tech political science professor and white house transition project advisory board member discusses the biden presidential transition. host: from capitol hill to the justice department, top republican officials, including attorney general william barr, are lining up behind president trump's efforts to challenge the election win of president-elect joe biden. good morning. welcome to "washington journal" for this tuesday, november 10, 2020. the attorney general authorizing late yesterday federal investigation into any court substantial claims of voting issues. meanwhile, the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, opening the senate, lame duck session, supporting the president'sers. we'd like to hear your thoughts on that. here are the lines to use if you are a democrat the line to call

is 202-748-8000. republicans use 202-748-8001. independents and others, it's 202-748-8002. send us a text if you'd like, 202-748-8003. include your name and where you are texting from. on twitter it's @cspanwj. and we welcome your comments on our facebook page, facebook.com/c-span. we'll show you some of the comments of the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, and the minority leader shuck schumer. "washington times" this morning their lead story is on the attorney general's efforts. barr improves inquiry into voter fraud. authorized the justice department to probe what he said are substantial allegations of voter fraud as president trump's legal team detailed new evidence of purported election violations in two battleground states. mr. barr issued the memo days after presumptive president-elect joseph biden was declared the winner of the 2020

presidential election by several media outlets. the president has launched legal challenges to the results in states where the voting margins are razor thin by giving federal prosecutors a green light to pursuit voter fraud, mr. barr may give the president more ammunition for his lawsuits, including another one filed in pennsylvania on monday with the backing of several red state attorneys general. that's the "washington times" this morning. focusing a bit more on capitol hill, "the new york times" this morning and one of their lead stories online at ny times.com. republicans back trump's refusal to concede. declining to recognize biden. they write that leading republicans rallied on monday around president trump's refusal to concede the election. declining to challenge the false narrative that was stolen from him or recognize president-elect joseph biden's victory even as party divisions burst into public view. senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky they write, the top republican in congress, threw his support behind mr. trump in a sharply worded speech on the

senate floor. he declared mr. trump was, quote, 100% within his rights to turn to the legal system to challenge the outcome and hammered democrats for expecting the president to concede. here's some of what majority leader mitch mcconnell had to say yesterday. >> then there's the presidential race. obviously no states have yet certified their election results . we have at least one or two states that are already on track for a recount. and i believe the president may have legal challenges under way in at least five states. the core principle here is not complicated. in the united states of america all legal ballots must be counted. any illegal ballots must not be counted. the process should be transparent or observable by all sides and the courts are here to work through concerns.

our institutions are actually built for this. we have the system in place to consider concerns and president trump is 100% within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options. let's go back 20 years ago. 20 years ago when florida came down to a very thin margin, we saw vice president gore exhaust the legal system and wait to concede until december. more recently we accepted the media had called president ush's re-election in 2004. democrats disputed moi's electors and delayed the process here in congress. in 2016 election loss saw recounts or legal challenges in several states. if any major irregularities occurred this time of the magnitude that would affect the

outcome, then every single american should want them to be brought to light. and if democrats feel confident they have not occurred, they should have no reason to fear any extra scrutiny. host: senator majority leader mitch mcconnell yesterday opening the program this morning asking you about the latest efforts to contest the 2020 presidential election. 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001 the line for republicans. and inpends and others, number 202-748-800 t the attorney general barr yesterday releasing a memo post voting election irregularity inquiries. he says now that voting has concluded it is imperative the american people can trust our elections were conducted in such a way that the outcomes accurately reflect the will of the voters. although the states have the responsibility to supervise their election under the

constitution and laws enacted by congress, the united states department of justice has an obligation to ensure that federal elections are conducted in such a way that the american people can have full confidence in their electoral process. and our government. part of the statement said from attorney general barr. hear what you have to think. we go to mike first, democrat in south carolina. good morning, mike. caller: obviously any legitimate claim of fraud with sufficient evidence should be investigated. however, evidence isn't owe, by the way, we've got pictures of tombstones of dead people. and they received a ballot. that doesn't mean anything. did somebody vote in their name? it's ridiculous the claims have absolutely no evidence.

