on a case so willfully, they have made it so this trial will not go forward before the election and possibly never. we are asking your thoughts on it, and you can join us, as well, on x, using handle @cspanwj. in a text, including your first name, city, and state, at (202) 748-8003. also on facebook.com/c-span. and on the lines, those are on your screen. john, republican, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the question is, does the president have immunity or

not? you cannot pick and choose what issues he has immunity from and what he does not. you just cannot do that. that is kind of what was going through with the weaponization of the justice system. a two-tier justice system right now. last but not least, joe biden better hope the president has immunity, with all things he has done on the border and other things, a long list of things he has done wrong. i think he better hope he has immunity. thank you. host: all right. from bloomberg's reporting, the ruling would be a challenge for special counsel jack smith, potentially narrowing his historic case and preventing it from going to trial before trump's november rematch against president joe biden. and if he wins, mr. trump could order the justice department to

drop the case. but any ruling that keeps the case alive is a setback for mr. trump, too, leaving the former president at risk of criminal charges that could result in years behind bars. the justices indicated they may send the case back to u.s. district judge who is overseeing the case. the presidents already enjoyed civil immunity for all acts within the outer perimeter of official duties, according to a 1982 supreme court ruling in an unrelated case. but the court has not weighed whether the president is immune from criminal charges. and that is the decision that we await today from the supreme court, again, around 10:00 a.m. eastern time. now the judge, and her ruling in 2023, on this issue on immunity from the former president, the judge wrote

whatever immunity a g president may enjoy, the united states only has onf executive at a time, and that position does not ca lifelong get out of jail free pass. former president's enjoy no spiaconditions on their federal criminal liability four year service as commander-in-chiefoe not bestow on him the dinright of kings to evade the criminal accountability that govern his fellow citizens. that is how the judge ruled the former president's claimed absolute immunity in this case. it was appealed and brought before the supreme court. now the nine justices way in. richard and brentwood, maryland, democratic caller. caller: yes, good morning. i have been trying to wrap my mind around the fact that if he is seeking immunity from january 6, why is that not also an

admission of guilt that he did something quite wrong? in sending people down to the capitol on the day they were going to certify the election, i do not see where that is a public task to do that, and considering that these are private undertones to keep him in office. lastly -- i hope that made sense, because it just seems like it is an admission of guilt by him seeking immunity. lastly, had there been troops down there on the capitol, it would have given him another lever to pull after his vice president refused to play ball. he definitely would have declared martial law, and that would have suspended the whole process. all those who say nancy pelosi did not ask for troops or trump

did not send troops, had there been troops on the premises, he would have declared martial law. but i am still -- i do not know how that is not considered an admission of guilt, by him asking his lawyers and the legal gibberish they put forth, how that is not considered an admission of guilt that he did attempt to suspend the process of certifying an election. should have been treason. thank you for the discussion. host: all right, richard's thoughts there. we're going to continue our conversation here this morning with all eyes on the supreme court building would we await a final decision on whether former president donald trump is immune from criminal prosecution. we are going to keep the conversation going here into the top of the hour. joining us will be jess bravin, supreme court reporter for the

wall street journal. later, at the top of the hour, cliff young, president of the polling and societal transfer ipsos will join us and discuss his organizations recent polling on thursday nights presidential debate and top issues in the campaign. we will be right back. ♪ >> friday nights, watched c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a roundabout campaign coverage, and one-stop shop to discover what the candidates are saying to voters. friday, we will give you a sneak peek at the democratic national convention in chicago. we will speak with a dnc convention executive about the intended message, the dnc host committee executive director with a preview of the convention and the efforts to raise funding and involve the community, and a member of choose chicago, talking about efforts to connect

local businesses to conventions. you can watch the campaign trail preview of the republican national convention any time our website. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, friday nights at 7:30 eastern on c-span. you can download the podcast on c-span now. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> on january 16 of this year, after nearly 30 years, a judge retired on the circuit court of appeals for the district of columbia, and on the cover of his new memoir is a photo of judge tatum and his black robe with his dog standing on his left side. the book is titled "vision: a memoir of blindness and justice." he wrote the book together with his wife, saying

we sat at hour-long test overlooking an immense oak tree on the hills. edie on the left with her laptop, me on the right with my computer. we rode, debated, argued, laughed, deleted words, paragraphs, and pages. slowly but surely, a book emerged. >> the new memoir, on this episode of book notes plus. >> c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here is a highlight from a key moment. >> for every soldier, thank you, america. for every sailor, thank you, america. for every marine, thank you, america. for every airman, thank you, america. for every coast guardsmen, thank you, america.

from all of us who proudly served in the middle east in your armed forces, thank you to the great people of the united states of america. [applause] >> c-span, powered by cable. >> 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 future markers with interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. it makes it easy to quickly get an idea what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend eight few minutes on c-span's points of interest. ♪

>> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrants 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced 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, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to the "washington journal." the media is gathering outside of the supreme court this morning. our cameras are there, as well. we're waiting for the justices to decide the remaining cases of this term, one of them being the former president's claim of immunity. jess bravin is at our table this morning, supreme court reporter with the wall street journal, to talk more about this case.

let's begin with the ruling. what is the issue that the justices have to decide in this case? guest: this is a case about whether mr. trump is immune, even from prosecution, for things he did while he was president. trump in this appeal, called trump versus the united states, very momentous sounding, he argues that if you prosecute or if you can prosecute a former president for things he did while in office, it will chill future presidents from taking bold action in the nation's interest, that they are always thinking about the future, how an opponent may take office someday and they might be held accountable for things they did that they thought were important for the country. that is the argument and theory behind it. whether he did it or not, does not matter, cannot be prosecuted. host: is he claiming immunity? guest: that is what he would

like in a term he has used. but it is not what the court seems to be interested in. the court really wanted to draw a distinction between official acts, things he did as president , and private actions, things he did as a private individual. even trump's lawyer acknowledged that some of the allegations against trump in the indictment handed up last year constitute private acts. the distinction between public and private or official and private might be hard to draw, and i think that is what we will be looking at closely at what the justices say. host: what are their options? guest: their options are to say if it is an action that has purely personal interests behind it and is done without regard to the office of the presidency, that is a private act. the issue in this case is that many seem to be mixed. for example, if the president is talking to the attorney general, that is obviously an official kind of thing.

you have to be president to do that kind of thing. on the other hand, if you are asking the attorney general to find a way to undermine the election, as trump has alleged to have done, is that a private interest? is there any official or public interest in undermining the election? that is hard to say, so how do you disentangle actions that could be both official and private? host: so what can the justices do today? how many different ways could they rule? guest: many different ways they could rule. i think what we will be looking at most closely is not so much the substance of it, if they go according to what they seem to be interested in at oral argument -- they could always come up with something else, as they occasionally do over the years. for the way they seem to be going, the question will be in the details. how do you determine that, and does trump have to go on trial? these questions of immunity in

the trial, are they resolved one by one? or just the prosecution have to clear all this stuff before the trial? so will the trials judge have to go through months or years of hearings to decide which counts against him can proceed and which ones cannot before the trial can even begin? so i think we will be looking at the instruction the court gives to the lower court about how to tell the difference between official and a private act. host: what about jack smith? guest: he would like this appeal to have been dismissed altogether. the supreme court had a very different focus than the lower court. the supreme court was very interested in the speculative impact on future presidents, much more so than they seem to be in the impact on trump himself is a particular defendant today. so they were looking at a structural constitutional theory much more than whether this particular defendant as to stand trial. host: finish your thought. guest: so -- what was my

thought? that is what they were looking at. you finish the question, sorry, greta. host: it is ok. let me go to the categories laid out by jack smith, five categories. guest: i rim now, so jack smith did not want this appeal heard it all, but given that the court was hearing it and the way justices were going during oral arguments, the lawyer for the special counsel, michael dreman, he had a fallback position, which was go to trial. if trump has a claim of immunity, raise it at the trial. if he loses, immediately go to the court of appeals and resolve it as the trial goes on instead of waiting to resolve all the questions for about the trial can begin. that was his fallback position. maybe it gets traction. host: so prosecuting the former president over election interference, it is broken down

in bloomberg's reporting as precious state legislator -- pressuring state legislators and officials to disregard the popular vote, attempted to use the justice department to conduct sham election crime obes and push states to accept false electors,ttempted to enlist former president -- vice president mike pence to use a ceremonial role on january 6, and exploited the mob of supporters to delay certification. what is the outcome? guest: the justices, overall, basically, no, they are not concerned about the particulars of the allegations against trump as they are about the whole concept of putting a former president on trial for whatever it may be. it seemed a little bit surreal

because many of the justices seem to think this would be a very common occurrence. but the allegations against trump are not about garden-variety presidential actions, even ones that might be controversial, such as bringing up president obama ordering a drone strike on a suspected terrorist overseas or other kinds of sensitive or controversial actions that you think might have some kind of criminal liability. that is nowhere near these allegations. these allegations in some ways accuse trump of trying to prevent the legitimate president of exercising his powers, and that would be joe biden won the election in 2020. host: jess bravin with the wall street journal here to answer questions about the case. democrats can dial (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text, include first name, city, state, at (202) 748-8003.

