[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the u.s. supreme court begins its new term today, hearing oral arguments via conference call. listen to the oral arguments live or on-demand at www.c-span.org/supreme court. evening, democratic senator ed markey and u.s. senate republican candidate kevin o'connor participate in a televised debate sponsored by gbh news. watch live at seven eastern on c-span or on www.c-span.org announcer: this morning, "wall street journal"'s jess bravin previews the new supreme court term and confirmation hearings for judge amy coney barrett, and later michigan state university , law professor brian kalt

discusses the 25th amendment and continuity of government plans. we also take your calls. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, october 5. this is a live shot to walter reed in bethesda, maryland, where president trump is receiving treatment for covid-19. while his medical team indicated he could be released to the white house as early as today, mixed messaging over the weekend from his staff and attending physician, and new information yesterday about his treatment regime. so this morning, we will take your calls about your level of confidence in the information the american public has received

since the president tested positive for the coronavirus. do you trust what we are being told about his health? if you do, 202-748-8000 is the number. if you do not, 202-748-8001. .f you are unsure, 202-748-8002 you can send us a text, 3.2-748-800 include your name and where you are from. or catch up with us on facebook or twitter. a very good monday morning to you. you can start calling now. the president is up and tweeting this morning my nine tweets and accounting so far. here are a few of them from this morning. 10 minutes ago, the president saying "the strongest ever military." then "vote."

"law and order." another one coming, "vote." these all within the past couple minutes this morning as we ask you whether you trust what is being released on his health. here are headlines on that matter. first from some of the capitol hill papers and washington, d.c. papers. unanswered." this from politico, "his team under fire because of confusion." releasingent conflicting information, sometimes none at all, since his diagnosis. this from the front page of usa today's health section, "the spin eyed by critics," with questions about whether he is being transparent enough as he attended by sean conley, who said he was "not necessarily intending to mislead the public

when on saturday," he would not answer questions on whether the president had been on supplemental oxygen, only stating that the president at the time was not on it. the white house confirming that the president had been giving oxygen on friday before going to walter reed. it is sean conley yesterday during the update outside of walter reed, talking about the issue of the president and whether he was given oxygen. [video clip] >> i was trying to reflect the upbeat attitude that the team, the course of illness, has had and i did not want to give information that might steer the course of illness in another direction. wedoing so, came off that were trying to hide something, which was not necessarily true. he is doing really well. he is responding. and as the team said, if

everything goes well, we will get him back to the white house. host: that was his attending physician yesterday at walter reed medical center. just about one hour or two before that appearance, the president's national security adviser was on the sunday shows, indicating that the critical days might still be ahead when it comes to the president's health. [video clip] >> the good news is the president feels very well and he wants to get back home and get back to work my but i think he will stay at walter reed for another period of time. i went through this over the summer, this virus, and even if you have no symptoms, and i had minor symptoms, days seven and eight are the critical days, so i think the doctors want to make sure that they are there for the president and he is getting the best treatment, but he is doing well. i spoke with him on friday. i was in geneva holding talks

with my counterpart from russia, and i was able to call the president after he tested positive to give them an update on the talks and get his feedback for the afternoon, and he was in good spirits and firmly in control. host: that was "face the nation." and yesterday evening, the president taking a ride outside of walter reed to greet some of his supporters, leaving the hospital there, calling them great patriots, the supporters rallying for his recovery on sunday outside of walter reed national medical center. maryland,thesda, north of washington, d.c. we will let you watch that as we continue to update you on the president's tweeting this morning. three more tweets just since we began the program five minutes ago. he is continuing to talk about some of the reasons why he wants

supporters to vote for him. tweeting a minute ago about massive regulation cuts and other issues, including space force and the best approval ratings ever. those are some of the tweets from the president yesterday. ene yesterday outside of walter reed medical center. we are taking your phone calls, asking if you trust what is being released on president trump's health. we will talk about this for the first hour this morning. call in on the phone lines. 202-748-8000, if you do. if you don't, 202-748-8001. if you are unsure, 202-748-8002. out of howard beach, new york, burning on the line for those on thetrust -- bernie line for those who do trust. caller: you have to give the doctors -- by definition they

have taken an oath to do no harm, to be straightforward with their patients. paare is a hippo code, -- hi code which means any information released must be ok by the patient. the patient has to sign off that any information let go to the or her,s ok with him, as the case may be. so i am firmly --trust what the doctors say because i, you know, it is tough to say. thend it curious, watch doctors as they walk out of the hospital and line up. tell me, think about their body language and positioning. you notice they all hold their hands in front of their genitals. no one holds them behind their

backs, no one is extracting their heads. they are coordinated. it is very entertaining and interesting. host: you say that you trust the medical professionals, but you do not necessarily trust the president? in this case, the attending physician works directly for the president, a navy officer, sean conley -- he is serving the president, the president is the commander-in-chief. caller: what is your point? what is your point? host: is that something that would change your level of trust here, the independence of the doctors? caller: well, i mean, the doctors have nothing to gain by lying. after all, they work for the president. if they lie, the president will deal with it. he is good with criticism and so they have full freedom to be honest and straightforward.

the president would never interfere with that. host: this is larry in illinois, also for the outline for those who say they trust what is being released. go ahead. caller: i totally trust with the doctors say. they may be military, but i believe they are doctors first, military second. i have heard so much on channels about how all of the doctors are lying. his personal doctor lies. everyone is lying. now, i do not know for sure, but i have seen a couple books come out already on other channels, people are making lots of money on foot president trump writing books. some of them may be true, but i believe most of them are false. these doctors are in the military. maybe that is how they were person to stand, the

talking about where their hands are. in the picture right now, the person on the left has his aunts behind his back. i think it is a big hoax on the part of a couple of the tv channels trying to put the president down again, and trying to destroy him and his family anyway that they can. the only thing i would like to know is, i would like the tracing to continue to find out where this came from. and totally believe the doctor will -- or excuse me, the president will be released when the doctors decide he is safe to go back to the white house. thank you very much. i do believe he is still in good enough health he can take care of any major problems and that may come up. it does not look like he is out of his mind, well, he is out of his mind every day according to most people, but he seems to be in control, you can make decisions if they have to be made. thank you for taking my call.

host: as we say, the president's tweeting this morning, continuing his series of tweets on why people should vote and vote for him. better and cheaper health care one of those reasons, protecting pre-existing conditions, fighting corrupt, fake news media. all reasons to vote for the president, who has well over a dozen tweets this morning and showing no signs of stopping so far. we mentioned the president's he served physician, as a navy physician. more on his background from "the washington post." served in afghanistan, joined the white house medical unit in december, 2016, a half a year later became the top physician, replacing randy jackson, who was nominated to run the department of veterans affairs. you will remember jackson was

forced to withdraw from that nomination because of his workplace behavior. at that time, sean conley served in an acting capacity as the head of the unit until the director of the white house operations made the final recommendation so that he could be appointed to that for top attending physician job. one other interesting note. according to his records, july 2014, he was on assignment in afghanistan when at least six romanian soldiers in afghanistan were injured by an explosive device, some of them taken to a nato hospital and sean conley and five others received the romanian medal of honor further work on those who were wounded in that attack. back to your phone calls asking whether you trust what was released on the health of president trump. gary in atlanta says no. why is that? caller: good morning. i do not believe it.

they will not even tell us what the timeline was of when he was first tested negative, then positive. we do not know when he tested positive the first time. who in this country believes that you tested positive one day, then you took experimental drugs in the hospital the next? that does not make sense. i believe he knew he was contaminated when he went to the debate, that is why he kept running his mouth like that. another thing, for him to write around inthat -- ride that limousine when people cannot say goodbye to their mother or father who die in the hospital, yet he can waive to his fans, that is a travesty in itself. that is a travesty in itself. somebody in this country -- anybody who votes for donald trump, how do you sleep at night? host: that is gary on the issue of when president trump first

tested positive. this reporting out of the "wall street journal." he did not disclose a positive result from a rapid test for covid-19 on thursday while awaiting the findings from the more thorough screening, according to people familiar with the matter. he received a positive result on thursday evening before making an appearance on fox news, in which he did not reveal the results, but confirmed earlier reports that hope hicks had tested positive for the virus and mentioned the second test he had taken that night, for which he was awaiting the results at the time. friday, at 1:00 a.m. on president trump tweeting that he had indeed tested positive for coronavirus. on the line for those who say no, they do not trust in has been released. go ahead. caller: my phone was dialed in on the republican line, 001,

before i knew really what the question was i had dialed in -- but i believe what the doctors are saying. ,ut do not believe -- but anyway, how i can sleep at thet, because i do not have blood the democrats have on their hands, the bb murders [inaudible] -- host: during coronavirus, the past seven months or so, would you believe -- would you say you believe the doctors? fif not, do you believe dr. fauci and the cdc doctors? i cannot hear you. newill go on to sandra in york to see if her line is better for us. on the line for those who do trust what has been released.

trust what the medical professionals are saying. i think they are being transparent and he is in good health. i watched the press conference and i believe the physicians gave a good progress report on his health. i think the media was acting like a pack of hyenas, regarding the given content that they were saying in that press conference. also with donald trump tweeting, coming out and trying to be as viewable to the public as possible, if that is not any more of a clear explanation of how he is doing healthwise, i do not know what is. yesterday, when he went outside to say hello, the secret service was in ppe and donald trump had a mask on as well. thece also that he was in car and waving, he was not speaking, he was waving and giving a thumbs up to supporters. so if i am under the impression

that this virus is airborne and everything basically is transmitted through the air, if nobody is speaking in that car, then how are things being transmitted? one other thing, the secret service members are the people in the front of the car. those are the people that transport him every day, they transported him to walter reed when he had covid, and they will transport with him when he leaves. so people trying to make a big deal out of it, i do not understand the point, these people take an oath to serve the president at any given cost and at all times. host: a story on the agents that work day in and day out from "usa today." the virus has a secret service in uncharted waters. cajuns cannot stop the president from risky behavior during the pandemic. that is the sub headline of that story. we mentioned the tweets from the

president this morning, into something around 18 tweets so far, making somewhat of a show of tweeting this morning, coming fast and furious. through strength, bring our soldiers home. vote." is what he tweeted a couple minutes ago, as we show you some of the live pictures from outside of walter reed national medical center in bethesda, maryland this morning. and as we ask you, do you trust what has been released when it comes to president trump's health. susan says no. why is that? caller: ok, thank you for taking my call. i do not believe it simply because we cannot trust this white house to give us the truth, we cannot trust the doctors. if you look at their body language, they are not being levelheaded about what is going on with donald trump. and his joy ride yesterday, he

does not care who he infects or anything about it. he only cares about himself. he wants to prove that he is still the strong guy who can go out and campaign, even though i do believe he has covid-19. at first i did not believe it, now i have a reason to believe it. i do not think we will ever get honesty from this administration, even when mark meadows came out yesterday and pretty much gave what he believed to be the truth after seeing the president. donald trump got angry and jumped on him. and gave a warning to others that he will do the same if anybody gives the appearance of the president being weak, when he prefers to look strong. host: you said we cannot trust the doctors. are there doctors in the administration that you do trust, like dr. anthony found she or deborah birx? -- otherwise, he is out.

