i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. pursuant to section 4-b of house resolution 967, the house stands adjourned until 11:30 a.m. on friday, october 23, 2020. representatives finishing up a pro forma's russian. the next one planned -- pro forma session. the next one planned for friday. joining us now to talk about the impact of social media on campaign 2020 is ashley gold,

tech reporter for axios. thanks for joining us. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: one of the interesting aspect is the last couple of stories concerning the "new york post," and the responses from certain platforms. remind viewers what happened with the story end with the platforms. post: the new york put a story with allegations about joe biden's son hunter and supposedly was that joe biden did for hunter in ukraine. the story was obtained because of a laptop that they obtained emails in, provided by rudy giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. twitter and facebook worked to limit the distribution of this article on their platforms because the materials they have, which had to do with hacked materials, obtained by hacking.

it was a swift backlash from many conservatives on the hill and in the administration. twitter ended up backtracking and allowing the post to be shared after all after some really strong backlash. it was a prime example of how these companies attempt to make up their content moderation policies in real-time and often have to react to what people think of them. they have to make these decisions every day and it is only going to get more high-pressure this close to the election. host: one of the phrases you use on this issue is that the story "tripped social media misinformation alarms." can you elaborate on that from your particular perspective on the platforms? guest: since 2016 when social media platforms realize they had a huge disinformation and meddling problem on their hands, which was first revealed to them

russiansound out that had interfered in our 2016 presidential election by planting misinformation on facebook and twitter and youtube and instagram, they have been grappling with this problem of having to deal with all this stuff on their platforms. evolved.really it is not just foreign interference anymore, it is also domestic. they are constantly towing this r on thewanting to er side of free speech, went to be put to post whatever they want on their platform, and removing things that they think are harmful. some groups complain if they are biased against them by taking down their content. others will say they are not doing enough. it is this constant back-and-forth. in this particular case, it was interesting because of the way the story was obtained. it was from this laptop. it was not proved that the

laptop belonged to hunter biden. you would think it would be easier for the platforms to say, ok, this was obtained through illegal means. we can't verify the content of this are true so we will limit distribution. that opens up a lot of debate. does that mean any hacked materials should never be shared on social media? many people have different opinions about this. they say twitter was wrong. others say twitter was right. the particular story with unsure back story of where it came from, how it came to be, the editing process, where they got it, was enough that it kind of set social media into a frenzy. host: here to answer questions about what happened with the story, and also how these platforms have handled it, you can ask her questions at 202748 202-748-8001 if you

support president trump. if you support joe biden, 202-748-8000. if you support another candidate or you are undecided, 202-748-8002. will play what senator cruz said about that. [video clip] sen. cruz: we have seen a remarkable development. we have seen twitter and facebook actively interfering in this election in a way that has no precedent in the history of our country. yesterday the new york post broke a story alleging serious corruption of joe biden and ukraine.den concerning the allegations in the new york post story, if true, indicate that vice president biden lied when he said he had never discussed his sons business dealings. that story, once the new york post broke it, was blocked by twitter and face look anyone --

blocked by twitter and facebook. anyone who attempted to share it was blocked from sharing it. the new york post itself when it attempted to put out the story was blocked on twitter and facebook. the new york post has the fourth largest circulation of any newspaper in this country. never before have we seen active censorship of a major press publication with serious allegations of corruption from one of the two candidates for president. host: that was last week. what are the plans of particularly republican senators on this? guest: since then, we have heard from the senate judiciary committee that they are going to hold a vote on thursday to authorize a subpoena to get twitter ceo jack dorsey, and facebook ceo mark zuckerberg, to testify before the senate judiciary committee about this particular problem.