again, if there is evidence, i think it should be investigated. but it can't just be the whims of people. host: westfield, new jersey, next up on the independent line. maria, hello. caller: good morning. i think it's the duty of the attorney general and the prosecutors to seek the truth. i think washington warned -- what weties being have had here is over the years we have become a parliamentary-type system where -- the truth is situational. where what party is in power depends on whether you willfully blind or not. we have to root this out. i think we have to look at the five system with great britain and israel and commonwealth nations have access to all of our security information. we have to get independence from britain again and start being

our own country. so i think it's a healthy sign no matter which party is contesting something. we have to look for the truth. thank you. host: on to our republican line. kermit, columbus, ohio. caller: yes. i'm a creature of the united states of america. i don't like to watch politics because all of them lie. but democrats made this united states really look bad. and the election. the things that's happening in that election. them meme all be took to court, tried, and sent to prison. thank you. host: ok. to new rochelle on our democrats line. new rochelle, new york, rosetta. caller: good morning. trump should get over it. he's caused -- wreaked so much havoc within the four years he's been in office. i'm talking about prior to the pandemic.

the three years prior he was -- he's been just one problem after the other. the republicans need to grow up, all of them. get a life. and move on and accept biden and harris. that's the right thing to do. host: tracking social media, this says if biden won so convincingly he should want the vote checked. bob from springfield, missouri, a recount is needed. dead people do not vote. good morning, my name is anna, from ohio, i just feel the election ballots were not stolen. we as the people voted who we felt would lead our country to help our livelihoods the best. from robtera on facebook, barr needs to be impeached. no judge has found any proof of anything irrelevant until elections. the biden team needs to bring legal action. richard says attorney general william barr, will end up like him. disbarred and a convicted fellon.

matthew says, file sorry for barr. yeah, i said t he's crawling around being abused by trump and the cult. call 9-1-1 he's being abused. the senate democratic leader responded to the majority leader's opening statements yesterday. here's some of what he had to say. >> baseless claims by the president and his supporters that there's been widespread voter fraud and that the election was somehow rigged or stolen from president trump, that kind of rhetoric is extremely dangerous, extremely poisonous to our democracy. as in any campaign, the president has a right to bring legal challenges or request recounts where state law allows. however, there is no legal right to file frivolous claims. lawsuits must have basis in facts and evidence. and make no mistake, there has been no evidence of any significant widespread voter

fraud. joe biden won this election fair and square. the margins of his victory are growing by the day. and former president, george w. bush, commendably acknowledged that fact when he congratulated president-elect biden and vice president elect harris on their victory. republican leaders in congress should also do the right thing. republican leaders must unequivocally condemn the president's rhetoric and work to ensure the peaceful transfer of power on january 20. i have been heartened to see a few of my republican colleagues, it's three, i believe, congratulate the winning ticket. but too many, including the republican leader, have been silent or sympathetic to the president's fantasies. host: the trump campaign announcing another lawsuit yesterday. the associated press reporting on that. trump campaign sues to block

pennsylvania election results. the president trump's campaign launch add lawsuit to stop the certification of the election results in pennsylvania suing monday as counties continue to sort through provisional ballots and mail-in ballots nearly a week after the election. the associated press on saturday called the presidential contest for former vice president joe biden after determining that the remaining ballots left to be counted in pennsylvania would not allow trump to catch up. but trump's campaign filed litigation in federal court over pennsylvania's presidential election saying, registered democratic voters were treated more favorably than republican voters. trump has refused to concede, quote, the election is not over. the trump campaign's general counsel, matthew morgan said, in a news conference in washington. also on the attorney general and his effort, his order yesterday, memorandum to attorneys on investigations, this is the "politico" this morning, plitplith could he.com, barr ok

for election fraud investigation royals just shall -- roils justice department. attorney general william barr appeared to make a bid to reassure backers of president trump who complained bitterly that the justice department was not taking action to combat voter fraud n a memo to u.s. attorneys, barr authorized them to open election fraud investigations, quote, if there are clear and apparently credible allegations of irregularities that if true could potentially impact the outcome of the federal election in a state. they write that shortly after barr's directive was released, richard -- the director of the d.o.j. criminal division election crimes branch sent colleagues an email saying he was transferring to another role in the department. the 28-year veteran frrl prosecutor also made unmistakably clear that aharm at barr as policy shift prompted his exit from the job he has