facebook.com/c-span. or on x with handle @cspanwj. i want to show this clip from chief justice john roberts and get your reaction. [video clip] >> the court of appes cision we are reviewing said, a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the procution means that the former president has allegedly acted in defiance of la.. do you agree with that statement? >> i think it sounds chronologically true, but i want to underscore that the obligation of a president is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. >> i think it sounds chronologically true, as well, and that is thelearest statement of the courts holding, which is why it concerns me. as i read it, is has a former

president cane prosecuted because he is being prosecuted. >> i would not suggest that that is either the proper approh in this case, certainly nothe government's approach. a prosecution does invoke federal criminal law. the allegations have to be presented to a grand jury which votes upon the indtment. >> shortly after the statement in t court, that is what they said, there is noeason to worry because the prosecutor will act in good faith and no reason to worry because a grand jury will overturn the indictment. you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment and reliance on the good faith othe prosecutor, it may not be enough inome cases. i'm not suggesting that here. so ithose are the only protections that the court of

appeals below gave and that is no longer your position, y are not defending the position, why ould we either send it back to the court of appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that is not the law? >> im dending the court of appes judgment, and i do think the are layered safeguards that the court can take into account that will ameliorate concns about unduly chilling presidential conduct. that concerns us. we are not endorng a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecution in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence. a politicly driven prosecution would violate e constitution. it is not something within the arsenal of prosecutors to do prosecutors take an oath, the attorney general takes an oath i do not want to overstate yr honors concerned with

potentially relying solelon good faith, but that is an gredient, and the courts stand ready to adjudicate motions based on prosecution, political animus. this court relied on this very protections just two yea ago. >> what concerns me the court of appeals did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we are taing abo or what documents we are talking about. it is this adoption of what you terms, and i greet quite correcy, as a cut a logical statement. th fact the prosecution was enough to take the weight any official immunity, they had no need to look at what courts normally look at host: what did you make their of the question by the chief justice? guest: there you have it, the

chief justice very concerned about protecting former president's from future prosecution that might not be justifiable. that was foremost on his mind, much more so than the idea that donald trump might have to stand trial for the allegations against him. i think it shows you where the court was in april. whether that is how they ended up is what we will be watching for today. host: what role could the chief justice play in this ruling? guest: this is the kind of ruling he likes to write and that he prefers to have as much of the court with him as he can. i think we will find the liberal members of the court somewhat more skeptical of this worry that prosecuting ex-presidents will become a routine part of our system. he might not get everything he wants if he's looking for the broadest protections against former presidents, if he wants to bring in one or more of the

liberal minority on the court. it was suggested he would rather have broader consensus along the eddie logical wings of the court than get everything he personally thinks is the right outcome of the case -- he would rather have broader consensus along the ideological wings of the court. it is an institution because many americans feel very concerned about this election, have very strong feelings about donald trump. pretty hard to get widespread enthusiasm for anything the court decides today. host: a little over two hours away from hearing from the court, these nine justices, on this immunity case. our camera's live outside of the supreme court this morning. sue in reno, nevada, independent. caller: yes, i watched that whole insurrection, all of it, and i could not believe it. i was horrified at what was actually going on. i think he is guilty of treason.

i cannot see why he is not in jail right now. he should not even be running. i cannot believe he is running for president and they are even taking this up and he belongs in jail for what he has done. host: jess bravin, the outcome of this decision today, what is it on this case going forward? guest: i think what we will be trying to assess is whether the justices decision allows proceedings against trump to begin before the election or not. i think that is really the ultimate practical bottom-line question we want to see answered. it is very possible that even if they say he did those things that are alleged, did those things he is accused of doing, then he should be punished, but it will take a lot of proceedings to figure out how that case can go forward, pushing it past the election. that will have a practical consequent if trump wins the election because he will be in position to cancel it.

host: emerald isle, north carolina, anna is a republican. caller: good morning. i just wanted to bring up that with everything that has been proven that the democratic party did to donald trump, like the russia folks and 51 former cia officials or whoever signing that document that the laptop was not real, and all that, he had every right to question this election. because he saw, and we also, what was happening to him. and then you go and you say there is not immunity, then with our open borders and not protecting the citizens of

america from foreign invasion, then therefore that could be a consequence to the biden administration. thank you. host: given what anna just said, jess bravin, are we talking about broad immunity or about a decision to determine official acts versus private acts? guest: we do not know exactly. we will know in a couple hours. the supreme court now, it is really the question of whether the president or ex-president retains any immunity after leaving office, and if so, to what degree? that is how they frame to question before the court. thing is, the charges against trump are not kind of a back-and-forth about the way he executed some policy or another, these are very specific actions that he is alleged to have done, putting together a fraudulent

slate of electors, trying to pressure state officials to find votes that were not certified, this sort of thing. if you read the indictment, very long and very specific, trump argues that he believed he actually won the election, although there is no evidence for that, so therefore these are all good faith actions. he has pled not guilty, let's make that clear. he has pled not guilty to these charges but these are not really charges brought about a policy dispute and how he handled immigration, whether it was wisely or unwisely. this was about specific actions under the u.s. code. things that anna mentioned are not crimes that a president is alleged to have committed. host: darrell in vermont, democratic caller. caller: good morning. if a court rules in trump's favor, with that stop trump or

any future president from ever leaving office if they so choose? they're pushing for increased presidential powers. he could remove term limits or do whatever. if he can get away with january 6, what is next? guest: i do not know what would happen if a president tried to stay in after the end of a second term. there is one interesting consequence, if a court finds abroad form of immunity for a former president, if trump wins, there is a suggestion that he wants to prosecute president biden, which might run into the same wall. trump sent me and millions of other people and email saying biden and his family belongs in jail, asking people if they agreed with him. it was right before the arguments about trump's own immunity. so there might be a surprising

twist to the case if trump wins it. host: jeff, elizabeth, new jersey, independent. caller: i am a little confused. i understand there is a law called the confidence in election act. basically, it says when it becomes apparent that there is a lack of confidence in the electoral proceedings, the vice president of the united states shall not certified the proper electoral votes, they shall call for an appointment of a 15-man committee consisting of five persons from the house and from the senate and from the supreme court. and that committee shall take a minimum of 10 days to conduct an independent audit and

investigation into the electoral proceedings. it shall take such additional time as may be reasonable or necessary to effectuate the purposes of this statute. i know that president -- vice president pence refused, but wasn't president trump within his right to make that request? host: jess bravin, your thoughts on that? guest: there was not any question about the results of the election. congress was ready to serve by them. if congress had rejected them, i suppose there might have been something. if there was a constitutional crisis, there might have been some type of review. but there was no sense anywhere, other than in what some trump advisors imagined, that the vice president had a unilateral power to nullify the votes of hundreds

of millions of americans. so i think that is a very extreme idea that whoever happens to be the vice president -- and if that was really true, think back to the 2000 when vice president gore had to preside over the session that certified the election of george w. bush, even after a very contentious recount that left bush 537 votes ahead of gore in florida after bush, like trump, lost the popular vote. gore did not believe he had the power to declare himself the winner, neither did nixon when john kennedy's victory was certified. so if that was normal, a lot of vice presidents would have been certifying themselves as the winner of an election. host: what are the rulings are you looking for today? guest: this case overshadows a lot of other things, but we're

looking at some rulings involving social media companies. texas and florida passed laws that essentially say social media companies, like facebook, they are not like publishers, they are not these sort of private platforms or fully private enterprises like a newspaper or magazine or television network, they are really like a phone company. a phone company does not get to decide what you say on a telephone call. so facebook or x or twitter or any platform does not get to say what members post online. so that was challenged by the social media industry. those laws have been on hold while the supreme court decides on them. we will see how the supreme court decides to treat social media platforms, like a phone company or more like a private publisher or something in between. host: jess bravin reports for the wall street journal.

wsj.com and you can find him on x. always appreciate the conversation with you. we appreciate it. guest: you bet. host:we are going to take a bre. when we come back, chris young will talk about the --cliff young will talk about the polls following the presidential debate and what it could mean for november. later, some have called it the sleeper issue of 2020 four, surging housing prices. we will ask lawrence yun, chief economist for the national association of realtors about that and get his outlook for the rest of the year. stay with us this morning. >> saturdays, american history tv features historic speeches. watch notable remarks from a figures from the past decade. this saturday, ronald reagan

accepts the 1980 republican presidential nomination. promising rebirth. >> we are coming together because the american people deserve better from those to whom they entrust the highest office and we stand united. we stand united in our resulted you something about it. we need a rebirth of the american tradition of leership at every level of government and in private life asel >> watch historic convention speeches saturdays at 7 p.m. on c-span two. this summer, watch the c-span live campaign 2000 24 coverage of theepublican national convention, july 15 through the 18th, the democratic national convention august 19 through the 22nd. c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional

coverage for 45 years. here are some highlights from the key moments. >> we join with you in the united states in saluting the name and the memory of dwight. they farm boy from abilene, kansas, he led the armies of 20 nations to victory in the greatest war in history. a son of america, he liberated europe. he will forever be revered among those nations who, like my own, were his comrades in arms and remembered, with abiding gratitude, by those nations that were liberated under his command from the most monstrous and vile tyranny that has ever defiled this earth. thus will eisenhower be remembered. [applause] >> c-span, powered by cable.