similarly, those ceos in addition to google ceo sundar pichai, are testifying before the senate commerce committee next week already on this very , and of content moderation section 230 of the communications decency act which is a law that allows social media to moderate content on their platforms and also not be held legally liable for what third parties post on their content. the specific out which over this story, this particular topic has been of interest on capitol hill for a couple of years now. we have had the tech ceos testify on this topic before. they will already be on the hill next week and they might have to go to two committee hearings to discuss this. so, on thursday, we will see the subpoena vote. we don't know for sure that they will actually end up having to use the subpoena because the

committee says they are expecting having twitter and facebook voluntarily come in to testify. host: before we go to calls on this topic, there is a story developing today concerning google and the d.o.j. can you tell our viewers about it? guest: absolutely. we have been anticipating the justice department suing google over alleged anti-competitive behavior for almost a year now. they have been investigating search specifically its practices and advertising technology practices for about a year now. states attorneys generals have investigating google along with the justice department, and today is the first major decision. we will hear from the justice department later this morning about why they are bringing the suit and what they are alleging and go from there. host: this is ashley gold from roxio's, who reports on tech

issues for them, here to talk about the effect of social media on the campaign. from minnesota, is supportive of president trump, brad. you are first up. caller: good morning. the comment is that this young little lady here this kind of young and kind of what the hind the ears's problem is that she saying how up about facebook and twitter can't vote things on their platform because they are being hacked. oil, they didn't have a problem putting trump's taxes that should have never been on there. and people can understand, he didn't pay all his taxes other than the $750 that he had to pay in addition to all the taxes he did pay. host: caller, this is our guest and we have invited her. what is your specific question,

please? caller: the question is, where the shoe get off on thinking this is a manipulation by the media causing the problems in america? host: thanks. hostashley, you can answer, if you . guest: i am not sure if i heard the question. we are talking specifically about how private companies enforce their rules. anybody that wants to read the new york post story can go to the website and read it. they don't have to get it from facebook or twitter. host: hattie in houston, texas, supporter of joe biden. hi. caller: how are you all. thank you, young lady and for taking my call. everybody --they are lady is very knowledgeable.

theyjust wondering why always -- about his taxes and everything. they have biden saying that he did this and he did that. but, why are they bringing up that? we are in a crucial time. with trump and the virus and everything else, that is all they are talking about is low-rating human everything -- we need to get our country back and everything. that is what trump is trying to do, put us up together. young lady, you are very nice and very knowledgeable and you are not taking one side or the other, you are being factual and i appreciate that. host: thank you. guest: thank you. host: you talked a little bit about section 230. i want to ask a little more about it. show people exactly what it says.

this goes to the idea of whether a platform is a publisher or a third-party what it comes to information. could this change? and if there is a change in how that is labeled, what does that mean for the companies in question? guest: it definitely could change. it is hard to change it because it requires a law passing from it is hard for congress to even pass a covid-19 stimulus bill, and must pass finance bill. so it is hard to get congress to agree on what exactly in section 230 needs to change. however, there is a partisan agreement that something needs to happen for this law to not be as widely sweeping as its critics say it is. right now as it stands, we have one law that passed in 2018 that started to chip away at section 230 that had to do with limiting the spread of online child and sex trafficking.

since then, we have had many attempts at new laws chipping away at section 230 that none of them have reached the senate floor. we will have to see what congress does. if the administration changes and we have a democratic-led congress there is no doubt section 230 will be on their agenda. i don't know that it will be thereon their agenda, but will be some democratic leaders who are very concerned about section 230, of problem is they are not in agreement with republicans about the remedies. we will have to see how this lays out. host: patty, harrisburg pennsylvania, supporter of joe biden. . caller: hi, i am a supporter of joe biden and senator harris. people need to check into the things they are told. i think there is just such a bitter campaign. i voted already, but i feel like

an afterthought as a voter, are always talking about something that doesn't concern us. while there are other issues. host: let's go to set from hollywood, california, supporter of president trump. guest: i would just like to say, i am a huge -- there is a huge trump army here in california. when i wore my trump had ensured, people, to me and say they i am great, they give me hugs. california is in play. ,n sunday when he drove through it was insane the excitement. this is too much. the gas lighting needs to stop. host: about the topic of social and the campaign, do you have a question or comment for our guest? caller: when are we going to see