held since 2010. to our independent line, here is james in tennessee. hi. caller: hi, how you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to say is that these are the same people who still think they are fighting the civil war. and they still think they are fighting it. beare not going to lay down, jim crow. white man coming down the street. those days are gone. trump trying to bring them back to you. we are ready for the war. bring it. thank you. host: arkansas, linda on the republican line. caller: yes. i would like to say we were completely -- not completely

blue state, we had clinton as our governor. we went completely red, now we have everything we gained two house seats. and the red states are pro-life. the ones that are contesting this, which nancy pelosi has stock in the machines that were used to count the votes. so now we have all red. we have wonderful people. we have tom cotton and all these wonderful people. and it's pro-life. the states that are doing all this, they want their abortion thing. and also if you can check with david he does a video on them selling baby body parts. we are in a spiritual battle, lucifer versus the republicans and the conservatives. not all republicans. in fact i think a lot of republicans, they want that

money and they want that bribery and all that. i think a lot of them are like that. host: we go to bob in chicago on our democrats line. caller: how you doing. i just love c-span. i fell you. love the host. sten, of course i believe in this vote. and i just want to say this. we don't want no war. with nobody. who is ready for that? is r two, you know, trump not dealing with a full deck. one example real quick, the testing. he said you don't test. no test, because then we'll find out how many people got the virus. i mean that's so ridiculous. and we just looking out for you republicans. that's what we really are.

we don't want people dying. thank you, c-span, for allowing me to say this. host: in spring, texas, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to remind everyone first that in 2000 -- after the election 2016 trump had a commission on voter fraud, which was an absolute failure. not a single finding was issued. even though a large percentage of states declined to participate in this commission. there was never a single finding issued by this committee that was supposed to find out that trump had won the popular vote. i'd like to remind people before the election trump was a large purveyor -- he had a team in hawaii and they found amazing things about barack obama. they never came to light. the hallmark of a great con man is the posts always move. hunter biden's laptop. these are all examples of a

moving post by the con man. the democrats are not an intersent party. look at the treatment of bernie sanders. the fact that debi wasserman schultz is still involved in the democratic party. there was no massive voter fraud. what you are seeing is a con man grasping for strauss as his house of cards is falling down. st: darlene next up in washington state, republican line. aller: good morning. things are just way too person. individuals, left, right. it's just so dysfunctional. i choose to live my life in a pretty peaceful fashion. we are going back to the election. i really think it's a little bit late that things -- that they need to look at will have been

discarded like the envelope that had significance g signatures. as a republican -- signatures. as a republican, i prefer my president. unlike they said concede, i'd like president trump because i admired the man. to go have a peaceful life and golf his life away. i wouldn't want to be president and have to deal with the challenges that are coming up. but i asked my husband about voting. i said wouldn't it be better instead of wondering every time thee is an election, if all voter rolls were deleted. canceled out. and there is a mandate that people had to register to vote again. and they had to present those materials and legally register to vote so that the voting rolls would, for once, in the last 40 years, be as accurate as we

could get them. i was just wondering feedback on that. i appreciate c-span. again it's too personal, folks. let's just let the investigations play out. i can't even watch the news anymore. host: darlene you did vote for president trump this time around, right? in washington state? caller: i am a republican. i voted for republican values. that's smaller government. work hard. and love god. thank you. host: thank you, darlene. want to remind our viewers and listeners of our coverage today. the supreme court, the affordable care case at 10:00 this morning. the case, california v. texas, this consolidated case, the oral argument getting under way at 10:00. that will be live here on c-span. we'll carry the oral argument here on c-span. c-span radio. follow it as well online at c-span.org. the morning, early morning shot of the supreme court across the street there from the u.s.