>> be up to date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books. current nonfiction book releases and bestseller lists, as well as help with industry news and trends with help through insider interviews. you can find it on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> celebrate independence day during our fourth of july sale, going on right now at c-spanshop's.org. the c-span online store, save up to 15% on all c-span products site wide, t-shirts, hats, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our operations. scan the code or go to

c-spanshop.org to shop our fourth of july sale. >> "washington journal" continues. host: cliff young, the president of the ipsos trends and polling to talk about the polling after the presidential debate. i want to start with a headline from the times this morning. biden campaign spends days cleaning up a 90 minute mess. from your polling, big picture, what did you find out? guest: it's problematic for biden. our polling, we pulled before the debate, we did a poll after the debate. biden went into the debate in a weak position. he came out of the debate and an even weaker position. the metrics we had were fitness -- is he fit to hold office -- from a mental and physical perspective? on both of those measures he trails trump and he worsened relative to the first pole. the net of it is -- not a good

performance and, really, you know, generates a lot of worries about his ability to go on. host: let's start with some of the questions that you asked those who participated. the majority of likely voters who watched of the debate said the former president performed better than president biden. 60% said that, that the former president performed better. >> 60 -- guest: that's 60 versus 20. that's unprecedented. debates are really fuzzy at best. they might tweak the numbers at best, but that's usually awash wash, historically speaking. it was an important debate. we knew that going in. biden had to show himself to be competent and fit and the polling is clear, he lost that. he did not perform well, didn't deliver on that specific deed.

host: do the numbers change as the weeks go by? guest: yes, it's about how it's socialized at a national level. it is a wait and see right now. really what we have to do is wait and see how the polls on the horse race and the approval rating with respect to biden perform. it's a slow process that takes time to work its way through. host: are the poles impacted by the debate? the biden campaign said in a letter, in an email to donors, that they believe it will be that there is this frenzy by the media now to ask this question and continually have stories about biden's mental fitness. guest: they are right and they are wrong.

it can be the tone or the tenor, given the time, it could have a positive or negative impact. ultimately, the numbers go back to it they should be. poorly has a negative impact long-term. a net wash, any kind of negative effect disappears in we have to wait and see. but i think there will be a negative impact. it really was historical and unprecedented, his performance. host: democrats who are worried said that they respond to that from supporters of the president and say -- americans cannot un-see what they saw thursday night. guest: we will see, right? we will see in the numbers. we have to wait and see what comes from the polls. from an intrinsic perspective, it was a poor performance on an issue that was one of his central achilles heels, competence and fitness.

it's difficult unknown that. host: here's your pre-debate all. mr. trump to biden predebate, talk about these numbers. guest: we were trying to get a read on the baseline going into the debate. fitness was going to be the critical factor in assessing the debate and it was a comment upon president biden to perform well on those attributes. what we find is trump performs better than biden and what we will see, ultimately, in the numbers post debate is that biden performs poorly relative to the baseline. host: before we get to that, you broke it down by mental fitness, physical fitness, the former president performing better. this is interesting -- emotional fitness to be president. guest: basically even, right?

a technical tie. on the mental side biden had a deficit relative to trump. guest: all right, post debate, the biden physical fitness and mental fitness declines. his mental fitness to be president -- this color blue is from before the debate. it declines to 20% post debate on his mental fitness. physical fitness, 21% before the debate. declines to 15% post debate. guest: yes, once again it's in the numbers. it suggests that he did not perform well. he wasn't competent on the key actuals that were important, fitness. these are pretty large differences in such a short amount of time. by the way, we interviewed the same people before and after. it wasn't two completely separate samples. we tracked the same individuals, pre-and post. they are pretty big effects, as

an expert. host: how do you conduct your polls, get a guest: hold of people? guest:these days we do it in every possible way. snail mail, we can call. for these we actually sent a letter and we recruited people to a panel. it's a robust methodology that we use across the board. it's online, but recruited online. host: did you poll pre-and post any questions specific to the trump performance? what did you find out? guest: trump performed well relative to biden. performed better on the fitness measures. basically tied on favorability. they are equally not light. trump might perform a couple of percentage points better than biden, but when it comes to those fitness measures that's where trump showed himself to be ultimately superior. the important caveat is he was

the winner on the debate, we saw the numbers already, 60 20. also the measures pre-and post-were even. he didn't gain. it was biden that lost. host: what about truth telling for the former president? guest: not in detail, no. we only had so much space on the pole. host: cvs made news yesterday, in their postdebate polling, they asked the question about truth postdebate. i want to show those numbers this morning. want to get your reaction to them. did they tell the truth that the debate. 40% said that the current president did, mr. biden did. and the number is lower for the former president. 32% said that mr. trump the truth. does this matter? guest: i don't think so.

i think that those sorts of issues are already ached into the numbers. individuals that don't like trump, they don't like him and believe he is a lawless liar. those support -- that support him believe that he is the champion who channels their gradients is. -- grievances. the economy being better under his watch, and to to the specific issues of the day. host: we are getting your thoughts this morning on the debate from ipsos. the first post presidential debate. what impact will it have? joe, dayton, republican. caller: good morning from a beautiful sunny day in dayton, ohio. good morning, mr. young. i want to thank you for your honesty, sir, i really do. the 72% of the country says that joe biden is not fit to be in

office. that poll came out yesterday. how the media is spinning it makes me sick now. that it was a disaster thursday night, now they are trying to say that joe biden lost the debate because donald trump was lying. joe biden lied quite a bit on thursday night. i have a lot of friends in my neighborhood that are in the military. they were devastated when joe biden said that not every hero died under his watch. -- not one military hero died under his watch. they were hard open and devastated when he said that. also, the border patrol does not support joe biden. they tweeted immediately and said they do not support joe biden and or his policies. donald trump does not want to get rid of social security. that was all fact checked by

cnn. there are many others. sir, i want to say thank you for your honesty. host: your reaction to those comments? guest: i would be very careful with any postdebate polls, including our own. what we can say is that biden did not perform well. what the long-term impact is, we don't know. i would say once again, based upon hours and my analysis of past debates, it was a poor performance. whether it has a lingering long-term effect is another, this debate was about biden showing competency and fitness for office and he did not do well. he failed a net measure. all of the other issues are baked into the numbers intend gentle, in my mind. host: he declined on that question according to your

numbers from predebate postdebate and as the viewer brought up, the cbs poll found when they asked if president biden has the mental and cognitive health necessary to serve as president, before the debate 35% said that he did, now 27% postdebate said that he does. look at the numbers. those that say he doesn't have the mental and cognitive health, 54% before the debate in the number went up. do you think that that 72% remains there throughout the week setting into november, if he remains as the presumptive nominee? host: that's a hard one, but i think it is -- guest: that's a hard one. i think he loses people in weekends in the numbers. he was already weak going in. he was already weak in the

horserace polling. with these approval numbers, i think weekends, but how much is difficult to say. host: all right, stephen, washington state. caller: i would rather have joe biden in a coma than that lying, cheating trump. host: let's take that comment. guest: it's a telling 1, 1 that we hear a lot and focus groups. i often said before the debate that biden supporters don't care if he is 80, 800, 8000, he's not donald trump. there's a lot of that sentiment. but this is not the individual to biden campaign should be worried about. they should worry -- we worried about the independence, those on the margins, the moderate republicans that might not even vote. it's they are most probably where the debate has the biggest impact.

host: this part of your polling with his achilles, younger, black, hispanic. guest: the critical issue is inflation. americans, especially in these groups, are having problems making ends meet. there is the lingering effect of inflation and they are not feeling the vibe. any sort of argument like i've not mx. or anything adjacent related has not been sticky. by expectation going into the debate was that he has to show himself to be competent and fit, but also connect emotionally with americans who are suffering from inflation and he did not do that either. host: what does that mean, then, from november? guest: that this was not a good first step in that biden had a lot more to lose in this debate. more than trump had to gain.

it is a problem that they have. in my mind, inflation up to the debate, his problem with inflation, he was speaking like an economist, abstract, not connecting with people like they needed and how they dealt with it in their day to day lives. host: is it because, in item know if you pulled on this, is it because the president and his supporters use words like inflation rather than affordability? guest: yeah, i think it's critical. it shows them as out of touch with the average person. it's not about patient rate. most americans don't understand what that is. they understand the price levels. if i was buying a hundred and $50 two years ago and paying 200 now, that's $50 more, right? that's hurtful, it's impactful in my pocketbook. it's difficult for me to make

ends meet. that was the sort of approach that i expected and obviously it did not happen. more fundamentally, there were other issues around fitness and competence, as we have already said, that drowned out any other chance of connecting with people. host: the campaigns are focusing on several key states in november. clinical observers are saying it will come down to these swing state. in your poll you found the president had a slight lead in swing states. host: he has a lead in -- guest: he has a lead in the approval ratings. what we know is that as a sitting president, a better than 40% approval rating, they been having a 50-50 chance of winning the next election. i goofed up the numbers, sorry. a president at 40% approval

rating has a better than 50-50 chance of winning the next election. so we track approval rating very closely. in swing states there are a lot of medicaid -- negative indicators for biden but at that 40% tipping point, going into the debate we thought that if he could connect on the economy, that would be a good first step because his approval ratings are not great but not terrible. guest: host: as you said, right on the cusp. guest: he was hovering around that number predebate. host: willie in katy, texas, republican mine, good morning. caller: morning, morning, please don't chop me. this'll be quick.