justice? away with everything on social media. america sees it. they can't hide this more. i think after the election, i am hoping that when trump wins, that they are really going to teach them a lesson. what do you guys think about this? guest: i think it is possible, especially if president trump wins another term, that we will see legislation and more executive orders that will impact social media companies. if joe wins, it is possible we see it as well but it will not be in the same direction. certainly, if president trump wins again, i expect to see these topics continue to be of concern to his administration and there will certainly be action. host: could you give us some insight on how these platforms suss out material that could be

questionable? is it human experience or i'll go rhythms? how does it work? guest: depends. these social media companies have hundreds of content moderators that work for them. they have folks that are human beings looking over what people post and seeing what breaks their rules. in some situations, it is automated. they have some artificial intelligence which scans posts and sees if anything is breaking their rules and that helps flag ,hings as well, but ultimately content moderation decisions are coming, from human beings and often from the top of the company. we have seen reporting that were about where there is an especially contentious decision to be made, the ceo, mark zuckerberg is consulted. his policy decisions, these ontent literacy decisions

these every day and often it is the people of the top who decide whether something goes up or down. host: when it comes down to the general philosophy of the people at the top, the jack dorseys, the mark zuckerbergs, have their position changed over the years? changed. has mark zuckerberg in october was here in washington and spoke at georgetown university. he harped on the idea that facebook errs on the side of speech, he would rather people decide for themselves the information they would like to believe than facebook make that decision for them. at the time, it seemed he was defending some controversial content moderation decisions facebook had made that angered people on the left, the democrats. it seemed he was deciding that facebook would not be the speech police. flashforward a year and that has changed. it ist know whether

because there have been more pressure from the left to take down misinformation or if there is just so much misinformation out there that facebook has no choice but to act, but it has changed. twitter has been more aggressive from the beginning about saying they will take down information that is deemed to be misinformation from their platforms, from day one. but as we just saw with the hunter biden'situation can lead they ar not better than facebook or any other platform, they still have tough content moderation decisions to make every day and often they are in the public eye in backtracking on their own decisions. merit --m the from maryland, luis, undecided voter. caller: my comment is, i would rather see what they have with regards to information now

rather than see it in december. i actually read the hunter biden emails and i think the standard is a little uneven. if twitter will not allow that story to be forwarded, i think there is real information contained in those emails that confirmed to me about whether or not there is some sort of influence for sale going on. i think the voters should be privy to that information now rather than half twitter all of a sudden come to a decision saying that was a bad decision, let me area now, by the way, it is december 15. .ost: ms. gold guest: i am not sure where you get the december 15 date. twitter has already decided it is ok to share the hunter biden story.rk post" they completely backtracked from their original decision. if you wanted to read the story, you could read the story right

now on the "new york post" website. it has never been completely unavailable, it has still bee n online all this time. host: from massachusetts, scott, support of president trump. caller: thank you for letting me call through. a couple of things i would like to say and then i have a question, if you don't mind. first thing i would like to state is that, listening to the show this morning, i see that you have been shutting down people that were just making comments on the supporting trump side and .llowing the others to ramble the other part i would like to state, with social media going on the way it is and the way they are blocking more from the right them they are from the creating a bias for people who want to find information. i am not a supporter of trump. looking at the information out there is important to me.

down five times on twitter and once on facebook just for my conservative thoughts. they don't want to listen to them. they want to block it. i have other things out there. there is pornography on twitter that is not blocked. but me stating that hunter biden funds or illegal friends that are actually me shutjoe biden got off. i don't understand how they can do this. what can we do to stop this without repealing section 230? guest: you are certainly not alone in the frustration or the sense that social media companies apply their moderation policies differently in different situations. people of all sorts of them to go backgrounds and beliefs -- people of all sorts of political backgrounds and beliefs believe

that. i think the companies are not always clear about what their policies are so it is only natural that people would be confused about it. as far as what can be done, you could appeal to your congresspeople. you could appeal to the administration. goes, is section 230 personally don't think that is the right solution, because that is not what the law does. i am not advocating for one side or the other, but all section 230 does is allow companies not to be held legally liable for what people post. so the new york post can't be sued for what someone writes in its comments section or something like that, it applies to every online platform, not just the tech companies. i am unsure if section 230 will alleviate the complaints from people who are concerned about content moderation decisions. i think it is more about transparency with users about