capitol will be looking in all morning until the oral arguments, obviously, by audio only, and the justices still meeting remotely, not at the chamber itself. we are not in the supreme court chamber itself. a look at the "usa today" and their fact check section on some of the allegations made from the election. states don't have more than 100% turnout. they write a recent meme uses outdated data to argue fraudulent votes have been undermined -- have undermineded 2020 elections intregity. it just happened so we are on track to have more votes than registered voters in every single state that could potentially win trump the election, says an image posted to facebook nobody 4. you have been caught, democrats. the fact check section of the "usa today" found that updated data and individual state reporting show no state had more than 100% voter election turnout. in fact, they name all of them. pennsylvania, for example, had

over nine million registered oters. nine 6,600,000 ballots cast. a 73% turnout. in wisconsin, there are 3.6 million registered voters. they had 3.2 million ballots cast for a 72% turnout. and in georgia, state that will go to recount, at least 7.5 million voters registered. and nearly five million ballots cast in georgia. a 65% voter turnout. georgia going to a recount. and their ruling, again, updated data, an individual state reporting showed no state had more than 14u7bd% voter turnout for the election. walter's in hartford, connecticut, democrats line. go ahead. caller: yes. my name is walt. retiree. i'm trying to figure out -- i have been voting since i was 18

years old. i understand the process and forg president of it boeing three terms. i just don't understand the irregularities and this whole thing about people were dead and voting and all the things going on. we have been going through the process for four years. i voted since -- my first vote i voted for barack obama -- voted early when i was 18 years old. why are we talking about irregularities? nobody has said fraud, except donald trump, president trump, said anything about irregularities of vote. there is no evidence. you have had republicans that said that there is no evidence of that. in order to prove something you have to have evidence. anybody can sue. you can sue a ham sandwich.

you have to have evidence and proof to say that what happened. and it hasn't happened yet. and here we are going through the virus. y point is that if you don't win, is that what it's all about? winning? you going to have a president go on a campaign and say about he's going to have rallies? people dying every day? every day, every day. my thing is here. ke i said, show me the evidence that irregularities, fraud, and lord have mercy, people saying people voted who passed away. i don't think it's true. i think donald trump is donald trump. he has a record of when he doesn't get his way, its my way or the highway. my thing is i want to see some evidence. i noted republican, i'm a

resident democrat in the past. i want some evidence. and show me that -- give me the facts, man. your opinions, ok everybody has an opinion. i want the facts. there is nothing happened in our election. sure there is going to be some nook and crannies. show me some evidence where people did these crazy things. i mean -- i voted for george w. bush. what are you talking about? host: walter. to capital heights, maryland. independent line. caller: in order to see evidence, you have to look. if you aren't looking for it how you going to see it? i don't see evidence. you're not looking for t don't understand why people are fighting against making sure we have a secure, fair voting system. why are people fighting this? it seem like trump and biden

should work together in good faith for the sake of the american people to investigate this voting system to make sure that all legal votes was counted nd all illegal votes were not. who has the problem with that? host: who has the responsibility here? who has the obligation to bring forth the allegations of voter fraud? is it the responsibility of the justice department? s it the -- to investigate, to lead the investigation? is the responsibility to the states to bring forth those allegations for investigation? caller: the responsibility lies with the american people because those people do not -- we don't work for them. they work for us. the responsibility lies with the american people. we should demand that we have a voting system that has substance. ouldn't be fighting -- trump and biden should send their people and they should have unfettered access to the voting

system to make sure everything was done fair and square. you hear on the news on date everything was done fair and square. everybody keep seeing they don't see no evidence because they are not looking for any. not going to see any in you're not looking. my personal opinion, i got two points i want to make then i'll get off the phone. this what we are witnessing is a coup being committed by people like rupert murdock, soros, bill gates, ted turner, and mark uckerberg. congress don't tell billionaires what to do. billionaires tell congress what to do. i would put a paper trail. then i would have everybody registered to vote. when you come register to vote, i would give you a cryptic code you can go to your cell phone our orr your computer, open it up, cast your vote, you have a paper trail on it. and then the code would expire after a certain amount of time.