on how things go on c-span, greta, why do you not correct people who constantly, constantly call january 6 and insurrection? clearly, it was not, trump was not charged with a direct insurrection or any other charges. here guest, the language is such in terms of activating people that it is the vice president's duty to investigate the validity of particular 2020 elections. your guest, a caller just made a great point, there were ample concerns about the electoral candidate and the ballot counts and all of the things in the swing states that they were able to get away with. host: willie, i think you are talking about our previous guest

when we were talking about the immunity case on the supreme court let's take it to our discussion now with cliff young. has there been polling about the president, the prosecution of the president for election interference in 2025? guest: specifically there has been some, but generally it's seen as a politically motivated initiative by republicans. the hunter biden case is seen as politically motivated on the democratic side. what i can say is that all of these events, all of these instances go to a sort of underlying leave that the system is broken that is held by both sides. it reinforces this systemic distrust. host: what is your next pole and where are you conducting it? guest: we are going to be

testing names in a nationally and swing state whole -- poll. we are going to be testing names in different ways. is he fit for office and are we going to have a standard core that way. there is reflection now -- do we stay with or don't we stay with biden? we want to bring voice to the people and see what the american populace believes after the debate. host: this is from ipsos polling, several democratic candidates have low favorables, these are the ones who are favorable to the following. when you look at these numbers, when was this poll taken, first of all? guest: this is a smorgasbord of different poles and analyses. the point we are trying to make is that independent of the biden problems, he is still an incumbent with 99% name recognition. that's extremely powerful in politics and when it comes to

elections. all of the other heir apparents besides michelle obama have problems with favorability. you have got to be known to be life. the problem is that the primaries are basically over. the primaries have always served 20 about raymond -- name recognition for candidates, so the democrats are in a problematic situation. they have a top of potentials that haven't gone through the rigor of vetting and don't have name recognition. to be. host: so what are the names you are putting out there? the ones listed here? guest: and some others. democrats, non-democrats, independents, maybe some republicans. we are not quite done with it yet, but we feel there is a broad swath that should be tested. guest: -- host: bruce,

independent, good morning. caller: i'm going to say this before i ask a question, but when people are sitting around talking about i's before o's,, that gentleman had to ask you to remember a question he couldn't seem to remember. when people are going to talk about biden this in his mental instability and everything, got to remember, i've seen what you have read and what some of your other hosts are reading, you guys trip over your tongue. the next thing i'd like to know is -- who did this guy poll? all of these polls, two seconds after the debate is over. who is the demographic? who are you actually polling out there to say that biden is mentally incompetent? where did you get that psychology degree to make a statement like that and everything? host: all right, we're going to

respond. guest: i'm not making an assessment from a professional standpoint. we are just asking the russian is mentally, physically, or emotionally fit, you can interpret it the way that you want to. in our national representative sample across demographics, putting race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and region, we polled people before the debate and we went back to the same people again after it was over and asked them the question again. why do we do that? polling people again is faster and it ensures that we have a much more robust sample post debate. that's a typical way of doing debate polling. host: the democratic congressman from maryland telling reporters over the weekend that there are conversations happening postdebate about president biden and the leader of the democrat

in the house, hakeem jeffries, said members of the party -- discussed how they are reacting to the presidential performance [video clip] . >> when we talk about the chattering class, we often are referring to members of your party speaking to the press on their questions on the biden candidacy. what do you say to members of your own caucus who are expressing concern? >> we are in the process of having conversations with various parts of the house democratic caucus. that is ongoing and will continue. we are a new recess for the fourth of july will have to have those conversations over the phone and virtually but we will continue to do that. one thing should be clear. there is a big difference between our view of the world, the country, and the future, and the extreme maga republican

view. we know that biden is a good and honorable man, family man, we are running against a con man who lied his way through the entire debate on thursday. lied about covid, the economy, roe v. wade, january 6, lied about prescription drug pricing. lied about veterans. it was extraordinary. it's a dangerous moment that we confront. it's an all hands on deck moment . we've got to lean in on articulating that clear contrast on reproductive freedom. that's the mission that is in front of us over the next few weeks. host: the democratic leader in the house, cliff young, echoing what we heard from a democratic caller. saying that mr. trump is a bad president. you have heard that phrase out of the debate. does it work?

guest: it works with the vase. it's a message to double down on , why individuals should support biden. it goes to, though they didn't say it specifically, it goes to threats and democracy. our primary theme of the democratic party. we are going to hear it over and over and over again. the first step forward is to make sure that you lock the base down. the base is shaken at the second. host: bernie, rhode island, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thank you for taking the call. i think there are three occurrences that have shaped the democratic party negatively. they all have a common denominator, i think. the first is hillary clinton and her refusal to take advice from her campaign managers on visiting swing states, costing

us the election. second, ruth bader ginsburg, one of the most renowned jurists we have had the pleasure of having served with, she doesn't know when to retire. in her 80's, two types of cancer, she thought she was invincible. now we have joe biden, who i think has done more in one term than any other president that i can remember, but he's old. you can't un-see you see. we are going to make the same mistake again when we have an 80-year-old person who wants to hold onto power and doesn't know when to relinquish it. it's going to kostas the election again. we cannot afford to have trump. biden doesn't have the capability to beat him again. thank you so much.

host: bernie, so who should replace -- as a democrat and one who sounds loyal to the president -- who should replace him? are you there? caller: yes, i am. can you hear me? host: yes. who should replace president biden? caller: gavin newsom. host: why? caller: he's progressive. he comes from a state that has a gross national product bigger than most countries. he is eloquent. that's a big, big need right now to have an eloquent voice of the democratic party. i love joe biden, but he is past his prime, it's as simple as that. i'm 74 years old. i know what it's like to grow old. you lose mental abilities, physical abilities.

if you got the call at 3:00 in the morning, would you want him waking up in the same capacity he had in the debate? it's scary. host: what do you make of that? guest: it's a rough place, democrats are in a rough place. independent of anything else, and incumbent has a threefold advantage of nonincumbent based on our data analysis. host: is that true when it's a former president go? guest: great question, we don't know. we used the same model in brazil . what was a former president, one was a sitting president. it worked, functioned pretty well, the model. if there's a problem with the successor, the successor to and incumbent it has a name recognition issue. 40% is sitting president be given a 50-50 chance or better. at the same level of approval they have a 6% chance for

winning. once again, it's complicated, structurally. obviously, there is a push, whether it's successful or not, there is a push for another name. gathering troops around that flag, the banner. i'm not sure the gavin newsom does that. host: why do you say that? guest: not well-known, doesn't have the attributes that are critical in a moment like this. i would assume someone military, a veteran, someone with a well-known profile that way might be able to overcome the nonincumbent incumbency around the barrier. i think it's complicated. he goes into it with low name recognition. sort of a not so sort of differentiation in that profile. host: pennsylvania, newcastle, republican mine. caller: thank you.

good morning, thank you for taking my call. i more or less have a question. ok. we know biden, biden is not going to be able to take another four years. he really needs to be out of there now. but if they were to vote him out, kamala knows that when he's out, she's out. she's not going to be there, not going to have the organization. so, if they were to offer her a position in california, i think where she lives or resided before, and she accepted it -- now the way it works is the third in line would be the house speaker. would they automatically put him in for president until december or january, when trump takes office? host: we are talking with cliff,

pollster and not expert. guest: let's just go with that. one option from the biden democratic perspective is to do nothing or do things like slightly on the margins. doesn't want him to step down, whatever that means. there is a middle road that is do something. they are obviously already talking about going out on the campaign and showing that biden is competent, etc.. the other move is to replace the vice president. it's important to say that with public opinion, that doesn't mean much, usually. maybe in a case like this where it's extreme, bringing in a very competent vp that might have some sort of effect. that's a potential move. once again, vp us don't have typical effects but these are extraordinary circumstances. host: minneapolis, anthony, independent. caller: good morning, greta, mr. young, thank you for call.

i want to start off by saying that former president trump did not lose the election. they will never allow the sky to take a loss. even with the lawsuits and so forth in these criminal cases, he will beat those. it's all been proven wrong. another, former president trump would not debate any other gop candidate, yet as soon as those rivals dropped out of the race, he immediately calls out biden for a debate. i find that confusing. former president trump spends almost nightly campaigning around the country, raising funds. president biden is managing and running a country in many different ways that are to me showing results compared to the numerous things that hakeem jeffries just called out that he lied about during the debate, as well as the problems we faced over the previous four years.

biden losing track of questions, as many people said earlier, your previous guests have, moderators have also. that's just one thing. host: anthony, i'm going to leave it there. cliff young? guest: i will just repeat what i said. biden pause number one objective or goal was to show himself to be fit. the american populace said that he didn't look fit and looked worse than he was. that's not a good thing. , it's a crop of coming out over the next few weeks. host: will you ask about a second debate? how do you phrase that question? guest: phrasing, not quite sure. but should you -- would you support a second debate between

the two and maybe we will include that. there's an about question for fitness. but should he even keep on the campaign and be the candidate or should he step down? we will obviously be testing a variety of names, possibilities, and profiles. host: interested it if you heard from democrats on this. today, you the voter, need the president to do a second debate. asking republicans the same, does your candidate need to do a second debate? host: exactly -- guest: exactly, the kind of allay that kind of doubt that people have. that would be an interesting question to ask. we have to ask beliefs about things. we've heard a lot of beliefs here. soaking -- so, you know, one thread that i have heard numerous times is -- he might be old, but my gosh she's the only

thing between us and trump, that example. those beliefs should be tested as well. host: mississippi, democratic caller, good morning to you. guest: good morning. -- caller: good morning. i have a question for your guest regarding polling. you've indicated that you have pulled somebody -- i don't know who -- about joe biden's performance. have you done any poles on donald trump's performance? which, you know, he knew there would not be any fact checking. he knew -- he had a worldwide platform to basically lie from the time that he stood on that stage to the time that he left. has there been any polling on him? host: ok, go ahead. guest: we tested trump as well as biden on those key metrics of fitness and overall performance. once again, donald trump

outperformed biden 60 to 20. so, we would always -- we are a nonpartisan political polling outfit. we would always try to have as we can balanced questions and a balanced questionnaire. host: other questions from the sunday shows, this is from "state of the union," jim clyburn was asked about the presidential debate performance and the impact of it. take a listen. [video clip] >> do you understand why some democrats and independents not interested in voting for donald trump and were considered motoring for joe biden looked at that and said -- i just don't see it, i don't want to vote for him? what do you say to them? >> i would say to them -- take into account the record. yes, it was a bad performance. i've been around these things. i've been a part of debate preparation before. i know when i see preparation