what the rules are. f.c.c.,e chair of the has he expressed anything on possible changes to section 230? guest: he has. the president put forward an executive order on section 230 of the communications decency .ct couple of months ago he told the federal communications commission that he wanted them to set up rulemaking that would look into the scope of section 230 and whether it needed to be narrowed. actually just last week, ai indicated he would be moving forward with the rulemaking. whether that results in anything before the end of the year, i is't know, but it seems pai on board with potentially narrowing the idea of the scope of section 230. host: rich in new jersey, supporter of president trump. go ahead. caller: yes, pedro.

i have a comment from ms. gold, but also i have a little dialogue for you. what i want to say is, i think c-span in the last eight months has really shown your true colors. for eight months, i watched "washington journal" every morning. you have never had one banner under there about joe biden. it has been trump, trump, trump. you are covering up the stories of biden. you have every tom, derek, or fake opinions and now you are blocking the story. host: we are not blocking the story, we even committed a segment to this yesterday. but go ahead. caller: i saw that. host: so we did cover it yesterday. but go ahead. caller: why don't you have one

of the people from the "new york post" on? >> you have everybody on. apparently that woul "washington times" and"new york "politico" are the only ones who can verify the story now. host: you have put enough emphasis on the show. do you have a question on your guest -- for our guest? caller: please don't cut me off. you will have me calling another 30 days. it is important where the show is going. the "new york post" is the fourth-largest paper in the country for 200 years and you don't have one person from the "new york post" every morning since thursday. host: ok. thank you for the suggestion. we will take it. you have a question or comment for our guest? caller: it is not a suggestion. stop taking your orders from the democrats. host: retake no orders from anybody, sir.

i will infinitely -- emphatically say that. i know that you have your viewpoint or opinion but if you look back over the course of our program, i think overall you will find we provide an even balance of opinions particularly on topics of politics or everything else. we appreciate your time. we go to texas, a supporter of joe biden. hello. caller: good morning and thank you. i appreciate the time. i am pretty young in politics. i want to go back. doctrineaware of a --k in the 1980's that was by the reagan administration between both political parties, democrats and republicans. what i am finding out is that both parties would agree upon a certain amount of facts so that everybody will be able to draw

from a certain set of facts. that doctrine was never renewed, hands the creation of best hands --that. and itare 40 years later still has not been renewed, or a certain set of facts is agreed upon by the local parties. i wonder why. about the flag, they agree upon we will have a certain set of facts and follow-through the right channels. color --nk you, caller. caller: it is interesting guest: it is interesting --

guest: it is interesting you bring up the fairness doctrine. historically conservatives have not wanted the fairness doctrine to be in practice. the fairness doctrine allowed cable news like cnn and fox news news to flourish as you pointed out. there has been a slight shift on the view of the fairness doctrine because essentially calling for more content do not be held back by social media or time --e to be fair conservatives and president reagan were against. it is interesting we are having these conversations that are the modern-day fairness doctrine debate and i think it will continue. bringing backfcc

the fairness doctrine, it is hard for me to see that happening. host: one more call from joan in minnesota, a supporter of joe biden. i'm wondering why with hunter biden being the main thing, why they are not talking about what the children of donald trump are up to? it is like transference. they figure if the republicans willabout hunter, they leave their children alone and focus -- concentrate on what they want to. he is good at transferring what he would have to find reasons for to someone else so they are out of the picture. i think biden should start looking into a little bit of what his children are and bring that up and maybe that will shut them up because hunter biden has already been exonerated.