host: comments on social media. you can send us a text, 202-748-8003. pam in burlington, north carolina, says this. does this mean that republicans who won senate and house seats on the same ballot are in question, too? can't have it both ways. this is scorched earth tactics. give the man baby a pacifier. hello c-span, i support the recounts and lawsuits f there is nothing to hide there is nothing to fear. sean in florida. barbara said i think we should do everything reasonable to detect if there was cheating. otherwise all we'll hear for years is trump's conspiracy theory. jim says looks like we are opening program discussing investigations into questionable vote counts. the mainstream media doesn't want to talk about this. there is a lot of strange stuff going on. and anna palmer, the coed tore of the playbook card on "politico" says for anybody under the illusion that the end of trump's presidency means he's going to fade into the backdrop starting a pact, political act committee, sends a very

different signal. trump's here to statement we'll read you that story in a bit. hear from the republican leader in the senate, mitch mcconnell, and more of his thoughts on president trump's contesting the 2020 election. senator mcconnell: let's not have any lectures. no lectures about how the president should immediately, cheerful accept preliminary election results from the same characters who just spent four years refusing to accept the validity of the last election. and who insinuated that this one would be illegitimate, too. if they lost again. only if they lost. so let's have no lectures on this subject from that contention. in late august secretary hillary clinton said, quote, joe biden should not concede under any circumstances. i think this is going to drag out and he will win it if we don't give an inch.

that same month, speaker pelosi and the democratic leader both stated, quote, president trump needs to cheat to win. in october, when speaker pelosi was shopping some conspiracy theory about the postal service, she recklessly said, quote, listen to this, i have no doubt that the president will lie, cheat, and steal to win the election. does this sound like a chorus that has any credibility whatsoever to say a few legal challenges from president trump represents some kind of crisis? host: more of your calls. this is crystal in memphis, tennessee, republican line. caller: good morning, everyone. good morning. i'm glad i just listened to that recording. because i wanted to make points to this and what the young lady said a couple calls ago. this is very personal. we are dealing with several different levels of things here.

we are dealing with ethnicity. politics. and we are dealing with fairness. but what is really going on is a kindergarten classroom. i am a republican. i am republican values. i'm a 39-year-old african-american woman. i have children and grandchildren. so the fight is for their future. and i feel like this investigation just started. so the rumors of no evidence, no evidence. that's a red flag that there's something to be hidden. he spoke about them going to cheat before this election. way before the election president trump spoke about negligence going on. because there is mowive. we got to understand that there is mowive. a lot of media, not all of the media, not only african-americans, people deal with people on how they are treated by another person. we don't have so much of the race thing going on in our individual lives, which is what

elections reflect. they reflect your individual personal values. so we need to separate ethnicity from politics. i would like to say also that if there was any respect from day one for our president, then there would be unblinded eyes. there would be an open door to even reason. he has the legal right. so did al gore. in previous years. it's not like this is -- has not come up before as elections or ballots being wrong or illegal. this is not a space claim. they put so much drama on this one man. and they give him so much power. when at the end of the day this country is majority christian. or it's said to be. so we have a faith first. we have a foundation first. which is our king, the master of god. jesus. we need to love one another.

and love ourselves first to even see that we have to love one another. for fairness. at the end of the day god will make sure that karma is served to the right people. this is a mess our children are in fear. we are going through a pandemic and really no one has the answers to anything. so we are all on edge. we are all scared. but the slander of one another, whether it's joe biden or trump, i have my feelings on biden and kamala harris, but they are not for me to speak on because i'm not in their bipartisan. host: we go to houston, texas, steven on our democrats line. caller: yes. i think it seems to me we are heading for the same kind of constitutional crisis that you had with nixon. only then the sort of political norms had not been disrupted as much. and the process of removing him from office was pretty smooth. i don't think that's going to

happen this time. i think they may have to actually forcibly remove trump from office. because he's -- he respects nothing. in his opinion the voteers' wrong simply because he didn't win, right? he has no respect for democratic i think we have to see what happens. i think the next two months are going to be really chaotic and painful. host: if president trump does somehow get another four years, he'll need a new defense secretary. he fired mark esper yesterday. "usa today" reporting president trump terminated defense secretary mark esper on monday days after his election loss to joe biden. and following a series of clashes between esper and trummle over the trawl-president trump over the withdrawal of key says abroad using active duty troops to quell protests.