thank you. host: we have an unsure caller about whether she trusts what is coming out of the administration. caller: i am not sure. have been so many varying accounts, not just during this time, but also during the time of -- just in the recent past, all during the pandemic there have been different things he has said. if people that he hires, they do not say what he wants them to stay he fires them. like the young doctor said, he said, i was trying to keep an upbeat theme like the team wanted and i was not trying to hide anything. i kinda felt sorry for him. i really agree with one thing the president said this morning.

he said vote, vote, vote. and he was right, we should all go out and vote. that was the most important thing he ever tweeted. i am not sure what i believe about the virus he is suffering, but i agree with him about voting. host: on what the president has tweeted, he has tweeted out a video of himself talking and thanking supporters who were outside of the walter reed national medical center. yesterday, he sent out that video just before he actually went out there himself in the beast, the presidential limousine, to wave. this is about the one minute video that he tweeted. [video clip] >> we are getting great reports from the doctors. this is an incredible hospital. the work that they do is amazing and i want to thank them, the nurses, doctors, everybody here. i have also gotten to meet some

of the soldiers and first responders. and what a group. i also think we will pay a surprise to the great patriots we have out on the street. they have been out there for a long time and they have trump flags. they love our country, so i am not telling anybody but you, but i am about to make a little surprise visit, so perhaps i will get there before you get to see me. but when i look at the enthusiasm, and we have enthusiasm light probably nobody has ever had, or people that love the job we are doing, we have more enthusiasm than may be anybody. so, it has been a very interesting journey. i have learned a lot about covid. i learned it by really going to school. this is the real school. this is not let's read the book school. i understand it. it is a very interesting thing. i will be letting you know about it. inl the meantime, we know -- love the usa. host: that was president trump

on twitter yesterday before heading out in that motorcade to wave to supporters outside of walter reed, where he is being treated for covid-19. we are asking you this morning, do you trust what has been released when it comes to his health. chuck schumer, the minority leader with his own thoughtsin a press conference yesterday. [video clip] >> we all know that the president's cavalier attitude toward covid, toward masks and social distancing has endangered many people, including himself. again, as this picture shows -- it has happened over, over and over again. so now we need full transparency. we need to know exactly the level of the president health -- of the president's health, who got covid, how severely they have it. that applies to the senators, the workers in the white house and at the top level people at

the white house. you do not have full transparency when there are coverups, even lion, about something as vital to the nation 's security as the president's health. the nation is a severely endangered. we know the president has a penchant for not telling the truth, but when it comes to something as vital as this, the health of the president, the health of the people around him, we need to go for the whole truth, nothing but the truth. or as joe friday said, just the facts, just the facts. no cover up, no spinning, no half-truths, the whole story. we are calling on the president to start being truthful about his condition and the condition of those around him. host: that was senator chuck schumer yesterday from new york. this morning in the usually conservative peaches of " the

wall street journal" headline,l board, the "white house medical confusion. some matters might need to be kept from the public for reasons of personal privacy. but that cannot include such basic issues as the status of mr. trump's disease, the seriousness of his symptoms and the details of his regime -- treatment regime. there are medical personnel on call that will question every disclosure. americans want to know the truth about the president's health, which bears on current governance and the election. the white house needs to reassure americans, not with happy talk, but with daily briefings that are candid and complete." that was from the editorial board for "the washington journal." do you trust what is being released? randy from little rock is unsure. go ahead. caller: i understand that the

doctors can't give the information out as far as his trump, but when president three years ago stood up and took an oath and said that he would do the right thing, president trump -- thank you for taking my call. host: randy, you said he stood up and took that oath. you just need to turn down your television and talk through the phone. caller: if i go to the doctor today, they could give my information out. but in order for trump to take a joyride yesterday was uncalled for. he put the secret service in jeopardy. not only that, he put a lot of other people in jeopardy. he is not taking the virus seriously. i think he has done the american people wrong.

if you vote for donald trump, something is wrong for you. but we all have the freedom to vote. and we all need to vote trump out. and i think it is not right for him to put the secret service's lives in jeopardy. he had thee -- yeah, mask on, this on, but the secret service has a right to do what they have to do. they are not going to tell him no. and as far as his medical records, i understand the doctors could say what is going on. host: i have got your point. randy on that ride by the president outside of walter reed. we are showing you the images there of the president waving to his supporters. he has earned a reboot on the -- from the that ride, white house correspondents, saying that they were not alerted of the ride. they say it is outrageous and that he left without protective

journalists. that statement going on to read, "now more than ever they make in public deserves independent coverage of the president so they can be reliably informed about his health." that was from the white house correspondents association yesterday. jim in west virginia on the line for those who say they do trust the information that has been released so far on the president's health. go ahead. caller: first, i am an independent. i vote democrat and a vote republican. the red flag that went up for me was "the new york times." "the new york times" and "the washington post," they are democratic newspapers. host: i do not think i mentioned "the new york times." but it does say the american people need the truth. caller: are there any facts in that?

is it facts or speculation? host: do you want me to read it? caller: hold on. when they came out with the freedom of the press, it was because they were getting killed. they were burning the presses. now you can put anything in the newspaper that you want with no facts and you can be political. donald trump and his family should have worn masks during that debate, i am being upfront. i am voting for donald trump. i cannot send another democrat, i cannot vote for another democrat to send to washington. the democrats and republicans are ruining the country. and the people are no better. you have white people that will not vote for blacks. who votevote -- blacks for blacks because they are black. women who vote for women because they are women. the democrats and republicans

are ruining the country. they are fighting with each other and not moving the country ahead. that is just facts. and like you said about publishing, the free press does not mean you can put anything you want in there. print the facts. do not lie to the people. do not get the people all rallied up. you -- riled up. your whole program this morning, where are the facts. the only people who have the facts are the doctors. and you do not believe them? who will you believe, "the new york times?" in all seriousness, come on. host: unbelieving doctors, have you believed the doctors from the cdc or the doctors on the coronavirus task force, like anthony fauci? do you believe those doctors, have you believed in them over the past several months? caller: repeat the question. host: do you believe dr. anthony fauci?

caller: i believe all doctors. i believe this is an epidemic. as long as you have people who have it, you know, it will keep spreading. that's the way it is. until they come up with a cure, it will keep going. i believe all of the doctors, you should be wearing masks. ask me another question. i am being honest, i am not taking sides. nobody should take sides. nobody should take sides in politics. arody sees how these -- they e liars on both sides. i am in west virginia. we have a senator that jumped the fence. we have a governor that jumped the fence. they run on one party to get elected, then jump the fence. what about hillary clinton? what about the democratic party giving her the questions in that debate with the bernie sanders? bernie sanders says nothing, she

does not get in trouble? that is not fixing the election? host: duane is out of new york, on the lion for those who say -- line for those who say they do not believe information on the president's health. caller: i have to follow this person that has confused half of c-span. i do not believe the doctors that came out and pretty much said what they said, but i believe dr. fauci because he is out front on what he is saying. for is "the apprentice" donald trump, he wants to show everyone he is ok, but what patient can leave a hospital under these circumstances and in fact the whole entire step of the secret service? it makes no sense. new york who said that this man is healthier than a 20-year-old? stop pretending that donald trump, a 74-year-old man, is in great shape. he is overweight. you him exercising.

all he does is wave and walk up the stairs. george w. bush exercised. obama exercised. w., the first george eldest, they all exercised. this man does not exercise, so you know he is in a high-risk area. thank you for listening to my rant. have a good day. host: in terms of what we know as of right now on the president's treatment regime when it comes to covid-19, the doctors have said he continues to receive a five course of remdesivir, the antiviral drug. he also received in antibody cocktail from regeneron pharmaceuticals on friday. steroid typically associated with severe cases has also been given to the president. his attending physician reported that his blood oxygen level had

dropped twice, once on a friday and again on saturday, before returning to normal. he said the president has started that steroid treatment. so that is about what we know right now. we do know that the president is tweeting today, some 18 in the past hour. and we will see today of president trump is released from walter reed, is doctors indicating yesterday that that could happen, but again, we have seen mixed messaging on the severity of his illness. we are asking you this morning, do you trust what has been released so far? joe, you say that you do. -- you say that you do. caller: of course i do. ast good would it do to lie a doctor, as a team of doctors? that would make you look like a fool. and things could fail or get worse.

tore's no reason for them put their reputation on the line. and this has become politicized. theif you pay attention to liberal media, which there is money, they are downplaying everything and interjecting doubt. and i hear it from the people, the people who do not trust the doctors, they are democrats. they would not believe anything that comes out of anybody's mouth that -- if it relates to donald trump. so, this is along political lines. this is being politicized. and there is no room for that. they are always crying about the science. well, the doctor is not going to stand there and give you a false report just for the sake of politics. but it has become politicized. said, why is, you

there division in this country? the division comes from the media. they are not reporting the facts anymore. they are reporting their ideas, they put forth their ideas. the thing about him riding with the secret service, do you think the doctors would have put him out there if he was infectious? the whole thing is ridiculous. highlyoctors are specialized doctors from prestigious medical schools. d notwouldn't -- they woul put their reputation on the line for politics. that they will not hide anything, because if it backfires on them then their integrity is questioned. host: we have a caller who does

not trust what information we have received so far. weler: i believe that what have seen with president trump, he has a tendency to lie or mislead about stuff, especially with the coronavirus, about what is going on. the fact that he is outdoing political events, it is questionable. i do not believe the doctors, because they do have a responsibility to the patient. and it is the president, so whatever information he wants to be sent out to the public, he controls that. the doctors can only relay what it is that he wants to give information onto the public. and again, you know, they have integrity, but they are also at the whim of this person that t, thato put a spin on i he is strong, healthy and in

charge. you want tot -- believe them, but you know that they are just the mouthpiece of the trump administration. host: barbara in south carolina. comments from social media this morning. margie saying, "i trust the information. he is doing well. protect him." "do not trust anything that comes out of the white house, it is a show for his followers and to boost his ego." and a viewer from pittsburgh, "the president has lost the public trust. i wonder if he had in the first place. this is not a competition. we need a president that we contrast, especially when it comes to life and death matters, such as a pandemic." it ishelsea saying, "if true, he has been putting others at risk. he knew he was positive. and the stones with his drive-by

put the secret service at risk. it's appalling." about tournament left in this segment, as you can continue to call in. we are asking you whether you trust what has been released on president trump's health. if you do, 202-748-8000. if you don't, 202-748-8001. if you are unsure, 202-748-8002. we also want to update you on some stories we are tracking, including an announcement expected today on the political future of a republican senator from pennsylvania, patrick toomey, who will not seek reelection in 2022, bringing about a competitive race in pennsylvania. and he will not run for governor according to officials. he is expected to make the announcement today at a news conference in bethlehem. his office declining to comment on sunday, but that is the

reporting from "the washington post." we will look to see what happens with that announcement, but we also want to keep you updated on other happenings in and around washington. we are covering several of them, including this event happening at the brookings institution, a discussion on the presidential election and implications for the u.s.-eurioope relationship. that will be online and on c-span2. you can listen to that on the free c-span radio app as well. and tonight, ed markey, a u.s. senate republican candidate, will participate in a televised debate with o'connor. you can watch of 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span and on c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. back to your phone calls. shirley is unsure if she

trusts what has been released on the president's health. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not know if he even has the virus, because in pennsylvania, when pennsylvania was quarantined, we were not supposed to leave the house or anything. diddmitted in the text he last night, that he had been visiting everybody in the hospital, soldiers and everybody. that he was out on the road in his van, doing whatever he wanted to do. who knows? i am just taking their word that he has the virus. else has it, they have to stay where they are at. host: is that a problem, that as a citizen you do not know about the health of the president? and that is how you feel?