all this artificial stuff that the republicans are doing is a crying shame. they are embarrassing our country because of their lack of honesty and integrity. host: thank you, caller. actually gold, if there is ashley gold, if there is anything? caller: -- -- whether they will criticize someone's children are not is a decision they have to make. i have no insight into that. plans on social media platforms for looking out for misinformation leading up to election day? guest: social media companies have been aggressive in saying that they are aware the 2016

election with various foreign influences was a problem and they have a lot to do to prepare for the next election. they have added content moderators, they are working with law-enforcement, they are working with people in different countries to flag misinformation as it comes in, certainly they have stepped up their efforts aggressively to make the platform a safer place to be around to be around the election, but problems are bound to crop up. host: we talked about when it comes to politics and political discourse the role of social media. do you have thoughts on whether it is good or bad? i think social media is positive in that it connects people to information and people they might not have known previously, but it certainly has

its drawbacks. people are in their own bubbles. they are able to pick and choose content they believe in and misinformation spreads rapidly. for: ashley gold reports axios. she is a tech reporter for that publication thank you for your time today. you heard our guest comment on discourse and matters of learning about politics, whether social media is good or bad for those things. you can let us know your thoughts in the last 25 minutes of the show. (202) 748-8001 if you support president trump. cal if you202) 748-8000

support joe biden. make.ad a choice to do i let my people run it really well or badly? if they run it badly, they will blame him and me. >> he has cost people health care because of his recession. >> watch the second presidential debate between president donald trump and former vice president joe biden thursday from mel montt -- belmont university in nashville, tennessee. listen live on the c-span radio c-span.org/debate for streaming of c-span's debate coverage. ♪ american history tv on c-span3 exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend coming up

this weekend saturday at 6:00 p.m., a look at the civil war and how interpretation is changed over the year. thehe 75th anniversary of united nations we will feature four films, the united nations and world dispute, peace and strikes and the cobra on sunday at 11:00 a.m. eastern, the debate between bill clinton, george bush and ross perot. at 2:00 p.m., the debate between bob dole and bill clinton. on american artifacts a discussion of the jim crow use em at ferris state university in and -- to promote conversation and understanding. exploring the american story.

c-span3.end on ♪ >> we are weeks away from election day november 3 when control of congress and who occupies the white house next year will be decided. stay with c-span to hear president trump ended joe biden make their case to the american public and watch the debates in some of the hotly contested races. day onoverage every c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app, igor place for an unfiltered view of politics -- your place for an unfiltered view of politics. >> washington journal continues. host: if you think social media is a good or bad place for learning about politics, you can call the line (202) 748-8001.

trump.support president vice president biden, call (202) 748-8000. if you are undecided or an independent voter, call (202) 748-8002. (202)n always text us at 748-8003. people cited this information -- 28% of those, 16% saying it is a source of extremism. citing issues of censorship or bias and it down from there. thee those are one of things you see social media playing up in the world of political discourse.

call the phone lines or post on our site itself. we will take those calls up until we will be joined by a senator. stafford, virginia starts us off. a supporter of president trump. we will hear from joseph. caller: when harry reid said may romney did not take any taxes on romneyate floor -- mitt did not take any taxes on the senate floor, that was a lie. you can youtube that right now. it is misinformation. it is a lie. stiller was true and it is on c-span archives. c-span, you have misinformation on your archives. you can look that speech up right now of harry reid saying mitt romney did not pay taxes. that is a complete lie. it is complete misinformation.

host: in the current role of media'sedias -- social role? caller: who decides what misinformation is? if a republican says it it is misinformation but when it is said about a democrat -- excuse me, i have that backwards. as soon as you make and is asian against joe biden and his sunday a gets taken down immediately -- and accusation against joe biden taken down it gets immediately. you have misinformation in your archives. host: we have a lot of information in error archives -- our archives.

freddie in maryland, a supporter of president trump as well. caller: as an immigrant, i am getting very scared. , there things are going is a lot of cover-up when it comes to democrats. everything is a cover-up. ton i post anything that has do with conservative values, it gets flagged. it is terrible. , we dreamed it to come in. it is adding very scary. brennan and klapper on tv saying this thing about hunter biden is a russian propaganda, americans should be scared. host: when is the last time you posted something online that got flagged? how long ago specifically?