trump made the announcement on twitter, quote, mark esper has been terminated. i would like to thank him for his service. christopher miller, director of the national counterterrorism center, as acting defense secretary. "usa today" writes the tweet was a sign trump plans to be active for the next two months, even as he contests the election. trump is considering dismissing f.b.i. director christopher wray, sade say, they expect c.i.a. director to go. the house speaker, nancy pelosi, with here reaction to the firing of mark esper. she said in a statement that it is concerning to me -- it is concerned that reports show his firing was an act of retribution by the president allegedly for secretary esper's refusal to send active duty military troops to crack down on peaceful demonstrations against police brutality. most disturbingly, however, the timing of this dismissal raises serious questions about trump's action force the final days of his administration.

again and again, mr. speaker, trump's recklessness endangers our national security. it is disturbing and dangerous that at this precarious moment our military will be led by an official who has not been confirmed for this position by the u.s. senate. idaho, next up, darell on the independent line. your thoughts on the gathering support for president trump, at least in washington, to contest the election? caller: well, basically if you recall i think it was like the end of 2019 and all wait up to february 5 of 2020, trump was in the impeachment mode, yet the criteria for impeachment you are supposed to have a good percentage of both parties. 100% democrats on 100% republicans, republicans said no. the democrats said yes. you are looking at a situation where a lot of people are going, you know what, the democrats, they don't even follow their own rules what is supposed to be implemented. and the bottom line it comes

down to this year, the senate joe biden gets up there and says we are supposed to come together automatically you know and i know that the next thing you are going to see is all of the people that are in the obama administration, they are all going to come back. i don't know if the united states is really united at all. and the other thing is, i don't know why during the voting they don't have a camera over there for everybody putting their name down, whatever, so there is video of a situation. host: you mean like in a voting booth? most places say you can't bring a camera into voting -- caller: do away with the 100 foot away observers that they said in some cases. it comes down to this here. you are looking at man is unable to govern himself. you got a situation where people deny the king as being a horrible government. when jesus returns, he says he's going tonight king of kings.

which party is going to like that? it seems to me like neither democrats or republicans are going to enjoy that situation. obviously we got some bad news with this country for the united part. host: to regina in alexander, virginia -- alexandria, virginia. republican line. caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is this. i am not the only one. there are a lot of republicans. if the president says anybody or loss, however it works. what happens to those tickets or those people that voted on a split ticket? are you saying if i didn't vote for you, somehow my vote was illegitimate? at happens to my senator, my congressman, whomever, my state legislator i did vote for.

you throw theirs out so you win? i'm just confused by this. host: thanks for that. somebody raised that point on twitter earlier. florida next up on the democrats line. nathaniel, high, there. caller: yes. -- ild like to speak about believe that joe biden won the election fair and square. -- texas is the second largest state in the union. and florida is the third. how they were able to count -- they have key ballots. so if anybody cheated, it had to be people working with donald trump in the post office. i don't see how they can compare all that -- you got those smaller states.

but texas and florida was able to count it. it just don't make no sense. when did they start counting? i believe that joe biden is fair and square. -- trump set tole up owe that the post office bought their limited ballots and he had his people come in and vote in person. host: president-elect joe biden yesterday announced his covid-19 advisory team. wanted to show you the front page of the "wall street journal." if we could pull out a little wit on this because it circles around one story on this. front page. they look at the medical news and also the effect on the stock market. the top of the front page, clinical trial and election results send stocks on wild ride. the story about the covid-19

vaccine success that pfizer is having so far. 90% effective. and the headline on the piece about joe biden. biden kicks off transition on first step of pandemic. he started the week focusing on the coronavirus pandemic at beau political parties weighed out to handle potential distribution of vaccine in light of the positive news from pfizer and partner biotech s.e. mr. biden and vice president elect kamala harris received their first briefing on monday on the pandemic from the transition team's newly announced covid-19 advisory board after a study showed the pfizer vaccine to be more than 90% effective in the first 94 subjects who were infected by the new coronavirus and developed at least one symptom. here's what the president-elect had to say about wearing a mask. >> i won't be president until january 20, my message today is to everyone is this. it doesn't matter who you voted for. whether you stood -- where you