caller: i do not even know if he has the virus. i mean, he does not act like anybody that has been set. -- sick. i do not know. too much ofieve anything from washington anymore. host: robin is also in pennsylvania, on the line for those that say they do trust what has been released. caller: good morning. i want to say a couple comments. we live in america, right? am i right? host: yes. caller: why would anybody -- since when does america kick a president down when they are sick? this is unbelievable. ke, hes like saying -- li doesn't have the virus or the press talking about the 20 for the amendment. and then nancy pelosi, it is his

own fault for going out there. follow thatnancy's president trump two years ago told them about clearing the woods out. now all of california is on fire. this is ridiculous. my cousin is a doctor. he takes an oath. you cannot lie. only american people know that. keep listening to the media, they are ridiculous. and you had a question about dr. fauci. let me tell you something, i want all of you people to go back to the beginning. c-span coming should be able to do this -- dr. fauci did not know what he was talking about. first, he said go on cruises, just be careful, you do not need to wear a mask. then it was, you need to wear a mask. donald trump was going on what they were telling him. i am sick of this, it has to stop. host: robin in pennsylvania, you

bring up nancy pelosi, she was on "face the nation" yesterday and was asked about the outbreak of the coronavirus at the white house. this is what she had to say. todeo clip] >> any reason believe that the source of the infection came from capitol hill? those thathe optics, were at the white house were the ones at that by the virus back to capitol hill. but, again, let's look at this in a larger sense of what it means to be american people. we need to have trust, we have to trust that what they are telling us about the president's condition is real. we have to have confidence in the judgment of the doctors who are treating him, that not only do they give a presentation, that when they give a presentation to the press it has to be approved by the president. that is not very scientific.

so i think this could be a unifying moment for our country. we all pray for the president and we know that we have to do more to prevent or to stop this virus. host: speaker nancy pelosi yesterday on cbs. capitol hill to and protecting against the coronavirus, today in "the washington post," by a former republican staffer and a former democratic staffer on capitol hill, the headline, "make testing required for staff." the best way to prevent the spreading of the virus is through mandatory and frequent testing of everyone who enters into capitol hill office building, including the u.s. capitol, at a minimum. members of congress should be tested on arrival. balk, saying that those in congress are more

important than other americans. but some of these fall in line to the residential succession and it makes their lives google. -- critical. as dysfunctional as washington is, they write, "we must reduce asymptomaticat an colleague unknowingly spreads the virus, whether from home a political event." back to your phone calls. 15 minutes left in this first segment. does notaryland, he believe what is coming out about the president's health. why is that? caller: thank you. i do not believe it because the president said he was taking medicine and being tested. it is only a matter of convenience since he lost the first debate. i think he is playing americans, playing on their sympathy. she was called in and

upset about is taking advantage of a situation, to talk about a sick president. who knows if he is even sick. i do not think the doctors were comfortable making that statement. when they were on tv, it seemed rushed. why would they release him? why would he go home in an ambulance? it does not make sense. it is not adding up. if anything, i would've held back on a press release, being sensitive to the nation's security. why would they want to broadcast something like that? it does not make sense. i just don't believe it. host: you are advocating for less information because of the national security applications? -- implications? fake,: i think that it is i do not think the president trump has the coronavirus, to be honest. i think he is using it as a way

to get out of more debates with the vice president. i think that is the issue. i think that he lost the first debate and that is probably what is driving it. all of a sudden he announces he is sick just after the first debate? it does not make sense. i think he is playing on americans' emotions. that is what it looks like to me. he is not showing symptoms. whatever the doctors are saying is wrong with him, there is not evidence from him as he takes a joyride down the street and risks everybody else's health. host: john from columbus, ohio is unsure about what is being released. caller: good morning to america and all god's people around the world. they all say, i was a democrat, were you a southern democrat before whatever year you were born? it stresses me out how you can

give the facts. you read the newspaper, you give people the facts, but people do not like those facts. sf it is not their fact they,. lady from west virginia -- host: let's speculate about other callers, talk to me about the president's health. where do you fall? caller: donald trump beats to his own drum. he does not give a cramp about -- crap about what you think or what his supporters think. he will do whatever he wants to do. and i just do not understand -- you can give donald trump facts. facts,ts is i believe my you believe your facts. you cannot tell a person, hey, you can tell them, 'hey, boss. the cooler is breaking down.'

patch it up and go on. donald trump beats to his own drum. host: we will stay in ohio. this is mary. good morning. caller: good morning. upsetment is going to that last gentleman who was upset about people who were democrats that are now republicans. my transition happened a few weeks ago, actually, last week at the debate in cleveland. i do believe about the reports coming out about president trump. but i would like to tell you firsthand what i witnessed outside the debate last week. it was not on the news or anything else. two streets over from the cleveland clinic foundation is the projects. i am half black, my husband is black, so i dare somebody to call me racist because at would

mean i hate my kids. two blocks over from the cleveland clinic is projects here in cleveland. across the street, cleveland renovated a bunch of empty crack houses and restored them. and people bought up the properties and everything else. during that debate, black lives matter's went ahead and were literally jumping over the porch railings and telling us to get out of the houses and to give them to black people that are in the projects across the street. then one of those antifa people, and another one who had black lives matter across their shirt, actually through a molotov cocktail onto the porch. this was occurring up and down the street. host: you live on the street? caller: and joe biden was saying, he would not even say law and order. he would not say anything against antifa or anything else.

it was not white supremacists here that were destroying these houses and busting windows with molotov cocktails, but that is not on the public. host: you say your transformation happened after that incident, so were you planning to vote for joe biden before the debate? caller: i had had questions about him before that. i was one of those people that i saw both ways, joe biden and donald trump, but i never thought i would vote for trump. but after watching joe biden stand on that stage -- on the -- i'm sorry, i a little bit nervous, but after him standing on the platform and he would not even say the words "law and order" or point the finger at the people who are destroying it. later,ere we are a week the president diagnosed with the coronavirus. how do you think that impacts

the campaign in the final weeks? caller: i think it will actually , obviously, to continue with president trump's health condition. but one other thing that has helped me change my mind from democrat to republican. during the last four years, the democrats have become such a violent party. you cannot wear a hat unless you are going to get mugged. take a look at the news and what is going on on the internet, when it comes to the democrats wishing that our president would die. i do not care what my position has ever been, democrat or whatever, but i have never wished for a republican president to die. caller from ohio, this morning. fortis pastor carol in wayne, indiana, on the line for those who say they do not trust what is being released. caller: god morning to everyone. to the last caller, it does not

matter what your nationality is -- we are so busy with the color lines -- but she never really answered the question. that is the problem. what we have here is it boils down to the truth. it boils down to truth. anytime anyone else has been in the hospital -- i have family members and that have coronavirus. they had to go back because it attacked their kidneys, they were released and they had to go back. this is an issue of honesty. this is an issue of the president, a resident of the white house, because he is not a president -- the president is supposed to be for the people. and for all these people who do not know the difference, it is not about democrat or republican, it is about can we trust joe biden?

we already know we cannot trust trump. how many ethical people have lied? let's get real, donald trump already has somebody that he replaced dr. fauci with because he would not lie. this guy is not even a person, this is not even his field. we have to wake up and pray to god, do we want the truth? do we want somebody who does not care about anything else? she said she is half black. we are brown, not black. host: are you an active pastor? caller: it does not matter what your color is. donald trump is getting excellent care but we have people on the line. host: we are running short on time and i do not to shortchange other callers, but are you an active pastor? caller: yes. host: what did you preach about yesterday? caller: i always preach about truth. andways preach about god loving each other. also about the fact that we have

isturn to god and find out, lie, or biden -- they all but the bottom line, would jesus do any of this? take a look at what is going on. in northne is carolina, unsure about who to trust or what to just. -- trust. caller: i actually believe he has been sick, but i do believe that there are two different treatments, one for the privileged and one for the regular people. we have had over a quarter of a million people die from this mess and this dude is running around like he just had a talk selectively -- tonsillectomy. i is ridiculoust. have we seen anybody from washington diet? we have seen people from -- die yet? we have seen people from

hollywood pass away, older people pass away, wonderful people pass away, but it is like he is slapping us in the face or spitting in our face. as far as voting, uh, i'm from the 1970's, we already fought for this right. as far as the lady, she was talking about racial earlier, we got this right. they have been talking about stop murdering black people. we would walk hand in hand saying, we are integrated, during the busting rights. we fought for these rights, but he is bringing it back alive. what is happening with the young people is good, but this man, he is so on presidential it is unbelievable. i will look for joe biden, even though if you look back on his records, you know, that -- i

mean, he is just as bad. but the thing is, a vote for anybody else is a vote for donald trump. host: diane in north carolina this morning. we have the latest numbers for the coronavirus. 7.4 million plus cases in the united states. the death toll right now, according to the latest 603 -- , 209,000 209,603. carolina, goorth ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. as far as the president not having the virus, that seems really strange. how did all these other people get the virus? are we saying that they are not sick either? and as far as the secret service, do you think that he himself,s car and flew

i am sorry, in the helicopter, all the way over to the hospital? no, he has had secret service with him the whole time, since he said he was positive on thursday night. and also, there are many people asymptomatic,are they do not have symptoms, they do not have to look sick. they are giving him these medications to prevent this stuff. and as far as the lady who said he was not a president. hel, he is a president and is mine president and i am proud of him. now, if you want to follow the mainstream media and keep following "the new york times" post," andshington we will all pretend that "the wall street journal" is conservative -- i would like to see c-span put more conservative newspapers on. host: --