caller: about a month ago. host: what did you post? caller: i got suspended for three or four days. i don't remember exactly what i posted but i got suspended. host: what did it take you to get unsuspended? i was: they told me suspended for three or four days and i could not make any comment. i did not post anything. host: what did you post on? caller: facebook. host: that is freddie's experience. we will hear from henry in california in atwater. caller: good morning. i am calling to say i have never engaged in social media. when i first saw them coming out i thought they were basically garbage and i think history has proven that true regarding the

hunter biden, which we now know is a fake story. that stuff i think is crazy. that is why we have bona fide newspapers that do vetting that make sure what they print is factual or news programs or magazines and this all seemed to get started when you folks in the more legitimate media started using the term "citizen journalist," as if anyone could go out there and start reporting on the facts of a situation. that to me seemed crazy because i journalist needs to be trained , needs to have an editor who keeps them on the straight and narrow. int: that is henry

california. this is an undecided voter in dayton, ohio. -- yes yes or, my point media is iint on the will tell you something my father told me in 1970. old.ther -- i was 10 years my father came here from italy. media ise told me the going to destroy this country. my father is 100% correct. --t we are seeing to the today, we do not have journalists. no respect, sir, by you had someone who was going to be a debater and i think even you just an intern, but he represented c-span and he was

partial against donald trump. journalists. the days of walter cronkite are gone. did the paul harvey days are gone. these are true journalists. host: what happens now with the role of social media? how do you achieve that? caller: we need to have governance and we cannot have laws on protecting them. we need to have governance to tell the truth. the issue is with social media it becomes propaganda. thatan go on tv and say green.say the sky is we need to have governance. we need to have governance to protect what is going on. host: when you say governance do

you mean more regulation? caller: we still need first amendment rights but we need to tell the truth. fact checkers or whatever we need to do but you need to tell the truth. host: let's go to spokane, washington, a supporter of donald trump. don? caller: i wanted to respond to your question first off. something i have noticed is we have not talked about the kids doing youtube and google searches when they are supposed to be doing their schoolwork and whatnot and all the political ads. i have noticed there are a lot of hateful ones but -- against the trump family and it is hard to find any stuff for biden other than stuff that i just

found not to be the truth and a lying to people, similar to this hunter biden stuff, not as extreme on the kids sites. i want to respond to a couple of your colors. -- your callers. during firstou lady week and mentioned that to you and you denied it. i have been watching for at least two years now. side of i lovehe c-span, it is unbiased news. i even get bored watching senate debates. i noticed that. it is slowly coming out and calling stuff hacked.

it is making you guys look bad. you guys stood out in a manner that everyone could appreciate you even if they did not agree with you and i just want you guys to think about that because i am personally considering watching something else at 4:00 a.m. here in washington. if it is the case that you are still watching our show at 4:00 a.m., you get a sense of what we are doing here everyday. inc. you for the call. let's go to kathy in washington, a supporter of joe biden. caller: i'm calling in response to some of these other c-span callers calling you biased. i disagree. i tape you every morning because i cannot get up that early. i haveto let you know

seen you have republican, democrat, independent. they say who they represent so it is clear to me if there is a bias from someone you have on, fromou, not c-span, but whoever is speaking. the person watching nose. i was going to mention that -- knows.g mentioned that communication is not only from the spoken word. it is from the tone of their voice. to expect written social media to have that same ability to communicate is unrealistic. it is not going away. i want to support you guys. int: that is kathy bellingham, washington calling on this topic of social media, good or bad for political discourse. we heard from a republican

senator earlier. we are joined now by senator tim kaine of virginia joining us via zoom. guest: great to be with you. host: the current timetable as far as the nomination of judge barrett, where do you see yourself voting in the next couple of days if and when this vote does take place? fact of justice , i urged myeath republican colleagues to keep their promise to the american public and to do what they said they would do in 2016, let the american people decide before rushing to fill the seat. i said if they break their word i will oppose whoever the nominee is and i made that statement plane before judge staett was nominated -- tement plain before judge

barrett was nominated. the republicans have broken their word and i will hold them to their promise in the hopes that some will rethink. vote onu had to take a the judge before in the process of her becoming a judge. where did you stand on her then? .aller: i voted yes a president get some entitlement to fill a position and while she would not have been my choice to be on the seventh circuit, she had a record as an academic at notre dame that i viewed it to be qualified for the applet te courtsition -- appela position. that is different from the supreme court. if for some reason some republicans decide to honor their word and push this off until after the election, i would spend more time scrutinizing her record as a