stood before election day. it doesn't matter your party, your point of view. we can save tens of thousands of lives if everyone would just wear a mask for the next few months. not democrat or republican lives. american lives. maybe we would save the life of a person who stocks a shelf at your local grocery store. maybe saves the life of a member of your place of worship. maybe it saves the lives of one of your children's teachers. maybe it saves your life. so, please, i implore you, wear a mask. do it for yourself. do it for your neighbor. a mask is not a political statement. but it is a good way to start pulling the country together. i want to be very clear, the goal of mask wearing is not to make your life less comfortable. it's to take something -- or take something away from you. it's to give something back to

all of us. a normal life. a goal is to get back to normal as fast as possible. and masks are critical in doing that. it won't be forever. but that's how we'll get our nation back, back up to speed economically. so we can go back to celebrating birthdays and holidays together. so we can attend sporting event together. back to the lives and connections we shared before the pandemic. it doesn't matter. whether or not we always agree with one another. it doesn't matter who you voted for. we are americans and our country is under threat. host: it's election day again. it's election day in the u.s. senate. senate leadership elections are happening today. and we are joined next by roll white iellesniewski, house and congress chief correspondentant. it's a lame duck session, why is the senate leadership elections, why are they happening now?

caller: they always happen shortly after election day when the new senators, as many new senators as we know there are going to be, are in washington for sort of orientation. i know that mark kelly, the senator elect in arizona, was spotted on capitol hill yesterday. and the republican senators who have -- republican senators elect had a photo op with mitch mcconnell, the current majority leader, yesterday afternoon. so this is always done as part of orientation. what is interesting this year is that we don't entirely know what jobs people will be elected to within the republican and democratic leadership because, of course, the ultimate control of the senate next year is still at least a little bit in question because of those two runoff elections in georgia. host: those two runoff elections in georgia, the headline at the

"atlanta journal constitution" citing no evidence, georgia's u.s. senators demand the elections head resigns. the secretary of state pictured there in georgia. those elections are happening in early january after the senate comes in for the new session. how shortly thereafter could a new senator be seated or new senators in this case. caller: they'll seat the new senator or senators as quickly s paperwork is received from the secretary of state and officials in georgia that there's been a certification. what's interesting is is that the seat that is currently occupied by kelly lefffler, the appointed junior senator in georgia, is actually not normally up for election this cycle. she was the governor's choice to fill out the unexpired term of

johnny isakson who retired early from the senate. so what's funny is if there is some sort of issue, even if there is not an issue because it's just going to take a while to count anyway, she will actually still be in the senate pending the outcome of the election. while david perdue, wrapping up his first full term, will actually see his term expire. so when we are talking about leadership election, the reality is is that the republicans will ve a majority at least until and y 20 in any case will will -- leffler still be in the senate. we could be electing -- seeing senators elect their colleagues even though there is not really any suspense expected as to who for either minority or majority

leader. not sfess filing which one. host: setting aside the georgia elections, can either of the campaign committees, the democratic or the republican, beat their chests and claim victory here? who are we expecting to line up to lead those organizations for fundraising in the next congress? caller: the one guest: the one sort of nomaly contested, we don't know if he has any opposition raised on the republican side is the nrsc seat, republican senatorial committee is vacant. rick scott from florida, the former governor who has been in the senate for a couple years, is known to be running for the seat and maybe running without opposition. i have not heard of anyone thinking that there will be anyone else to be the national republican senatorial committee chairman. i don't yet know what's going to happen with the democrats, but they don't elect their chairman. the way that the democratic

campaign committee works, that will be an appointment by presumably chuck schumer barring any sort of something happening today that no one sees coming. we expect schumer to be re-elected as democratic leader by aically mation and -- aically mation. -- acclimation. if that holds he'll announce the chame or chairwoman. host: kelly will have to run a third election to run for re-election in that seat in 2022. there are 22 seats that republicans will defend in the next cycle? guest: it's a more democrat favorable map again in the next cycle. at least in theory. we have said that before and the democrats have not picked up enough seats to take the majority or right now where they are sort of this suspended

animation pending. it will be a complicated map because on one hand the conditions might seem like they would favor the democrats in terms of the map, but the condition regarding the enact that there is now going to be a democratic president, that sometimes favors the minority party or the republican -- the opposition party, rather. sometimes favors the opposition party in that first midterm. so that is going to be a really busy race, set of races for both the campaign chairmen. host: one more thing about your article at roll call.com. joe mansioned kills dreams of expanding the supreme court, eliminating the filibuster. critical of the democratic leader. he seems to be staking out some ground ahead of the start of the 117th. he what's your take? guest: that's what he's doing.