host: who do you trust? the washingtonat times, the washington examiner. things like that. something they- talked about before, as far as the riots and things that are going on, i watched a couple of live streams at night on youtube. i watch them every night. and there are no proud boys. there is no kkk. there is nobody out there but antifa and blm. host: we showed this headline from the washington times earlier today on the president's trip outside the white house. you mentioned the washington examiner's report is, we talked to them often on the washington journal. i recommend you go to our website, c-span.org. i am sure you will find somebody

who you do agree with. i appreciate you watching and hope you and all of our waters continue watching. we are done with the first hour. up next, the supreme court begins its new term today. we will talk with wall street journal supreme court correspondent jess bravin about the new term and what is next for judge amy coney barrett when it comes to her confirmation. user, brian called will join to discuss the 25th amendment -- toan kalt will join us discuss the 25th amendment and continuity of government plans. ♪ live coverage of the second confirmation hearings for judge amy coney barrett, starting monday, october 12, with opening statements by judiciary committee members and judge barrett. live coverage on c-span and c-span.org. listen live on the c-span radio app and be sure to visit c-span.org to view a playlist of

amy coney barrett's legal views. >> who will control congress in january? stay informed on all of the competitive competitive races leading up to election day with c-span's election day 2020 coverage. watch the candidates debate and election results on c-span. watch online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> the contenders about the man who ran for presidency and lost but changed political history. tonight, he helped found both the national republican party and the wait party. henry clay. the contenders. this week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on

c-span3. >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. created by america's cable television companies as a public service and brought to you today by your television providers. >> washington journal continues. viewers familiar with jess bravin, wall street journal supreme court correspondent, joining us via zoom, on the opening day of the new supreme court. an update on judge amy coney barrett's confirmation, timeline and what impact the president's diagnosis and two members of the senate judiciary committees diagnosis will have on her supreme court nomination. guest: so far, according to the chairman of the judiciary committee, senator lindsey graham, no effect at all. full steam ahead. hearings will begin next week as he has announced. the committee put out a fact

howt last night, explaining many hearings they have had so far. some members have participated remotely. the anticipation from republican leadership is to move as quickly as possible to attempt to confirm judge merrick -- judge barrett before the election. we will find out if perhaps something comes up. democrats on the committee have been demanding that the hearings take place in person, they say. they are also saying that it is too dangerous to have but they do not have the votes to enforce that if the republicans stick together. host: you talk about having the votes. if multiple republican senators cannot be in the room for a committee confirmation vote, is there anything democrats can do to slow up this process as we

move, not just through the hearings but through the committee vote before it goes to the floor? guest: there are form requirements in the senate rules. theoretically, the democrats could boycott the meeting and deprive the republicans. republicans could respond by attempting to change the rules of the committee. we have seen both sides do that when they have the majority to get rid of procedural rights the minority had. it is, i guess, possible the democrats could slow it down by forcing republicans to change the rules for the quorum. the answer is we don't know. republicans have the upper hand. democrats might have some procedural moves to slow things down. we also don't know what is happening with the spread of this horrible disease and whether members will have to be hospitalized. there is a lot of uncertainty

now. everything we were hearing from republican leadership is full steam ahead. there is no issue, nothing is more important to them than filling the vacancy left by justice ginsburg. and whether events allow them to fulfill that pledge, we will see. host: how far have democrats tried to play this out in terms of the quorum requirements? how long, if they use that tactic, could they delay a confirmation vote? how long would it take for lindsey graham to have a vote on changing the roles? would there be a quorum when it comes to changing the rules? how far have we dug into that process? guest: there has never been an occasion for me to learn the archaic rules of the judiciary committee in that regard. historically, the minority has been able to request and require

a delay of one week of a vote on a nominee. they have -- that has been traditionally what the minority does when they have a nominee they don't like and they try to slow things down to write their speeches and so on, opposing. i really don't know how effectively the democrats can or will play whatever bad hand they have. y are looking up records from the 1800s and can be done.what host: in terms of what it will look like in the room next week, if and when the hearings go forward, what do you know at this point about new testing procedures, who will be in the room and how that might work? guest: it has not been announced. we don't know. we do not know if the hearing will be done entirely remotely,

partially remotely. or if it is up in the air, it is a fluid situation. only two numbers of the judiciary committee have tested positive for coronavirus. maybe there will be more. we don't know. the ones who tested positive will have to quarantine three they cannot be with other people at this time. -- quarantine. they cannot be with other people at this time. whether others will come down with it, we don't know. judgee not heard from barrett or her husband, who reported last week that they tested positive earlier this year. we have not heard anything from her or her white house handlers. it is mysterious trade we have not heard from the court, if anyone was tested there, given the president visited buildings with respect to justice jens

berg -- justice ginsburg when she laid in repose. a lot of questions unknown to us. i guess that is what makes it exciting. it is a tragedy. i guess i have to tell you we don't know. it is very fluid. one thing i can tell you for sure is that the supreme court schedule will not be disrupted. they do not fool around with that kind of stuff. one observer noted that the contrast of the white house, the supreme court justices were very cautious about it when you saw them paying respect to justice ginsburg. they all had a's masks and one had a face shield as well. -- face masks and one had a face shield as well. they are taking it very seriously. it is a much more -- it is a branch of government that does schedule androm

its methods very easily. that thety certain supreme court will move right ahead with its telephone hearings next week. what will happen across the street at the senate judiciary committee is very much up in the air. a busy time on the supreme court beat. glad to have jess bravin of the wall street journal with us for about 35 more minutes. your phone calls, your questions, the phone lines, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 jess bravin, as folks are calling in, what happens today on the opening day of a new term? how does the supreme court work with a bench of eight justices? guest: if we were in the courtroom, everyone would notice the black draping over justice ginsburg seat of the bench. the last time we saw that was when justice scalia also died in

2016. we will not see that because the court is not meeting inside the courtroom. everyone is meeting by telephone for the same procedure that we in may when they conducted a reduced briefing schedule. i expect that we will hear a new voice at first calling the court into forum -- quorum because we have a new acting marshall. pamela talkin retired. the deputy marshal will cry oea yea. we will have a male voice for the first time in two decades. the chief justice will make some minor technical announcements of the closing of the last term and the beginning of the new one. theay say something about loss of justice ginsburg briefly. the court will quickly move directly into arguments.

hear ist they will about the structure of the judiciary committee in the state of delaware. the court will spend a little bit of time on the ceremonial matters. but then they will get right to is this. there will not be much emotion or politics in the way the events unfold. host: we will get right to our colors. isnext -- up first for you joe mccutcheon, one of our every 30 day colors. you have joe. joe, go ahead. caller: thank you, john. i love c-span. i just want to say, jeff, i think amy coney barrett will be confirmed and she will become a great justice. i want to applaud president trump. i think he will be reelected in a landslide. we have leadership that strongly favors judge comey, led by a young man who i think will be

future president. i think she will be confirmed and be a great justice. i think president trump will be reelected in a huge landslide and i love c-span. i think steve scully will do a great job moderating the second debate. host: how is that classic barbecue going? have you gotten more folks signed up since calling in an advertising it? caller: it is great. i have another man named reese sanford who i think will be president of the united states. he is a reagan/trump conservative. we have a great bunch of young leaders. five or six could be president. i just want to say i love c-span. i have been calling this great network for 30 years and you do a great job. steve scully will do a great job handling the second debate. john, you are a great american. host: that is joe in georgia. every 30 days for 30 years for joe mccutcheon. in pennsylvania, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. , i wouldn't know

what was going on in the world. host: patrick, what are your thoughts on this opening day of the supreme court amid everything else that is going on? with only eight justices, especially if we have disputes after this election, november 3, i really wanted to ask your guest here, if you could enlighten us a little bit -- we are all praying in pennsylvania for a speedy recovery for the president and his family and the other people who came down with the virus. , wanted to ask this gentleman if he could give us insight into exactly what is happening with general flynn. here is a man that served this country for 38 years.

i have been following it but i cannot quite wrap our arms around it as far as what is going on the last month. all of this evidence that said that general flynn was not doing bad and it was never turned over to the court. is that going to eventually end up in the supreme court? host: we will let just raven jumped in on general flynn -- jess bravin jump in on general flynn. west: what do we do when have an eight member supreme court? great question because we don't have an odd number. what if, particularly what happens if they split 4-4 on a decision? if they cannot find a way to reach a majority and get five votes together, what happens is the lower court's decision that

is on appeal remains in effect. go to thef it did not supreme court at all. lower court decision stays in effect whether it is the election case or any regular case. now, in many of those cases, it may be the chief justice agreeing with the three liberal members of the court. it may not be. that is the main dynamic to understand. regarding to general flynn, his justiceo and the apartments effort to dismiss the charges which he already pled guilty to is underway. -- ins judge sullivan's judge sullivan's courtroom. i have not been following that as closely as some of my colleagues. it is not on the supreme court right now. maybe it will get there at some point. right now, i guess we have to look and see what comes out of

the district court. right now, i don't believe they have made a decision. host: back to the first part of your answer, election dispute cases. do they have to go through lower courts? could they be fast tracked to an eight member supreme court and therefore not have a lower court decision to fall back on? guest: do you mean that they would be -- i think it is very unlikely. that is where you file, you file in the district court. you cannot go into the court of appeals. the supreme court does not have original jurisdiction. except for a few minor exceptions, one of which we will hear today. there is a dispute between texas and new mexico over some water rights. that starts at the supreme court. put much every other kind of

case has to start at a lower court first. host: to virginia beach, virginia, this is bill. caller: i don't know you from adam. that is a dangerous way to start. i have a comment to make and i would like your response to my comment. so far, i have learned from my television set and news media that chuck schumer and the democrats in the senate do not think it is ok for members of the republican side who have the virus and have to stay at home, they are not allowed to vote by proxy for a supreme court nominee. for democrats and everybody in the country, even people you don't meet

face-to-face, to sign a ballot and mail it in for the u.s. president. for some reason, those two rules just don't seem to click as being quite right with me. would you care to comment on that? thank you. don't giveknow, i advice to the senate or to citizens on how to vote or conduct their business. i will say that there is something different about conducting a confirmation hearing in the senate and voting a ballot for president or city council or anything else. the difference is that the senators are entitled to have a hearing to ask questions of the nominee before they confirm that person and make judgments about that person's credibility and whichament and so forth, is something that we as ordinary citizens do not have the right to do when we are voting for president. hopefully, i am sure steve scully will do us all very proud when he asks questions on our

behalf. it is a somewhat different type of proceeding. but you are right in the sense that a lot of our business has likeferred to remote, just today. unfortunately, i had my c-span-washington journal cup at home. host: we appreciate that. caller: product -- guest: product placement for you guys. a lot of things have transitioned including the supreme court itself. that is a fair question, why can't they do the confirmation as many other things are? the answer is they don't want to. whether that is purely for political reasons or they feel the in person environment is special, if you are accused of a crime, you have a right to an in person confirmation -- confrontation with the people accusing you. justice scalia was a strong

supporter of that. i don't think i can make a judgment on whether democrats are doing this based on principle, politics or a combination of both. everything that goes on across court is a strong political move regardless of who is behind it. host: that is one of our older mugs. i will get you a campaign 2020 mug grade you cannot see it on your screen but it is a lot bigger and holds more coffee. someway, somehow we will get that to you. guest: thank you. i had to bring a resupply here since this cup is so small. host: you do not need a resupply on one of these. to raymond, good morning. youer: let me say thank very much. you have been extremely educational in the information you have given area my question mass. today is red

this morning at st. louis cathedral in new orleans, there is a red mass, could you comment on that? is held byred mass the catholic church at the beginning of the supreme court term at st. matthew's cathedral in washington. and the members of the supreme court and other leaders of government are invited to it. attended a couple of those. this year's red mask was livestreamed. i watched it. mass was livestreamed. i watched it. wherean old tradition leaders in government seek divine guidance and inspiration.