seventh court judge. there were some illuminating parts of the hearing last week. i found it troubling she had a hard time explaining one of her cases where she seemed to suggest that gun rights are more important in our scheme of ordered liberty than voting rights. i read that dissenting opinion where she is it significantly to the right of where justice scalia was on gun rights and i am puzzled about it. i saw her attempting to answer senator durbin's questions about her conclusion and found those not particularly persuasive. i will have to review her seventh circuit record because i think this processes illegitimate and republicans should not break their word. her: do you think that appointment to the spring court is to dismantle roe v. wade? caller: yes.

my colleagues done all they can to dismantle the aca, including that pivotal vote where mccain savethe deciding vote to rush judgewant to barrett onto the court because her writings both as an academic and a judge show a real hostility to the affordable care act. clearly she is also very hostile wade she suggested that the law should define life. as beginning at fertilization would make the iud potentially susceptible to criminal penalties under the

law. she would not commit to recusing herself in such a case, which given her own expressed antipathy to joe biden when he was job -- vice president and he was getting an award from notre dame, a faculty group of which she was a part, i do not see how she can be neutral if an election dispute reached the court. she said she would not recuse herself. there are a number of problematic areas but chief among them is i think she is being put on as part of a last-ditch effort to take health care away from millions in the middle of a pin deming. pandemic. host: do you think democrats would make dust take the same course of action if they were -- do you think democrats would

take the same course of action if they were in power? caller: no. -- .uest: no republicans announced they would block consideration of president obama was nomination in the last year of his presidency. for months and months they would not entertain the nomination they said to everyone we will do the same thing if the -- they change that role. during the gorsuch nomination they change the role that -- they changed that rule. during the gorsuch nomination they changed that rule. i know that republicans -- i think they have a little bit of

a guilty conscience about going back on the promise they made. sayingy to justify it by the other side would do it to. when we had a chance to make changes, the democratic majority did not. in the realm of roles,ging -- changing you have heard about expanding members of the supreme court. what is your take? guest: it is a nonissue if the republicans keep their word. the only reason it has come up is what if the republicans change the rules about the composition of the court? in -- my answer to that is just to follow your word. if you said there was a republican resident and a vacancy occurred in the last year of the presidency -- republican president and a

vacancy occurred in the last year of his presidency, they would wait until after the election. .e will have a vote some republicans and said they have not yet committed to vote yes. my hope is that some will decide maintaining the institution of the senate and the supreme court is more important than a power grab to take health insurance away from millions. if they keep their word we don't have to get to the question of changing the courts composition. said he didr braun not expect any roadblocks or complications from senate republicans. would you agree? guest: we have tried to draw attention to the fact that the rushing thisre nomination, but senator braun is right. if they want to break their word

into jam something through, they can do it. we can point out they have their priorities wrong, but we are the minority. if they are bound and determined to violate what they said four years ago so they can take health insurance away, they can do that. left.we have a one minute four years ago, you were in the position of senator harris. how would you compare this cycle to the previous one? onst: i'm so glad i am not the ballot this year because, pedro, you have done this a long time. everything i am good at in politics is hard to do this year covid. of it is a surreal situation when you cannot knock on doors and take a selfie end work a rope line at an event. i don't even know how i would campaign in 2020.

the fear the american public hastly has of this virus tremendously changed how campaigns happen. joe haved kamala and campaigned vigorously but they have in mind the safety of themselves and their voters and volunteers. i do not envy anyone on a ballot this year. kaine, senator from virginia. thank you for your time. that is it for our time on the program today. another edition of the journal comes your way tomorrow same time. ♪

at noon that live eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> emma kratz need to pick up four seats in the november election to win a majority in the senate. 15 of the 35 senate races are considered competitive including an election in georgia. kelly loeffler who was appointed following the resignation of senator isakson is facing fellow republican doug collins, raphael warnock