overload. that's exactly what was going on the other night. i saw joe biden grappling for words and phrases. even numbers that he was loaded up with. the next day he gets to north carolina and he is freewheeling. he captivated the audience. you know, debate preparation can be tough. but you've got to really do a good job to prepare the candidate. not just with information, but with style. with deflection. the kinds of things that we did not see in joe biden the other night. we saw it four years ago. >> i believe that on friday in north carolina he had a teleprompter. but i want to ask about something you mentioned late last week. that you intended to have a

conversation with the president. did you talk to him? if so was there any discussion at all about him stepping aside? >> i have not talked to the president since friday and if he asked my opinion, i would give it as i always do, that is very clearly that he should stay in this race. host: cliff young, i want to talk about mr. clyburn saying it was the fault of the staff for over preparing him. does that stick? guest: over prepared and someone else's fault? whoever decided, i guess it was the principal decision of the debate, you have to question that a bit, that's a difficult one. but what i would say is -- they are not losing a democrat potentially going over to vote for donald trump. it doesn't work like that. what ultimately happens is that the individual, the democrat, the moderate republican decides not to vote and what they have

to figure out is what motivates those individuals. how do we mobilize those individuals and bring them back into the fold? threat to democracy is critical. we've been hearing that across the board. the economy is important. i think that going back to relitigate what happened won't fix anything. you've got to look forward and think about what people want. they've got to make ends meet. the blue side of the aisle is worried about threats to democracy. they might defined that even a little differently, so on and so forth. host: coming up next, we will be talking about housing affordability as an issue in this campaign cycle. is that something that you think the candidates should talk more about? guest: critically, it's an issue and it goes to the inflation probably and goes to making ends meet and it affects a large swath of america.

i think most candidates and experts talk about it too abstractly. they don't talk about it in the terms of how people understand it. they talk about it in terms of rates. people understand it in terms of how much money they spend. i think that more emotional, relative to the problems, would go along way at the least in the right direction when it comes to the biden camp. host: chris young, thank you --cliff young, thank you for the guest: conversation this morning. guest:thank you. host: we are going to take a break and when we come back, lawrence yun, chief economist for the national association of realtors will be here. we'll be right back. ♪

>> will welcome national crusade to make america great again. >> progress and prestige. >> taxes will go up. anyone who says they will not is not telling the truth. >> >> read my lips, no new taxes. >> we believe in the american dream. >> i believe and hope. >> who is the question -- here's the question for the american people. >> will we build a bridge to the future or the past? >> i believe in the wisdom of

the people and the future of our country. >> i want you to know me for who i truly am. >> they had their chance. they have not led to. we will. >> i'm john kerry and i'm reporting for duty. >> these four years brought moments i could not foresee and will not forget. >> time to change america. >> i wasn't my own man anymore. i was my country's. >> i don't believe that rolling back regulations on wall street will help the small business woman expand or help you keep your home. we have been there, we have tried that, we are not going back and we are moving forward. >> under my administration, the friends will see loyalty and mr. putin will see less flexibility. >> wants to make america great again? he can start by making things in america again.

>> we will make america safe again. we will make america great again. >> here and now, i give you my word. if you entrust me with the presidency, i will draw on the best of us, not the worst. >> this towering american spirit has prevailed over every chair engine and lifted us to the summit of human endeavor. >> c-span, your unfiltered view of the conventions, powered by cable. >> 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 balanced and unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where

policy is debated and decided with the support of american cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at our table this morning is lawrence yun of the national association of realtors here to talk about the state of the housing market in the u.s.. what are the big picture factors still driving up housing costs? caller: -- guest: good morning, thank you for having me. we have a bizarre housing market at the moment. home prices are at a high, making it very difficult for potential first-time buyers to enter the market. all-time high interest rates and a lack of inventory in the marketplace, especially for mid -- midpriced and moderately priced homes. at the same time we are not getting the transactions. home sales last year were essentially at 30 year lows.

this year, so far, it is trending a little bit below that level. we had very few people buying, but home prices are at a record high. host: who should be buying? guest: one thing that americans believe in is the dream of over ship. 100 years ago, the middle class and the working class didn't come anywhere close, it was the middle-class and upper-class but once home ownership rates began to rise, it was up to 66%. it was the solid middle class, middle of america owning a piece of america. right now i think the aspiration is there, but the financial capacity is very limited because of affordability challenges out there. high mortgage rates. record high home prices. income growth is occurring, but well below the home price growth. host: what about this headline

from "the new york times," "a huge number of homeowners have mortgage rates too good to give up. " guest: it's a restriction on potential first-time buyers and younger generations. they are frustrated. on the others, the people who are property owners are all smiling. it's wonderful, low monthly payments. no lies. monthly payment isn't light -- isn't rising and they love it. one trend we are beginning is we know the life changing circumstances like a death in the family or a birth in the family. new child. people turning 65. maybe they want to switch jobs. maybe within the same house, a clearing pattern. over time i think some people

say i love the percentage but i have to give it up because i need a house. we are beginning to see more inventory now. 18% above one year ago. historically we are still low in terms of inventory. host: do you think americans will ever see 3% interest rates again? guest: i don't think so. that was a special circumstance with the covid lockdown. massive stimulus with monetary policy, zero interest rate policy by the fed that essentially led to mortgage rates going to 3%, 4%. people took advantage of that. people financed at those rates. those were special circumstances . long-term historical average, by the way, mortgage rate of around 7%. today the mortgage rate is right around that level but compared to the recent past, it's much higher. host: how long does it take the

consumer to adjust to the idea that they are not going to see 3% again and that it is likely to hover around the average of 7%? guest: so, you know, the federal reserve has indicated that the current monetary policy is restrictive. by saying that they are indicating it is not normal, meaning some normalization will be around interest rate cuts? some delays might get pushed into next year. that could lead to mortgage rates declining somewhat. not 3% or 4%, but maybe trending down as a possibility. americans need to recognize whether 7%, 6%, i mean my parents, in the market mortgage rates were 16%. they said it was one of the best decisions ever and that they

could always refinance down with interest rates declining and giving home price appreciation that they could use when they tried to sell the home as a down payment on the next trade purchase. host: what is the appreciation percentage rate right now? guest: 5% compared to one year ago. we saw the big increase in 2020, 2 thousand 21, 20%, 25% in some markets. then there was another 10% increase. now it's 5% to 6%. but it is still a gain from the supersized increases in the experience. host: will the american consumer see 20% appreciation rates ever again? guest: it's going to be a tough go. any people are tapped out periods first-time buyers cannot enter the market unless mortgage

rate declines. once the mortgage rates decline, i think the homebuilders will take advantage of the low-cost borrowing to build more homes so the you will get more supply. that locked in effect, i think that once the interest rate differential begins to narrow, they will see that their life circumstances have changed. they will need a different size home or location and then we start to see more movement. guest: we have -- host: we have divided the lines this morning by homeowners. (202) 748-8003 for homeowners --(202) 748-8000 for homeowners, (202) 748-8001 for the rental market, and all others that (202) 748-8002. guest: the rental market is difficult. there is sentiment across the country for rent control. i understand that sentiment, but it's a worse policy position because it would lead to lower

maintenance of the property and deterioration of the property, less construction leading to housing. the weight on the rent side is to build more homes. sometimes it may require tax incentives. the rent condition has been rising. interestingly, for the past 12 months, we are in july of 2024 compared to july of last year, rent across america is slightly down from one year ago. that is because we have oversupply of new coming to the market. in omaha, nebraska, they are building apartments. all of these new units coming onto the market. host: previous to this construction surge, you had high

demand and low supply of apartments, eroding the price of rent. guest: that's right. host: you think it will go down as long as construction continues? guest: as long as construction continues. i've been seeing did data about building future apartments, which has me thinking that many developers are saying they cannot make the numbers work with these high interest rates and they have the federal reserve with lower interest rates fee for putting more supply in the market. i hope we don't get into that for a couple of years when things start to aggressively rise because of the housing shortage. we need to build more homes, there needs to be incentive to build more homes, so that's how we handle the housing costs situation. host: let's see what our viewers have to say. texas, good morning. caller: although i respect your

guest, he's spreading propaganda. what has happened to the housing market is that 51% of all housing inventory is being purchased by what are called corporate landlords. they are manufacturing a housing crisis, which i stated what happened 10 years ago. that's because they are allowed to get these money and then fleece the communities because construction companies are building entire communities, planned communities that are lease only. where people are looking for rent control, these apartments have been in existence for 20, 30 years, yet they want from $750 a month for one bedroom to 1600, $1500 a month based on necessity and a lack of inventory. the inventory that is lacking is because most of the housing, especially starter homes, they are being purchased by corporate landlords and hedge fund

accounts coming into these cities and purchasing properties and manufacturing a housing crisis. host: let me stick with that point. manufacturing a housing crisis. what is the crisis they are manufacturing? caller: they are buying 51% of all housing inventory. when a person enters the housing market, there are a limited number of houses to buy and they have up to the numbers so high that most first-time homeowners cannot afford to buy a house and the people who can enter into a bidding war. a bidding war for a house that was only 300,000, they have to offer 25%, 30% over the costs just to get the offer approved. that leads to a trickle-down effect. other people see that as a house that has increased in value and then the other houses in the area increase in value. people who go to sell their homes, right, they cannot buy other homes because the interest

rate is too high. the rich are manufacturing a housing crisis. host: in his words, the crisis is affordability. respond to the argument. guest: certainly, the institutional investors several years ago saw the housing shortage. 2019, before the arrival of covid, we did and estimate anticipating that 5.5 million units would be short in america. policy going through everything at the state and local, the federal level, to bring supply. otherwise, there is an incentive of major institutional investore funds have wall street money to get into the market. we are also seeing in states like ohio and minnesota where they are trying to restrict institutional buying activity so these employees -- they do that by imposing certain tax or certain interest deductions that

the wall street companies are getting. we see some measures trying to limit -- it is a tough market. i'm hearing the frustration of realtors atlanta saying i am a first-time buyer. we have to diss incentivize and may some policy tweaks stop if we have adequate supply there is no reason institutional investors would want to enter the market. host: is his theory right? guest: one can understand that in some markets, yes. houses are being gobbled up by institutional investors and none are left for the first time buyers. that is frustrating. are they getting special benefit in terms of interest deduction?