sometimes, the homilies that are spoken there are fairly general helpts to bring in divine to these people who have serious response bill these. one year, there was a very -- serious response bill these. one year, there was -- responsibilities. one year, there was a strong antiabortion message. justice ginsburg said she did not want to be there anymore. she did not want to be lectured about her job. justices, including some who are not catholic, have generally attended. often, other government officials have. the chief justice generally has attended. that is pre-much what it is. it is no secret. think members of the public

may be able to attend. you mentioned judicial preference. --bers of the supreme court do the justices like working remotely? how did that work in the spring? have there been complaints about the process and how the supreme court's are handling it? guest: the supreme court has been under great pressure from the powerbrokers at c-span, those very powerful people, to broadcast its hearings for many years. the court has politely declined invitations until now. the combination of a deadly global pandemic and c-span's arm-twisting has gotten the court to have a live audio feed where one can hear. has become somewhat more transparent even though no one can watch the argument anymore.

at least until the crisis is over. the argument have unfolded somewhat differently. in the courtroom, it can be a free-for-all where a justice can jump in with a question when they have one. there are small courtesies. usually justices with more seniority can go first or cut off another one. there is a rhetorical brawl that can take place. for telephone migrants were no one can see each other, they went with old-fashioned phones. serialrt adopted a sequence. the chief justice goes first and he asks questions for several minutes and he turns it over to the next senior justice, justice clarence thomas. with her passing, it will go to justice breyer. they do not interrupt each other and they do not have the same

kind of dynamic they had before. some people thought it was an improvement because questions could be articulated without interruption. the arguing lawyers had a chance to answer without being interrupted except for by the person asking the question. there is some that missed the other style. so, one thing i have to say we did here and this was of significance to those of us who listen to the core all the time, we heard a lot more from justice thomas at the live argument or in person argument. he very rarely asked questions. but when the microphone went to him, he was very engaged and asking many questions that other justices followed up on. for us, we don't get the chance to hear him ask questions and engage with the attorneys. it was exciting. we wrote a story about how justice thomas was an unexpected star of the telephone hearings.

bravin's of jess stories are available at wsj.com. just raven can be found on twitter at jess bravin. can be found on twitter at jess bravin. onler: they count the votes november 3. there are people voting now. -- hope: let me say that i every vote is counted for president. disputes orere are contests after an election, particularly when it is close. sometimes they end up in court. we got to see that in excruciating detail 20 years ago in florida.

whether that happens this year or not remains to be seen as the experts like to say. the question is we cannot know until after the election takes place on november 3 and we have ballot counts and we see if there are any problems. we know that both campaigns, the trump campaign and biden campaign have legal teams that are studying up and getting ready to deal with any issues that might arise. i think that everyone, including the supreme court itself, really, really, really hopes that judges do not have to resolve any disputes about the election. the bigger the margin, the less likely there will be any disputes to adjudicate. could it go to the supreme court? it could. that would be the least welcome case the supreme court could receive. justices of any philosophy or ideology, one thing they really just like is to be seen as

another group of politicians and not jurists. they don't want to be the ones to tell you who the president is. host: take us through the october calendar at the supreme court. what is the most high-profile cases the supreme court will be hearing? guest: there are a number of high-profile cases. the court somehow managed to schedule them all after november 3. i don't think that is a coincidence. i think the court was doing beinger it could to avoid political -- the death of justice ginsburg quashed hopes that they could keep a low profile during the elections. the outcome of that vacancy and the possible reaction should the democrats take the majority afterwards has been a major news topic. areactual cases we hear interesting. they are not, i would say, pivotal to the life of the

republic. we have a water dispute between texas and new mexico. this dispute has been going on for decades and decades. we have a case that looks at the structure of judicial appointments in the state of delaware. delaware has a rule that requires parity between the political affiliations of the judges on the state court and whether that is constitutional or not is at the floor of the s 's -- the u.s. supreme court. we will hear cases coming up. whether have one about bankrupt motorists have to pay parking tickets to the city of chicago to get their mounted cars back. that is a fascinating question. we have disputes coming up. a big copyright dispute between google and oracle. that might be the most consequential in terms of the stock values of those comfy.

-- companies. the supreme court may are may not resolve that dispute. what else do we have coming up? pretty much, it is lower intensity issues. but, as soon as the election is over, things begin to get exciting once again. a religion versus thelar interests case where question arises about whether private nonprofit foster care agencies that received contracts from the city of philadelphia must adhere to the city's nondiscrimination rule. the city of philadelphia requires no discrimination against lgbt people. the catholic social services agency, which has been a foster care agency for decades and childrenill not place with same-sex couples. the city said we will not give you a contract then.

whether the catholic social services has a right to exclude same-sex couples but still qualify for public funding comes one day after the election. of thek, the case affordable care act comes one week after the election. this is a challenge that says the affordable care act unconstitutional because there was no longer a tax involved. i am sure many viewers remember the court upheld that because it hada tax penalty, congress the ability to pass the overhaul. now that the tax is zero, is it still constitutional is the question. that is coming up the week after

the election. there are important things. the court has tried to push them all off until after the election and focus on parking tickets before it. host: about 10 minutes left with jess bravin. taking your calls and questions on this opening day of what is known as the 2021 term of the supreme court. term 2020.ber host: it is officially known as the october term of 2020. when is it known as the 2021 term? guest: in the olden days, there were different terms for different parts of the year. they would start with the name of the month the term began. for different seasons because the justices had to travel around country and around circuit. now, ite of the court begins on the first monday of october.

it is known as the october term of the year. we are going to be wrapping up today. , october term 2019. we will begin today october term 2020. it will be the 2020-2020 one term. if you said 2021 term, people would talk about -- would think you are talking about the next term. host: i appreciate the fun facts. you have to run to start your day and new term. this is mark in new york, a democrat. good morning. caller: i had a couple of questions. one is, there is all this talk about adding initial -- additional supreme court justices. does congress have the ability to change the ruling to hear a

case to eight? is haver question justices heard or talked about term limitations? guest: congress can set the size of the supreme court. the court was established in the 18th century. it had six members and the number of members was changed from time to time of through the 1860's. since then, it has been at nine members. congress could change the number of supreme court justices if it wishes to. that would require, just like any other law, a majority in each house and the president's signature. to congress has the power set the jurisdiction of the supreme court. what that is -- the outer limits of it have not been defined. we have not seen congress try to take away issues and say the

supreme court is not allowed to hear one kind of case or another . the supreme court may have to decide whether congress can take away some of those powers. can congress decide how may justices are required to put a case on the docket? your supreme court rules, need four justices to put a case on the docket. you need five to have a majority . a majority of those participating in the case have to vote one side or the other. could congress say you cannot hear a case unless each justices agree? my immediate answer is i don't know. i have never heard of congress trying to intervene inside the internal rules of the supreme court to that degree. for that matter, could congress say the court must have unanimous opinion for its decisions to take effect? be --k the court would

there would be separation of powers issues. can congress encode on the internal workings of the supreme ?ourt to that degree we have not seen that type of issue arise. the answer is i don't know. i think it is unlikely that that kind of postal of getting into the -- proposal of getting into the internal machinery will catch the attention of congress. regarding term limits, and unusual issue has arisen. can the supreme court's terms be limited to 18 years? the constitution says that the justices served during good behavior, which is interpreted as for life. could congress say you keep your salary and you cannot be making decisions on supreme court cases

after 18 years? i don't know. it has never come up before. the supreme court itself would have to decide whether that is constitutional. i suspect the justices would believe that amending the constitution is the proper way to address the terms of federal there is a super clever effort to get around a constitutional amendment, that we don't know. host: this is david, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. is -- it hasi ask to do with textualism and original-ism. what does that mean and are there two or three? liberally use either of those terms or the other term, if you could give a definition of those.

a liberal would be textualism or original-ism? how do they come to that? is that the school they go to, their law school? do they choose that at some time on how they actually interpret the law? guest: this is a really good question and this is something that affects the kind of way -- the approaches different judges and justices take. noticed ishat i have that there are no -- there are very few extreme cases where a judge uses only one approach and none other than that. there is no member of the supreme court who would say the original meaning is irrelevant. none of them would say that. none of them would say that the

points of the law are totally irreverent -- irrelevant to my decision. you won't see that. it is a matter of degree to what they give the most weight two. would talkes would say about ritualism. it was championed by justice scalia and judge barrett is a follower. what did cruel and unusual punishment mean in the 1780's and 1790's, when that precision -- provisional ban was added to the constitution? what did it mean then? if they felt it was not cruel and unusual to tar and feather somebody in 1790, then it is probably a bad idea to do it today but it is not banned by

the constitution. that would set an example of an originalist approach to the eighth amendment's cruel and unusual punishment. others say, you know, the founders used sometimes very specific terms, you have to be 35 your soul to be resident and sometimes -- years old to be president and sometimes they as cruelder terms such and unusual punishment. in 1958, there was an opinion by chief justice warren that said the meaning of those very broad it isis not static but defined by the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. therefore what was considered cruel and unusual in the 18th century would not pass muster today because we would all think that whipping somebody in public would be cruel and unusual. an example of

originalist versus living approach. textualism is not the same. it means looking at the words of the statute. what did congress pass and we will give life to those words. what they intended to do while passing it, who knows? there are hundreds of light -- lawmakers. who knows what they had in their minds, we cannot look to their purpose. i think every justice will begin by looking at the text of the statute. elena kagan said we all textual istts now -- textual now. but what if you have text that makes -- that makes no sense? how do you figure that out? people who might be called the construe the words

to achieve the purpose the legislators intended. sts would say no. those are some examples. you can always find counterexamples. there are hundreds and hundreds of court decisions. if you want to see if one justice or another seems to be cheating a little bit, using someone else's approach, that would not shock me. sometimes, people who adhere to these philosophies defy each other. we saw a case that extended the civil rights protections adopted in 1964 to lgbt employees. on one side, you saw justice gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion. on the other side, you saw astice thomas who is known is

great originalist and textual ist. they say they used the same method but they got opposite results and said one another was doing it wrong. host: this is scott in new york, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. god bless the human race. i have a two part. the scientists need to figure out if somebody who has already had coronavirus gets around a super spread where there is a lot of the germs, that that person could not catch it and spread it as a super spreader themselves. i watched three laws being broke while we were nominating a supreme court judge onto the courts. you had no social distancing, a group of over 20 and no masks. amy coney barrett did not have her adopted son sitting in the front row, he was not wearing a mask.