also can we provide more housing supply? that means institutional investors buy they feel frustrated that he institutional investors leave the market leaving more affordability. host: is the situation crating a bubble that could burst? guest: the bubble would be a case where there was artificial demand. we saw that in 2004 and 2005 with those risky subprime loans with changing interest rate. buy a home, low monthly payments. then it checks out later and people cannot handle those. fortunately, since the devastation of the subprime lending and the foreclosure crisis, policymakers listen to america and say can we blend in with common sense?

they passed a bill, ability to repay. you can only borrow money if you can demonstrate the ability to repay. one cannot stretch the budget. we have one of the lowest foreclosure rates of all time in america. host: eric in las vegas, homeowner. caller: i love c-span. circumstances of the market ebb and flow and we all know that. there will always be winners and losers. in 2008 my wife and i lost everything. we had it going really well. unfortunately we were one of the people that went down. 2018 my wife and i were back on our feet, we got into a wonderful home for $230,000. that home just appraised at $418,000.

we have a pool in the backyard. i am a long-haul truck driver. if is good now. i have a 2.70 5% interest rate. i will never let go of that. i see people that are struggling. for me life is good. host: he is in a very good market. las vegas, not only have home prices risen substantially, but the job market is strong which means it is almost a sure there will be further price increases in the las vegas region. look at the local job market conditions. in the areas where large factories shuts down, we see a price decline for long periods.

we have 6 million more people working today compared to pre-covid highs. all of the job creation is potential housing demand. i think demand is not realized because of affordability challenges in high mortgage rates. host: robert in michigan, you rent, is that right? caller: that is correct. good morning. what i wanted to touch base on is i rent, i've printed from a mom-and-pop for about 15 years and then -- i have rented from a mom-and-pop for about 15 years. we can ever come up with enough money to buy our own home. over the 15 years, the mom-and-pop we rented from, they took care of us. when they finally decided we have been doing this for four years, we are done, we will retire, they did the best they

could but they did sell all of their properties to a corporation and that corporation -- it is a newer corporation. i would say is a small business corporation type of deal starting on his own. when he bought it for the first year our rent stayed fine but after that it doubled. our rent went up. everybody in the group that got sold to him, they all received notifications that the rent was going up because of interest and inflation. he was spreading the cost on to us. it worries me that for people $1000 for rent might be cheap in some areas but here in michigan that is pretty expensive, especially in rural areas. people in assisted living will have a hard time coming up with

any way of having rent, let alone buying a home in the future. that is all i have to say. i agree heavily with the guy from texas. host: are you still there? caller: -- i am still here. host: you said this corporate apartment owner came in, doubled the rent, and said it was because of inflation? inflation is high, 9%, and he doubles the rent. host: lawrence, take those numbers. guest: in certain localities numbers could be much larger than the national statistics. this is an example where institutional investors are taking advantage of the housing shortage situation. the question is the owners have my to sell whoever is offering the highest price? there making judgment on that.

the policy angle is should the institutional investors as interest deduction? most first-time buyers because the retail is limited, they do not become mortgage interest deductions anymore. institutional investors they can deduct interest. is that fair regarding first-time buyers? i mentioned about rent control being an awful policy. how do we get the tenants able to live in a home? it is rental subsidies. we provide assistance for people to go to grocery stores and provide food. rental subsidies is what we need for being able to hold rent. that is the policy.

i'm sure many americans are feeling it. some states like ohio want to limit the institutional investors presence. michigan can talk to see what can be done. host: syracuse, new york. brenda, you own a home there. caller: i took advantage of the subprime mortgage in 2007 and bought a house for $68,000. it is six bedrooms, 3200 square feet paid for. why would i sell? where would i move? syracuse, i pay $4000 year for taxes. i can live on that and social security. why would i sell my house? i get called daily from investors -- i tell them $1 million cash and they hang up on me. host: that is brenda.

guest: upstate new york is one of the most affordable regions of the country. someone who may be priced out of new york city or boston and they have that fortunate situation of working from home, whether it is a hybrid model or 100% remote and they are unable to buy a home in new york city. customer service in rochester or other communities in upstate new york, very affordable. even in syracuse she mentioned she bought for under $100,000, today prices have risen about $200,000. it is still a most affordable region of the country. in midwest america we are seeing more stability because it is very affordable. cincinnati, indianapolis, kansas city. other fast-growing areas like

florida and we know how expensive california markets. people are seeking out affordability. sometimes the job market dictates where they need to be. consider the next county or the other states. host: according to the national associative realtors, your prediction for the market in the co half of 24 is rates predicted to remain above 6% -- moga rates predicted to remain above 6% in 2025. median price increases. we did note -- media new home prices existin to 400,000. home prices continue to rise. where did you come up with the numbers? guest: we looked at all of the metrics that drive our home sales. mortgage numbers are a dominant driver. one key move is we are beginning

to see more inventory. we also have people with changing life circumstances who consider moving. we also have to consider 40% of homeowners do not have mortgages. they can move if the circumstances dictate. related to the mortgage forecast , the federal reserve has indicated the likelihood of one rate cut this year. that is a change from what they said in december when they set about four rate cuts. they are holding back. whatever is being delayed i think will simply going to 2025. we see the inflation metrics decelerating. the inflation rate is approaching 2%. i think the federal reserve will be cutting interest rates later this year and next year and that will drive the mortgage rates more. there is one big red flag.

we have a massive federal budget deficit. the government is borrowing, borrowing. that means there is less money available for mortgage lending and that is one of the reasons consumers should not expect 3% or 4% mortgage rate. i think 6% is where it will settle down. host: michael in seattle. you rent. what is your rent in seattle? caller: i live in a 680 square-foot apartment marketed as a one bedroom but it does not really have a door. it is more like a tokyo style one bedroom with a sliding door. i pay $3100 to live in the 98 116 area code in seattle. i worked in a military base in the area.

my salary does not keep up with the cost of living. my local state representative introduced senate bill 21114 and the washington state legislature which did not pass. one of the reasons it did not pass is because we have a lot of baby boomers that were fortunate enough to buy a home. host: what with the legislation do? caller: we have junk fee issues. we have horrible rent increases. my rent has increased on average of 12% to 13% a year. the housing bill is due improve housing stability for tenants subject to the residential landlord tenant act and manufactured mobile homes landlord act act -- landlord act. host: you are breaking up. i think we got it. that would be rent control.

guest: one can see the sentiment arising but those sentiments are rising because of housing shortages. seattle was affordable. then the technology boom occurred in so you have all of the workers for microsoft, amazon buying a property and californians getting priced out of california moving into the seattle region which pushed up the housing cost one should have built more home to accommodate the rising population. seattle did not do that and that is why there is a housing shortage. find a way to build more homes and stabilize the rent and in the short-term interim consider rental subsidies for the tenants are on their housing costs. caller: kathy in ohio. host: i wanted to comment --

host: kathy in ohio. caller: i wanted to comment. my observation of the housing market is -- people with the money participating are the ones always winning and everybody else is losing. my main comment is it is the environment that is paying the ultimate cost. i think everybody knows what that phrase means. two real-world examples. the woods next to my parents house was developed and after that happened no more frogs, no more butterflies, no more anything beautiful like that at even close to the same level. host: we understood your point. we will go to tony in north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is a little bit of a different question. it has to do with -- there was

some kind of lawsuit brought against realtors where people who were selling their homes were having to pay entire commissions at 6%, 3% rent to the buyers agent and 3% rent to the seller's agent. from what i understand nobody knows what is supposed to be happening. guest: there was a lawsuit and there was a settlement. first of all, when we take surveys of recent home buyers which we've been doing consistently for the past 40 years, 9% of homebuyers say they love their realtors. excellent service, they would recommend their friends to their realtors. realtors understand the important of these service and their future business depends on it and they understand the science behind it and they treat them like extended family

members. the lawsuit sentiment occurred. what it means is for first time buyers -- in the past they were just looking for the right home. sometimes when the completion was done, depending on the agency they worked with, they may even give a concession or maybe a commission rebate. now from mid august it is possible the buyer will be asked for the right home -- do they have additional money to get professional representation? someone may be unwilling to pay for the buyer agent. first time buyers are in a great position. given the history of america, i just hope this does not impact negatively for minority first-time buyers were first-generation buyers.

they are just looking for the right home. now they have to consider whether they need to come up with additional fees, and without professional representation it would be taking advantage of by the home sellers and their agent. host: so previously before the lawsuit the seller could say what? guest: let me negotiate with the commission with my realtors about what the right percent would be. based upon that the seller agent would get some amount and the seller agent would break your buyers -- if the transaction gets concluded, then they will pay the buyer agent a certain amount. from the buyers perspective they do not have to worry about what the buyer agent was getting paid. now either the buyer agent has to come up with their own money or go solo which means they are

in a vulnerable situation of getting taken advantage of by the home sellers. an interesting dynamic. let's see how it plays out. from the realtors, what i hear is they are entrepreneurs. some rules are fair, others are unfair. they will adopt new rules. i'm just worried about the first time buyers. host: lawrence yun is the chief economist for the national association of realtors. thank you for the conversation. we will go back to the supreme court. we are awaiting a decision on the former president's claims of immunity in the election interference case brought by the special counsel of the justice department. your thoughts on that coming up in just a minute. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002.

we will be right back. ♪ >> student to c-span's live coverage of the 2024 national political convention starting with republican event in milwaukee july 15. catch the democrats as they convene in chicago kicking off on august 19. stay connected to c-span for an uninterrupted and unfiltered glimpse of democracy at work. watch the republican and democratic national convention's the summer on c-span, c-span now comp and online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics, powered by cable. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast feed makes it easier to listen to all of c-span's podcasts that feature nonfiction books in one

place see you can discover new authors and ideas. each week we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biography, current events, and culture from their signature program about books, afterwards, about books, and q&a. you can find the c-span bookshelf podcast feed and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now mobile video app or whereverou get your podcasts, and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. it information from members of government right in the palm of your hand when you order your copy of c-span's 2024 congressional directory with bio and contact information for every house and senate member of the 118th congress. important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.

congressional directory costs 32.90 five dollars plus shipping and handling every purchase helps support nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org toward her your copy today. -- to order your copy today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: in about 40 minutes the supreme court will be releasing its final opinions of the term. a closely watched decision whether former president donald trump is immune for criminal prosecution is slated for today. 10:00 eastern time is when we are expecting that decision from the supreme court. our cameras are live outside the high court this morning. you can see folks are gathering, including the media waiting for the nine justices to tell us they are rolling on this question of whether mr. trump has immunity. ahead of that decision we want

to hear from all of you this morning. democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans bang (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. joan us in a text with your first name, city, and state (202) 748-8003 facebook.com/c-span and you can also post on x with the handle @cspanwj. ray in massachusetts, independent. you are up first. caller: good morning. host: what are your thoughts on this immunity claim by the former president? caller: i think it is ridiculous. i think it was settled in the lower court and i think the supreme court should have respected that decision. i do not think they have much more they can add to it. i think this is all political.

we have a corrupt supreme court with alito and clarence thomas and it is clear what today's outcome will be. they will do what trump wants, which is more delay. they are doing exactly what trump wants. host: you said this was settled by the lower courts. a u.s. district judge in her december, 2023 ruling on this question of immunity said "whatever immunity a sitting president ma enjoy, ited states has only one chief utivat a td that longet out of jail freer a pass. former president centauri no special conditions under federal criminal liability.

defendants four years service as commanr chief does not posto on him a divinrit of kings to evade criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens." as the caller said the supreme court could kick this back down to the lower courts and say it is up to the judge or in some way for the lower court to decide this question of immunity. what is official and what is not? that question came before -- that question was posed by the nine justices when they heard this case in april. we want to show you a little bit of amy coney barrett's questioning of the special counsel on private actan official acts. >> you can see that private acts do not get immunity? >> we do. >> and the special counsel's brief on pages 46 and 47 he urges off, even if we we to decide or assume there was some

sort oimmunity for official acts, if there were sufficient private actsn the indictment for the case to go back and the trial to begin immediately, and i want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts private? the pitioner turned to a private attorney and was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud. private? >> i dispute the allegations but that sous private. >> petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of verification by petitioner contained false allegations to support a challge. >> that sounds private. >> three actors helped implement a plan to supplant fraudulent presidential electors to obstruct the certification procedures. >> i believe that is private. >> those acts you would not dispute, those were private and you would not raise a claim that ere official? >> as characterized.

we are saying with thingsike meeting with the department of justice to deliberate who will be the acting attorney general of the united states. conferring with congress. >> thank you, thank you. host: from the supreme court oral argument on this claim of immunity by the former president. you heard the lawyer for mr. trump say they concede that some of the charges by jack smith, special counsel, may be private. does the president then have immunity? that is the question. we want to get your thoughts. charlene in california, democratic caller. you are up first. caller: the decency to have america -- i think they should have immunity -- [inaudible]

for the american people. there's nothing wrong with being uneducated but you should not lose a sense of common sense, including our government. this is not right. mr. trump has been married to nothing but foreign women. american-born women should be ashamed of themselves considering him the president with humility -- with immunity. if the american -- if he loves american people so much why not marry them? the only took advantage of them and molested them. c-span.org -- host: next caller. good morning. caller: i am so happy to talk to you. i've had the opportunity to talk with you when you're on several times. i wanted to make a couple of bookkeeping kinds of things for the program. i would like to say -- i am a

conservative, not a republican, a conservative. i hear the slander that goes on should be discouraged in every way we can. a quick bookkeeping thing. i know people keep commenting and i have heard you comment back about the use of democrat or democratic. it actually is democrat caller because the party is a noun reference. democratic is an adjective. it cannot be the name. you can say democratic republican. that is the origin of our country. i don't want to get into specifics about credentials. i have academic credentials that would be equal to or better than 99 of your guests you abroad on. host: are you going to comment

on this immunity claim? caller: yes. i will say again. george washington is your focus. his 100 rules of civility that he used to get along with the country and to say let's not have this party break down. you use his name and credibility. host: i will move on. cbs asked of those polled about the question of immunity for the former president. this is how people answered. broken down on party. 90% of democrats said mr. trump should not have immunity for actions taken while president. 64% of independents also agreed he should not have immunity. 33% of republicans answered that way in a cbs news poll taken a

couple of weeks ago. we are asking you a head of the supreme court ruling on this case, your thoughts on this immunity claim by the former president brought by special counsel jack smith from the justice department. as we show you the court and all the folks outside waiting for a decision, let's hear from michael in indiana. republican. caller: good morning. i do not believe in any immunity for president trump. the reason why is since we are a divided country and we go down that road it will not happen, then we will have to round up the existing presidents and all the politicians. build more jails.

host: for tour you in georgia. democratic caller -- victoria in georgia. democratic caller. caller: i do not think you should get immunity because everyone should be treated the same. host: you do not believe he should? caller: i do not think you should get immunity. host: cbs asked should u.s. presidents have immunity for actions taken while in office? when they ask in general about presidents, 70% of those polled said no, presidents should not have immunity for actions taken while in office. cbs also ask you on presidential immunity by party. this is what they found for republicans, 67% said they favored immunity for the former

president but only 45% favored immunity for u.s. presidents in general. pennsylvania, independent. caller: good morning. you kind of commie off guard on this. i do not follow the whole case. what i wanted to bring up is trump had every right to question the election. when hillary lost to trump in 2016 the democrats -- it was jamie raskin rotted before -- brought it before. congress had to have a senator signature on this thing to take it back to the states, the electoral places in certain states. biden was vice president and he

said to jamie raskin you have a signature of a senator and he said no and he banged the gavel and said case dismissed, throw it out. before the right or insurrection or whatever you call it -- the republicans had that. i live in a state where i think the election -- i am 72 years old. nixon won the election against president kennedy once they counted -- they gave it to kennedy. host: before you go down that road, you said the former president had every right to question the election outcome. this is the case by jack smith, broken into five categories. i want to get your reaction to that. pressured state legislatures and election officials to disregard

the popular vote. organized fraudulent slas investors -- of electors in seven states. attempted to use the justice election crime probes and for states to accept fal elector attempted to enlist the former vice president to use his ceremonial role to alter the election results and exploited the assault on the capital by a mob of his supporters to delay certification. that is the basis of this election interference case by jack smith. caller: yes. i would say on two of those things i would say no immunity whatsoever. host: which ones? caller: on three of them, maybe immunity, not for trump to any president. i do not know if you can still hear me. there should not be five things.

on any trial, even if one or two of the charges can be dropped they throw the whole thing out of court. host: can you hear me? caller: which two you think he does not have immunity? host: i would say -- i don't think he did cause the riots. i would say the mike pence thing and you have to go back -- i go back to georgia. he called that dude in georgia and said i need 12,000 votes. that is probably covered in one of them five. he definitely tried to sway the attorney general in georgia. i heard that. host: what jack smith has said to the court, let us go one by one and let the former president

bring up claims of immunity as we go throughout the trial and then we can take those claims one at a time. you agree with that? caller: yes. i think what the supreme court will do, i think they will send this back down to the lower court that probably should have handled this. we will see. i am not a scholar. i am from u.s. steel. we will see what happens. host: appreciate the phone call. more phone calls coming up as we wait for the supreme court to tell us how the nine justices have ruled in this claim of immunity by the former president. this is the last day of their term. they have waited until now to issue this ruling along with other final rulings from the supreme court term. if you missed the oral arguments in this case or any other

high-profile case, you can always find them on our website at c-span.org. the ruling expected at 10:00 eastern time. this evening we will also be taking your phone calls and your reactions at 8:00 eastern time. we want to know your thoughts on what the justices will decide. justice amy coney barrett in her questioning of the former president attorneys in april and that oral argument -- justice kentucky brown jackson questioning the former presidents attorney general -- the former president's attorney about if actions of sitting presidents are immune from prosecution's. >> i think i now understand better your position. in discussions with justice kavanaugh it bece clear your sing that for the private acts of a president there is no immunity but for official acts

there is immunity. is tt your position? >> i agree with that. >> one thing that occurs to me is the difficult line drawing problem we are having with all of these hypotheticals, is it a private after a public act is being necessitated by that assumption. if official acts did not get absolute immunity than it would not matter, we will not have to identify which are private and which are public. correct? >> that is the approach of the d.c. circuit jud. >> to the extent we are worried about how we figure out whether it is private or public, we have to understand we are only doing that because of an underlying assumption that the public act get immunity. let me explore that assumption. why is it as a matter o theory, and i hope you consume out, that the president -- and i hope you can zoom out, tt the president

would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts. everyone else, there are lots of fos that have high-powered jobs to make a lot of consequential decisions. they do so against the backdrop of potential crimil prosecutn if they should break the law in at capacity. we understand and we know as a matter of fact that the president of the united states has the best lawyers in e world. when he is making a decision, he can consult with pre-much anybody as to whher or not this is criminal or not. why would we have a situation in which we would say the president should be taking official acts without any responsibility for following the law? >> i disagree with that characterization. the president does have responsibility. he is required to follow the law.