how is it that we can have a judge who does not want to abide by the laws of the land? everybody get out there and vote. talk to you next month, thank you and god bless. host: give me a final minute or so. guest: the supreme court is taking very seriously public health guidance by having closed its building to the public, a beautiful building. please visit it when it reopens. they are holding hearings by telephone. they are taking it seriously. take ite that they all very seriously, the public health guidance, to reduce the spread of this horrible disease. , a supremebravin court correspondent for the wall street journal, thank you so much. i learned quite a bit when you come on. thanks for coming. guest: thanks, john. don't host: forget my mug. host:i will get that -- guest: don't forget my mug. host: i will get that to you.

up next, a discussion about the 25th amendment and the continuity of government. we are joined by michigan state professor brian kalt. stick around. ♪ the contenders, about the men who ran for the presidency and lost but changed political history. tonight, he helped bound -- found the national republican party and the quake party -- whig party and was known as the national compromiser. henry clay.

tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. who will control congress in january? stay informed on all of the competitive congressional races, leading up to election day, with c-span's campaign 2020 coverage. watch the candidates bay and election results on c-span. watch online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. the competition is on. be a part of this year's c-span studentcam video competition. mill and high school starnes, b high students,nd be the star of the conversation. be bold with your document or, show supporting and opposing points of view and includes c-span video. receive $100,000 in

total grand prizes including a grand prize winner of $5,000. be informed. tips and more information on how to get started at our website. studentcam.org. >> washington journal continues. the: the discussion on fifth amendment and continuity of government, our guest is professor brian kalt. postrote in the washington on friday morning that the law is clear about handling presidential illness but it can get murky fast. start with what is clear. guest: well, the 25th amendment gives us very clear procedures for transferring power from the president to the vice president, when the president declares himself unable to discharge his

unconscious,he is unable to declare himself unable , then the vice president and the majority of the cabinet can make that declaration and transfer power. things get murkier if the president contests the declaration by the vice thingsnt and cabinet and get really problematic if the president and the vice president are both incapacitated. because they are, we have a lot of gaps in our law. host: as you have watched this unfold since friday, what concerns you the most right now? think, again, there is a murky area where the president might think that he is able and he is not. it is hard to know. we don't know exactly how the president is doing and what the side effects of his medication might be. he could be fine. the problem is that the president can be in pretty bad shape and still not

incapacitated enough that the 25th amendment would necessarily kick in. i am not saying we are in that now but there is the potential for that gray area where the president is impaired not incapacitated and that is what worries me most now is the possibility that that could happen. host: how concerned are you about vice president mike pence going to his debate this week? we have heard that they will move forward with the vice presidential debate, him and senator kamala harris. think as long as he is careful and safe and observes the precautions, then he should be able to do that. but, again, there is the potential of a real problem. the 25th amendment only provides for transferring power to the vice president, not down further in the line of succession. it could get very problematic.

the point is to make it clear at any given point who is in charge. getse vice president impaired, certainly that clarity could vanish in an instant and we could have a real crisis. host: when was the 25th amendment added to the constitution and how may times has it been invoked? guest: the amendment was passed by congress in 1965. it was in the works before the kennedy assassination but then that sort of moved things along, the notion of presidential succession and disability was fresh in anybody's mind. it was ratified by the states in 1967. section one says the vice president becomes president if the president dies or resigns or is removed. had has never been clear -- never been clear in the constitution before and that narrowed it down.

was used whent gerald ford succeeded nixon. section two was used twice when spiro agnew resigned and gerald ford became president and when ford became president and needed a new vice president. section three for presidential disability has been used three times. once by president reagan in 1985, when he had surgery on his: and was under anesthesia for eight hours. and then twice by george dollar -- george w. bush when he had colonoscopies, he transferred power for a couple of hours to dick cheney. section four, when people talk about invoking the 25th amendment, that is the only part that has never been invoked. the vice president and cabinet have never declared a president unable except on tv and movies a lot. host: talking with brian kalt,

law professor and michigan state , taking your phone calls and questions. phone lines split up this way. in the eastern or central time zones, (202) 748-8000. in the mountain or pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. we should note that brian kalt's book, unable, the law of politics and limits of section four of the 25th amendment, a good time to ask your questions about the 25th amendment. charles is up first out of columbia, south carolina. good morning. caller: i have two major concerns about presidential illness. when you look at joe biden, he looks he has -- he looks like he has slowed down so much for with five years ago cognitive decline. i am concerned that he does not make it through his first term if he is elected and we have kamala harris. i am very concerned about that.

we are basically electing kamala harris. the second is what happens if , if he has a serious ,llness that incapacitates him at what point does kamala harris stepped in to remove joe biden from president? -- step in to remove joe biden from president? there is a major concern we have that they will not be able to move him out of office if he is incapacitated. he does not look like he would finish his first term. raise an important distention that is important to make. in the 25th amendment, section four, when the vice president and the majority of the cabinet declare the president unable, the president is not removed from office. this is a temporary and provisional transfer of power. there is an additional process where the president can contest that. in that instance, he would take

power back unless the vice president and the cabinet and two thirds of the house and senate all agreed that he is unable. even then, he would not be removed from office. he could keep trying again to return. the issue of cognitive decline is one i cover in the book. if the president has a condition he iss degenerative where not going to get better, ideally what would happen is, first and foremost, the president would recognize that and either invoke section three himself or resign. if the president does not do that, that is what section four is therefore. the bar is high. we are talking about, not impairment, but incapacity. if the president has lost a step over the years and he forgets things here and there, that is not what section four is about. is about when there

is no one in charge. is when the person's charge not as vigorous as we might like. there is a gap there. i cannot comment on joe biden's condition. i am not an expert on that. i do know that the system we have in place sets the bar very high. host: what is the definition of unable to discharge duties of his office? guest: like many things in the constitution, the 25th amendment uses the term unable but does not define it. instead of defining it, it tells us who decides. by structuring the process, saying who decides and how many of them need to agree, it flushes out the standard that way. someone might say unable means that they cannot do the job. if i were president, i would be unable because i am not qualified to be president. i would not be able to do the job. that is not what it means.

we know this because the process says he isresident ok, then he probably retains his power. again, it is only if his own people, the vice president and the cabinet and two thirds in the house and senate, that means substantial numbers and members of his own party, only if all of those people think he should not be there would it be invoked. what that does is raises the bar very high. more votes than you need for impeachment. impeachment, you did not need the vice president or cabinet onboard, you need a simple majority in the house, not two thirds. run is not an end alternative way of getting the president out of office if we don't like how he is doing. it is really just about inability to the level of total incapacitation. unable could mean a lot of things. given who the decision-makers are, it means capacity.

-- incapacitated. host: connie, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. for bid if is, god one of the presidential beforetes should die november 3, what would they do then? would the vice president on the ticket automatically be the one chosen? i just don't know, what would they do? is -- it is too late now to change the ballots. the balance would not be changed. people would still vote for the ticket that is printed on the ballot. but both political parties, the have rules inc place where if a nominee, presidential or vice presidential, dies or steps down, the party names the replacement. functionally, what would happen is people would vote for the missing candidate and then the

parties choice to replace that who the electors and electoral college vote for on december 14 when it becomes formal. the party would cordon eight with the electors -- coordinate with the electors. there are some states where they are bound to vote for whoever wins. we have a congressional president from 1872 where horace greeley died, where congress said electors cannot vote for somebody who is already dead. i would expect in that instance that the states that bind their wontors to vote for who would go with who their parties named as a replacement. this happened in 1912, the vice president died a few days before the election. vice president sherman died. the republican party, it did not manage -- matter much because they only wanon eight

electoral votes. host: to gary out of newport kentucky. said people always don't take the time to look at or consider the vice president. startlways said from the i'm sure vice president pence could walk right into this position if he had to. you have to look at the qualifications of the vice president. guest: that's absolutely true. through most of our history, the vice president was an afterthought. we have had very -- several

incidents where the vice president became president. if you lose the president, we have situations like when lincoln was shot and a member of the other party becomes president, facing two thirds majority of the opposition party in the house and senate. recently, we've done a good job of worrying less about balancing the ticket. ultimately, it's up to the voters. the voters are voting for a ticket. they are voting for the president and the understudy. the voters need to take that seriously and should always for both sides. host: i want to come back to section 4 of the 25th amendment.

or other body is congress may by law provide take us to principle officers and who that constitutes. guest: there is some confusion about this. the text is clear. the 15ey mean there is core members of the cabinet. this does not include cabinet level people like the chief of staff or the trade representative. this is secretary of state, attorney general, the people in the line of succession. is used in article 2.