the remedy is the question, could he be subject to personal vulnerability, sent to prison but making a bad decision after he leaves office? host: more from the april oral argument in the case before the supreme court about whether or not the former president has immunity in the election interference case brought by special counsel jack smith. mike in california. democratic caller. we are live outside the supreme court. your thoughts? caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm a democratic caller california, look at what is going on. in this case the supreme court has to give immunity in the election year. they have to do it. they can go all through it but this year they have to do it. on the defense for president biden the man is walking in

pain. i live in chronic pain. if i do not have the proper pain medication i cannot get out of bed. host: i will leave it at that in go to julianne in new york. republican. your thoughts on the immunity case. caller: good morning. crazy day. jack smith was illegally appointed to this case. all of the laws -- that used laws that were not appropriate, which came down the other day for obstruction that came about from an enron case. trump was the president at the time. he has the right to make sure the elections are secure. he asked georgia to find votes because they had irregularities. fox news even called arizona

while people were waiting online. there were so many -- i am a republican. i work the election. i thought the election was stolen by all of the states changing laws and using covid as the excuse. host: do you still believe that? caller: yes i do. host: joann in new york. on x, one of our viewers. the fact that three of the justices were appointed by the person claimg immunity om our law should be enough of a reason to vote for our opponent. there should never be a question about our president obeying our loss. robert in virginia, iependent. what do you say? caller: i do not think any president should ever have immunity.

on the bright side, if they want to roll they do, -- if they want to rule they do, joe biden will have the right to have trump tried for treason and executed which he should be. host will not use the platrm for calls for violence. caller: on -- host: on x, the timing of the decision could benefit the right by adding more fuel to the political fire. miriam in texas. democratic caller. caller: we are able to vote. if i were a democrat i would vote for a democrat, if i change my mind and your i want to become a republican i vote for a republican. there is no way one man can take that choice away from me.

from has no right -- trump has no rights to take our votes away. host: this case is about democracy? caller: is about democracy because if he has the immunity to do whatever he wants he will do all kinds of shenanigans. he will do unlawful things to do that. host: be heard from justice amy coney barrett about which actions might be private versus official. since april of this year, during that oral argument we heard from the justice department counselor to special counsel jack smith. here is just as brett kavanaugh, who asked about which specific presidential actions could b prosecuted. >> do you agree there are some aspects of article two,

presidential powers that are exclusive that congress cannot regulate and therefore cannot criminalize? >> absolutely. >> for other official acts the president may take that ar not within that exclusive power, assume for the sake of argument this question there is not blanket immunity for ose official acts, but that to preserve the separation of powers, to provide fair notice, to make sure congress has thought about this, congress has to speak clearly to criminalize official acts of the president by a specific reference. that seems to be what the opinion suggest. i know you have a disagreement with that and what the courts cases also suggest >> i would like ttake all of those in turn because i do not think this court case speaks that broadly. i do not think the office of legal counsel opinions stand for this broad proposition that

unless the presint is named he is not in the statute. i do not think tt is necessary to afford adequate protection for the presidents article two function. >> want to get this out. you said unless there is a serious constitutional question -- it is a serious constitutional question whether a statute can be appld to the president's official act. on it you always interpret the stute not to apply to the president even under your rmulation unless congress had spoken? >> i do not think across t board serious constitutional question exists applying any criminal statute to the president. >> the problem is the vague, obstruction, conspiracy to fraud the united states can be used against a lot of presidential activities within a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president.

host: justice brett kavanaugh in april, questioning the special counsel lawyer michael dreman and in oral argument -- michael dreeban about whether the former president has immunity. our cameras are outside the supreme court as we wait for the nine justices to tell us how they ruled. bloomberg says the question comes down to the question of whether he was acting as president or a private citizen. aaron in upper marlboro, maryland. independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am not a lawyer but i have friends who went to law school at the university of richmond. one of the things they tell you in moscow is -- in law school is there are over one million words in the english language and if you argue properly you are not wrong. i think what is happening right now is they are doing this six degrees of separation -- julia

roberts was in this movie and that person was in that movie and you get kevin bacon. they are acting like these things do not have real-world consequences. people live and die based on their decisions. look at the dobbs thing. they said it is settled. they did this little rule -- this little rube goldberg contraption. and i give you a quick example he gave me? host: we're running out of time i will go to tom in baltimore. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i was thinking about immunity. it could be a matter of character. i have often read newspapers about a politician being stopped by a state policeman and trying to talk their way out of it by saying i'm a congressman.

calls for immunity tell me of character. their extremes. when president obama had bin laden killed. that is a high character because it was in the interests of the country. immunity for diplomats is important because it is in the interests of the country. the acts trump is accused of, i don't think any of those were vital to the interest of the country so therefore he should not get immunity. host: karen in las vegas, republican. what do you say. caller: i want to say i'm a democratic republican. we have democrats and we have republicans. of course he is immune. he was doing his job. half the country was questioning the results. he was way ahead. host: was he questioning the

results as a president or as a candidate for office? caller: as a president. when those results came in he was the president and we all question those results. he is doing his job. host: will go to texas. gary is there. independent. caller: thank you for your show. i am a former defense attorney and i voted for trump the first time. i would not vote for him again, ever. i hope he never makes it back to the oval office of his behavior. i am voting biden this time. he will win in a landslide. you can say whatever you want. he will win in a landslide. number two, the decision will be fully against immunity. i can tell you right now it will

be a sweep. he is not going to get immunity, he is going down, he is going to jail because he is guilty. host: your prediction is 9-0? caller: i think it will be a 9-0 decision. this guy is a creep and a rapist and he has violated our constitutional rights and our individual rights. biden will win. the polling has been off. host: jim in oregon. democratic caller. caller: thanks for taking my call. i do not quite understand why anyone would think an official act can be an official act if it is breaking the law. how can it be official? i cannot do anything -- i cannot go to court and take someone to court who has broken the law and

i broke the law, too. i'm trying to get the court to make that person they meet when we both broke the law. it cannot be official unless it is within the law. host: ronald in florida. republican. caller: hello? did you hear brett kavanaugh's speeches he wrote before he became on the supreme court? he said no president can have complete immunity? he wrote a thesis on it. host: we will see how he rules today. we are just a few minutes away from the supreme court telling us what they decided on this case of immunity. this is one of the final cases. it is supposed to be the last

day of the supreme court term. that is what the chief justice told us on friday. benjamin in alabama, independent. good morning. caller: i wanted to know, is there a constitutional provision for equal justice before the law? is it expressly shown in the constitution that we are supposed to equal justice before the law? host: your point? caller: that should apply to trump as well. host: richard and me apple us. democratic -- richard from minneapolis, democratic caller. caller: no one is above the law. i do not believe he should have immunity. i do not believe any women would vote for him the way he disrespects them. he is responsible for january 6. he said let's go down there and fight and they did and it was

terrible. host: richard in minneapolis. debbie in virginia. republican. caller: good morning. how are you question mark host: good morning. caller: i believe these people calling in about trump, what about these democrats? look what they have done. they haven't committed crimes? host: george in miami. democratic caller. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am of the opinion that we need to stop this madness. if we will start going after presidents after their term than we would have gone after truman for dropping the bomb or kennedy for starting vietnam or being involved in vietnam. we have to stop this.

a president will make tough decisions throughout his career in office. a lot of people will not agree on those decisions. once the next party gets in office they will go after him. this is tearing this country apart. being president of the united states, you will make some really tough decisions that not everybody will like. that will open you up to lawsuits and that is my opinion. host: democratic caller in miami. walter is in deltona, florida, independent. caller: hello. i'm really scared for the future of our country. it is not republican or democrat. it is just that mr. biden is not in the capacity to lead our country. donald trump is not perfect but

i think he could be a better choice of the options we have. regardless who the president will be we need to unite as americans. we have become the laughing stock of the world. europe, canada, south america, they are surprised what is going on in our country. they are so divided. i hope we can unite. host: walter in deltona, florida. if you missed the oral argument from this case in april or any of the other oral arguments of these key cases the supreme court heard this term you can find them on our website, c-span.org. mildred in new jersey, independent. caller: hi. can you hear me? host: we are listening.

caller: first of all, i hope trump goes to jail. the way things look, they let him get away with inciting a riot on our white house. he caused so much havoc during covid. he is probably the most -- host: we will leave it there. you are looking at a family photo of the nine justices as we await their ruling on the final cases of this term and the case people are watching this morning, one of the big ones is this immunity claim by the former president. we are live outside the supreme court. one of the nine justices put it this way, the question becomes how to segregate private from

official conduct that may or may not enjoy some immunity. that is the question before the nine justices. stay tuned to c-span's coverage of the supreme court. thank you all for calling in today. that is it for the washington journal. we'll be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. [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] >>