that's where they talk about the cabinet. title v section 101 defines what the executive departments are. there are 15 of them. the most recent is homeland security. what if they are acting secretary? ise people think the cabinet full of acting secretaries. right now, there is just one. there are some questions about his status as acting secretary. the legislative history if active secretaries participate. the evidence says they would participate. principal officers, who's in charge of homeland security? chad wolf's. leaving aside the issue if he is the acting secretary. even if acting secretaries don't participate, they would be removed from the denominator. you just need a majority of who

is left. need a majority that are left. there is other body. congress is never done that. that would have to be done through legislation. fly could not just on the say forget the cabinet, let's have this doctor. they would have to pass a law and the president could veto it. that's very unlikely. host: we are talking to brian kalt of michigan state university. (202) 748-8000 if you have questions and you are in the eastern or central time zones. (202) 748-8001 if you're in the mountain or pacific time zones. this is howard in north carolina. in morning. caller: top of the morning to you. i have a question. you've got people calling and talking about joe biden and he

might not be in his right mind. they need to get off that. we are going into an election right now. they are still trying to throw stones it biden. we are talking about trump and pence. administration doesn't know who's going to be in charge right now today if something happens to trump. what i want to know is this. whateverou think trump let you guys know that he is incapacitated, he's no longer with the world at the moment because of the drugs? you take those drugs, you can't be coherent or in your right mind? why isn't anybody going to invoke the 25th amendment and let pence handle the job? it is true that a lot is

left up to the president. normally, we would say the bar is lower if the president declares himself unable. there is a natural reluctance by president to do that. when reagan was shot, he should have invoked section 3. he was in surgery for hours. he was out of it for days after that. to projectneed strength and vigor and control. presidentsnd to see lightly admit that they are not up to it. the question is at what point does the vice president step in? hope there we would is communication between the , thedent, the staff doctors, the family and the vice

president and the cabinet. point, they might want to step in. is political. it's not a medical question. in,he vice president steps ,oes over the president's head the president might not be happy about that. the deck is stacked in his favor. fine, he takes the question to congress. politically, it would be very difficult. the vice president and cabinet will be very reluctant in any situation, especially in the middle of election, reluctant to do that unless the president is under reasonable definition unable to do his job and they are sure that if he contests it it wouldn't be a huge divisive

disastrous fight. it would be something relatively smooth. better and when you are better, we can say you are able to come back. it's informal channels. the system is not set up to make this transfer of power lightly. we haveckly, the reason a 25th amendment is we have situations like president garfield who was shot and incapacitated. president wilson had a stroke and was incapacitated. no one was willing to step forward because they weren't takeif the president would his power back if he recovered. the point of the 25th amendment was to clarify that and make it easier and more likely that the vice president could step in. when you have a situation that's , it's not going to

happen. they did not invoke section 4 when reagan was shot and they probably should have. host: this is michael in portland. what happens if the president becomes incommunicado. suppose the president for whatever reason cannot be contacted and we cannot determine whether he or she will be contactable? guest: i have a section on that in the book. the pleasanton's plane being missing. that's an issue. you don't want to invoke section four lightly. if the president is incommunicado and you need the president, there are certain things he's the only one who can do them. as a practical matter, they

would be reluctant to do that until they are sure the president is incommunicado and give them some time. crisis and it was a problem that there was no president there, then they would do it. if there is nothing in particular that is critical happening right then, the vice president can standby. whoever wasive looking more time. host: we have about 20 minutes left with brian kalt from michigan state university. we are talking about the 25th amendment and the continuity of government. this is bill in maryland. good morning. caller: can you hear me?

mention, ied to heard earlier where when the 25th amend it put into effect when reagan and bush were in office, he said when bush underwent the colonoscopy, dick cheney was made president. quayle.it was dan am i correct about that? guest: this was george w. bush? presidenty was acting on two occasions for about two hours each. caller: dan quayle was also acting president? guest: george h to be bush did have some health issues. at onea heart condition point. transfernt, did he power to dan quayle. host: saint augustine florida is

next. good morning. this is a hypothetical, let's assume that the vice president has to assume the role as acting president due to the incapacitation of the existing president. this is kind of far out. let's assume something immediately would happen to the vice president as well. , wouldhere is no vacancy we then say that the speaker of the house would fill that role? guest: yes. there would -- the vice president would still be acting as president. he would not be able to appoint a new vice president. next in line is the speaker of the house. before there was the 25th amendment, transferring power further down the line has no standards. if pence and pelosi this agreed,

we have no way of knowing how that dispute would be resolved. if the president and vice president were both completely incapacitated, then it would be a clearer case. line ofn, the succession statute has been contested. since 1947 say it's unconstitutional for congressional officials to be in the line of succession. contacts, youhe might have some problems with that. you could probably not think about having them in the line of concession. are there efforts underway to make those fixes and those additional amendments?

guest: neither of those would require amendments. suggesting for a long time, not just me. congress has studied the issue a lot. there hasn't been much impulse to doing anything about it. havingst problem of not any standards in place, that would be adding to the line of succession. when the vice president is incapacitated, to find that in the statute. say who decides. the line of succession, they can just past a new and. the previous one before 1947 just had cabinet. that worked ok. way, wekept it that

wouldn't have this constitutional problem. they did that because of the constitutional issue. host: good morning. caller: good morning, professor. i spoke to the person asked me what i wanted to discuss. i wanted to discuss the constitution itself. do is discuss the constitution of the united states, congress and the senate. of power they have in terms impeachment of the president. host: we've got a lot of calls. what are your specific questions? i want to discuss when the president is impeached.

by congress. what does the senate do? ist i want to discuss section 1. it says all powers should be vested in the congress of the united states. of.hall consist 2, says congress is given the power of impeachment. section three, the senate has forpower to try impeachment. host: take us to your point. we are running out of time. -- the onlye were

has is tosenate decide whether to remove the president from office. what i want to tell the american impeachedmr. trump is for life. he cannot be on impeached. we can't have an impeached is going to run for a second term. the constitution makes clear that the houston pages and the senate decides whether to convict. impeachment. a the senate acquitted president trump. none of the consequences apply. yes, he is impeached. since he wasn't convicted, there are no legal consequences. host: loretta in florida, you're

next. caller: thank you, professor. i have a question about the electoral college. i've gone through might constitution and i cannot find where it says how they are picked. i think they were bought and paid for. thank you. host: the electoral college. guest: what the constitution says is it's up to each state. almost every state does it the same way. states can change that. game, they aree probably not going to. provide state

legislatures to vote for president. i think it would be hard for any states to go back to that. it's possible. and bush versus gore, the supreme court suggested the popular vote isn't necessarily so. if enough states do that, we have popular voting for president. it is up to each state. , that'se of your books what we've been focusing on this morning. another book, constitutional cliffhangers, what are some we haven't discussed so far. that came out in 2012. can you prosecute a sitting president? what if the president tries to

pardon himself. what would happen if that was contested? in --is a loop all loophole and term limits. is a chapter on impeaching people after they left office. president tries to pardon himself? at the end of several administrations, that's been a question. it's been asked more loudly this time. the answer is people are very sure he can't do it or they are very sure he can. the answer is no one knows. there are reasonable arguments on both sides. the answer is can the president pardon himself? he could try. could it work? i hope not. i could imagine a court deciding

that either way. host: kim is in arkansas. caller: good morning. a couple of things, c-span talked about steve scully running the next debate. i suggest charles barkley. you guys have put up the biden platform. it's only 108 pages. i wish we could get that up. what biden wants because he won't answer the questions about packing the court. guest, somebody brought up the impeachment. nancy never brought impeachment before the hothouse. never voted on it before the whole house. i don't see how he was ever actually impeached.

i think what you are referring to is the house didn't vote on an investigation leading to impeachment. they did vote on the impeachment and there was a majority that impeached the president. that's why we had the senate vote. host: did you want to follow up on that? caller: ok. i'm not a constitutional scholar. thing, the lady brought up that protesters were debate beating on neighbors doors, telling them what to do. why aren't we calling this political violence. there are no trump supporters out there burning down stores or buildings. it's been going on the whole

year. we have shut down the government. i would ask -- host: you made a couple of points there. we only have a couple of in its left for this discussion about the 25th amendment. we want to use his expertise while we have it. this question from our text service, a possible crisis if the president and vice president become impaired. they travel and appear together more than previous presidents. what could we expect. when does nancy pelosi ascend to the presidency? can you walk through those issues. guest: as a practical matter with no standards or procedures a place, it would have to be very clear-cut instance of the vice president being completely

incapacitated or if he handed power over to the speaker. place, weandards in don't know. nothing wouldhink happen, which is bad. who would be in charge? nothing would happen unless it was a very clear case of incapacity. in one ors try to get two more calls. thanks for waiting. about: i want to talk when the president was not able. constitution,he the senate president would be next. i think on the election and the

debate that's going on, biden shouldn't be up there for all the things he's done. how come no one is questioning what he did? that wasn't fair at all. host: the first part of this question was about line of succession issues. of succession is not spelled out in the constitution. should bengress authorized. in 1947 passed the current law which says the speaker is next in line. the president pro tem is mentioned in the constitution as presiding over the senate. if the vice president is acting as president, he's not casting the tie-breaking vote. the constitution says nothing

about who is acting president at that point. host: this is carolyn in atlanta. good morning. is i reallyuestion biden may not be able to last his term. people say months or maybe a year. harris would be the president. how likely is that if the voters put him in. the voters are voting for a ticket. they are voting for who would step in if something happened to joe biden. i can't speak to the likelihood of him serving out his term. it is happened many times before. in 19 34,oosevelt --be people should have not

was obvious he was not going to live through his term. they didn't think much about who the vice president was. we do a better job of who the running mate is. host: brian kalt is a law professor at michigan state and is the author of the book unable. we appreciate the time this morning. we've gotnk you host: half an hour left. we will return here at the end of the program to the question we asked at the beginning. in light of the missed messages we heard over the weekend when it came to president trump's health, do you trust what's been released about the president's health from the white house? if you do, (202) 748-8000. if you don't, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. start giving us a call now. we will be right back.

>> the u.s. supreme court begins its new term today, hearing oral arguments. listen to the oral arguments live or on-demand at c-span.org. >> who will control congress in january? stay informed on all the competitive races leading up to election day with campaign 2020 coverage. watch the candidates debate and election results. watch online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics.

>> tonight, free press co-ceo jessica gonzales on tex issues -- tech issues. >> the administration is trying to narrow the protections for >> i'm noderation so fan of big tech platforms. how they have abused their workers and how they abuse the privacy rights of their users. frankly, going after section 230 is not the right approach to the very real problem we are seeing with online platforms. ontonight at 8:00 eastern the communicators on c-span two.

c-span, yourtching unfiltered view of government, created by america's cable television services. general continues. >> as president trump remains hospitalized at walter reed, as he receives treatment, asking you this morning, if you trust what's been released so far on his health. this is one of the headlines on this topic from usa today. the editorial board of usa today picking up this issue in their lead editorial today. about theruth

president, we can handle it. that is the editorial board of trust what's been released so far? good morning. caller: i absolutely do. to distrustason

what they have to say. i believe them. i think they've done a wonderful job with my president. host: virginia is on the line for those who say no. trust what'snot there.out of i live in potomac. this is a military base. these people are subject to losing their jobs if they don't tell the press what the president wants them to know. and applies to burke's redfield. this has killed over 200-9000 americans. thank you. host: are there individuals in the government right now that you do trust? dr. fauci is pretty good at, you have to realize he is public health.

he was never subject to the military. he became civil service. to be no obligation considered for losing his job. redfield does. he was army for years. positionosen for his at the cdc. people should really go and look at pbs frontline about the virus. it was produced by martin smith. you will learn what truly topened takes you back december 2019 where martin smith let you know that not only the knewdent but redfield because the cdcs around the world had to be informed. the face of the

president's medical team right now is attending physician sean emergency navy physician. he's been the one leading these briefings that we heard over the weekend about the president's health. this was sean conley yesterday outside walter reed when asked why he was reluctant to disclose if the president had been on supplemental oxygen. >> i was trying to reflect the attitude thebeat president has had. i didn't want to give any information that might steer the course of illness at another direction. it came off that we were trying to hide something which wasn't necessarily true. hisfact of the matter is

he's doing really well. he is responding. we will start the discharge if everything goes well. host: that was outside of the president's hospital room in the building there at walter reed national medical center. there is plenty of criticism from emma kratz about whether the president and his team have been as transparent about itself as they could be. members of congress sent a series of tweets over the weekend and in the past 24 hours, including congressman john yarmuth. one more from jared huffman. these are just a couple of the tweets from democratic members of congress. we want to hear from you, your

level of trust in what's coming from the white house. this is jordan in new york city from those who are unsure. caller: good morning. ijust wanted to disclose that am the dumbest person in america. meeone needs to explain to how a person who has all of these resources around them could still get covid and then tell us i'm ok and everything is fine. number three is the politicians that follow behind him. now they are infected. sold 20,000 lies. all the people that have spoken so's --nst him, we are supposed to believe, who in

their family has told you 100 lies in a month? i would feel much better. thank you. have among those who tested positive, this is the graphic in washington post. the president, the first lady, kellyanne conway, hope hicks, chris christie, the presidents manager, -- campaign , members of the senate as well, including two members of the judiciary committee. they are all republicans testing positive, including ron johnson and tom tillis. we are taking your calls. do you trust what's been released so far? good morning.

i think two things to consider. point woulds involve multiple people, which i don't think is feasible. it is much as we know about covid, the later days is when we will find how he is feeling. with all the treatment he is receiving, he may feel great. his body is fighting off multiple viral loads. and increase the number to a point where his body does start to feel the effect of the infection. coverage, heaily does feel well. it will start to show in the next couple of days if he gets better or not. host: the president's team has indicated they could be released as soon today. we are waiting for information on that. yesterday, before the statement

from the doctors that we already showed you, the national security advisor was on face the nation. critical days could still be ahead. on the status, i spoke with the chief of staff. the president feels well. he wants to get back to the white house and get back to work. i think he is going to stay at walter reed. i had the virus myself. symptoms, ihave no had very minor symptoms, days seven and eight are the critical days. he is doing well. holding talksa with the russian team. i was able to call the president after he tested positive.

he was in good spirits. he was firmly in control. host: we are taking your phone calls this morning. this is rose in tallahassee. go ahead. i don't think they are telling the truth. you hear one thing from the white house doctor and then the doctorsg from at the v.a. center. he's probably doing ok like they say. it's two-sided in the situation. i think they should all be on the same page saying the same thing about his treatment.

that's how i feel about it. host: rick is next in texas. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. ,n the name of fairness wouldn't it be smart, wouldn't it be fair to invite the public opinion as to the vice president, the former vice presidentfor becoming . that gives me no pleasure to say. if we are worried about corona is dimension not something that ought to be talked about? i'm just asking you that. d.c..greg is here in

you are next. caller: no. i do not believe. for his trump told anybody anybody said something that was true? this is a fallacy. people have covid. you are not in the hospital one day and out into days. no. there is no way they are telling the truth. the chief of staff said and they hadferent to retract it. everybody knew he was lying. why would anybody believe that they are being told the truth when has trump ever told the truth, or anybody else in his sphere? host: good morning. you are next. caller: i believe the whole

thing is a smokescreen to cover up all of the things that were taxes,n before like his all the negative things. i believe -- it's funny the only people that also got covid were republicans. i think it's a fallacy. get thehe's trying to public to stop focusing on the regular issues. close-up pictures of him showed his face all powdered with white. i think that was making it look like he was ill. i will take it all back if he turns out to be ill. i don't believe it. i think he is something again. it's a smokescreen to cover up the real issues so they can do things behind the scene that

will compromise the election. host: rhys is next out of wisconsin. think they are telling .s the truth to the extent i think everybody's got the right to not have violations with their medical care. limitedors are probably as to what they can say. host: hello? host: i'm listening. i didn't think anyone was on. i guess that's my statement. i believe they are telling us the truth to the extent they can tell us with the law. i work in health care. that's very important. host: what do you do? caller: i'm a nurse.

i'm an rn. host: do you work with any covid patients on your unit? caller: i have. i have worked with employees that have had it. we don't get details. they get moved to a separate unit. upon, wes that comes don't share our information. after they leave our unit, we are separate from the unit that is covid positive or suspected symptoms. they aret is when ready to return to our unit. if they are negative or have had the 14 days on the unit when

they come back to the regular unit. host: as someone who has worked with covid patients, what did you think of that limousine ride yesterday afternoon? you could see him and the secret service members in the car. we have to transport people to another unit. they generally have a mask. usually when they leave the unit, if they are going to the vented.it, they are not they have a cough, may be temperatures starting. there might be some shortness of breath. when we transport them, they are

able to waive. they are able to talk to us. we have to transport them. i guess that's how we are doing it. we didn't drive a car. our unit is in the building. it's a short distance to go. we take them in a wheelchair. president making that motorcade drive yesterday in bethesda. this morning, the president is tweetsg quite a bit, 19 in the course of an hour. his latest just after 8:00. today is the last day to register to vote in states.

we are asking our viewers about your level of trust and what's being released from the white house when it comes to the president's health. you can keep calling in. for yes (202) 748-8000. if you don't trust the information, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. it, a continue to call in couple of other issues we've been tracking, including this from the washington post. go toomey won't select -- after reelection. he is expected to make that announcement today at a news conference in pennsylvania. his office declined to comment to the washington post on sunday. it's expected to start in about 10 minutes. you can watch it at c-span.org.

you, the story for former fbi director said he will not appear at a hearing in front of the senate judiciary committee this week. the capitol hill producer tweeted about that this morning. the committee officially .ostponing that hearing in person hearings have great safety risks. tillis and mike lee tested positive for covid-19. great follow.s a tom is in new york on the line for those who are unsure about trusting what's been released when it comes to the president's health. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me on

here. all i've got to say is conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy. it's pathetic. why don't we all check into the conspiracy theory that may be the democrats gave it to trump. this is a bunch of crab. host: good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i don't think there is a person in america that does not know who this administration is. they know trump. the anti-trumpeters, they know trump. what do we as voters do about it? everyone knows what we have in the white house. it's up to us to make sure that we stand for something and not fall for anything. have a great day. host: this is brett. good morning. go ahead. i may not trust

everything coming out of the white house, i do trust the doctors from the says to. it's amazing that people would think these doctors are lying. host: elizabeth in connecticut, good morning. she doesn't trust what's coming out. caller: i do not trust anything he says. he is a compulsive liar. it's been proven many times. deadlinessbruary the and ease of transmission of this disease. he chose to mislead the american public. families are suffering. he's a compulsive liar. he is a dangerous. to go in that ride with secret service people who now must isolate and keep away from their

families and all the people of the ceremony where the supreme court justice, they are all infected. they infected people. they got on airplanes and traveled to their districts not wearing masks. even then, they were supposed to isolate. all of them are just reckless. i think it's a tragedy that one third of our country believes that donald trump is worthy of consideration for another term. that's all i really have to say. host: you focused on trusting the president. what do you think about the medical team? they -- there is a lot more to this than we will ever know. team -- theyedical are his employees.

they've been told to sugarcoat their assessment. reason there is a good why they fear for their careers or retribution. found she in his family have received death threats. anyone who speaks out against faces deatht threats or removal. it depends. we do need patriots to reveal all of the underhanded things that have gone on. presidentagine if obama had done anything near what we see happening now? they would have raked him over the coals. there are so many people for whom trump legitimizes their sexism, their

anger at the democrats. it is so unacceptable. if any of the democrats ever said the same things about the republican party, they would have a crazy dance. host: this is glenda in texas. good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i believe in what the doctor says. to havee in the right my medical not looked into. -- business but mine. i am a trump supporter. the only way he will come out of this, with god's help. concerned, am everything is fine. democrats are the cause of that they don't believe

in god. maria out of savannah, georgia. go ahead. caller: i'm unsure. it seems like the announcement about his health came after the bait. they play so many games in washington, not just the republicans. i would never go into politics because of the games people play. hello? host: go ahead. caller: i'm sorry. i'm not sure. he seems to have people around him that say what he wants them to say. any time someone speaks out against his view, they are gone and he trashes them. these doctors have families to support. i'm just so unsure.

it seems like this guy has the best medical care. he is testing himself every day. he's a germ phobic from what i hear. privileged his whole life. he's always had the best of everything. itseems so odd that he got and some of the republicans around him got it. perhaps if he comes out of this miraculously, the guy is obese and older. he's got health issues. i heard about the 96-year-old lady who did come out of this. point, the law is for the private sector. when you go into public office, especially being the president, the american people listen

because he's the president. we need to know what his health history is, what he's got. he is the president. he is not qualified to be under hepa when he is running the greatest nation in the world. the story from cnn this morning is that president trump is hoping to go back to the white house today. appearnd eager to healthy, he is agitated for a swift release.

it's time for a couple of more calls. do trust what's been released on the president's health. dorothy is in wisconsin. go ahead. caller: no. i don't trust anything that comes out of this administration. very reparable doctor on one of the talkshows today. dealing in covid wards with covid patients. just the course of the medication, it doesn't jive with what they are telling us in terms of his health. one other comment, the nurse from wisconsin, when you asked her about transporting him the cavalcade, i think

she missed the point. he is putting those secret service agents in danger. he is in a sealed bulletproof vehicle and these guys have suits on just to prevent catching what he supposedly is very highly contagious. i don't believe it. it's a shame. he is putting in danger every day. that's pretty much what i have to say. thank you. host: that's pretty much it for us on washington journal. we will be back here tomorrow morning. in the meantime, have a great monday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.

visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> congress is expected to be out of session for much of october. the senate meets today for legislative business but no votes are planned. mitch mcconnell said they could late later for a possible vote on supreme court nominee amy coney barrett. work continues off the floor on her nomination, including committee meetings and nomination hearings. the house has no plans to meet for legislative business but if there is agreement on a covid relief bill, members will get 24 hours notice. watch live coverage of the senate at 4:30 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> republican senator lindsey graham took part in a debate against -- according to a political report, this race has

titan. this debate is courtesy of wist tv in columbia. determined the order of opening statements. mr. harrison, you won the toss. coin toss, the next minute on the toss is yours. >> thank you, judy and i want to thank everyone here on the campus of allen university. >> while i brief, i hope, that is the motto of this, in south carolina, but it might as well be the theme of my entire life i am the son of a team mom. , was raised by grandparents with a fourth grade and eighth grade education. i want to yell, i went to georgetown law school. -- first in my family, i went to now i'm a candidate for united states senate. excuse me if i pinch myself. i have lived the american dream and spent my entire life adding for others to make sure they do the same. we have been divided for too long. to me folks here in south