he's sort of saying that we are going to have either a 50-50 senator, or 51-49, or 52-48 senate. so the value of the sort of ople in the middle could, in theory, increase, particularly when it comes to vice president -- or president-elect biden making appointments and nominations. and so he's staking out the grounds saying we will not be doing the expansion of the supreme court. he's saying he's not going to supreme court eliminating the legislative filibuster. and we sort of, i guess, it's not really a stretch to imagine that you always thought that joe manchin would come down against eliminate -- eliminating fables. the fact he says it now is perhaps helpful at least a little bit for the democrats who are running for senate in

georgia because this becomes less of a pressing issue in a media concerned in those senate races. it's harder to argue that the democrats in georgia would expand the size of the supreme court, would pack the court, so to speak, if the votes will not exist to pack the court even if chuck schumer is the majority leader. host: covers congress and the white house for roll call. always associate your insight. thanks for joining you. more of your calls head as we look at the republican efforts to challenge the election of president-elect joe biden. the headline here from "politico." g.o.p.-led states back trump's legal drive to challenge election. trump's attorney general -- attorney urged patience as his legal team seeks to coordinate lawsuits but those suits don't seem capable of reversing the sizable leads president-elect joe biden has established in

pivotal backgrounds. a picture of the president's attorney. to westchester, pennsylvania, renee on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i believe that the voting was fair. accurate. and pennsylvania did the right thing. now, joe biden, he has compassion for people. he cares about the working person. and he will serve the people. trump, everything is about him. he's bullying people. he's bullying people now. if they look for a new job, they are fired. he lacks compassion. there was a lot of problems with him in new york. there were a lot of contractors and people that he stiffed. he didn't pay. he doesn't like to pay his bill bill. -- pay his bills. there are a lot of problems with him before he went into office, maybe that's why the woman who called earlier from tennessee,

maybe that's why prior to him going into office, especially people in new york and new jersey, they knew who this man was. and it's not real republican people. he's not a real republican. a politician needs to be in that position serving the people. someone who will follow the rules, the laws. that's who needs to be in there. not someone trying to self-serve . before this election year, trump made a joke, it's not really a joke, he said, president for life. it looks to me, and it's been looking like he's trying to turn this -- control of the department of justice, some other departments, and he's trying to turn this into -- our country into where he is ruler for life. we don't have kings. and that's why george washington and the others fought against that. and trump is trying to turn us from a democracy into a

dictatorship. that's the way it looks to me. and his lack of -- he just doesn't care. everything is about him. him staying in that position. and that's what i see. host: renee in westchester, pennsylvania, just outside of philadelphia. "the new york times" has a piece this morning, trump learns a lesson, don't insult philadelphia. after the 2,431 votes in the city moved from mr. biden's problem clinching pennsylvania's 20 elech tore votes, philadelphia and its suburban counties had laid the final brick that rebuilt the proverbial blue wall in 2020. democrats here wanted to make sure that everyone, especially president trump, knew it. as the newly counted votes set off rapid fire succession of news outlets call the race for mr. biden, the city that herleds itself as the birthplace of american independence from britain, celebrated the toppling of a leader who provoked its anger and laying the groundwork for his baseless claims of voter fraud, mr. trump declared from

the debate stage that quote, bad things happen in philadelphia. over the weekend his personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, assailed a history of corruption in the city as he pursued unlikely efforts to challenge election results. but ask philadelphians about when things turned sour with the president, and many will point back more than two years, to his abrupt cancellation after traditional white house visit for the city's beloved eagles in 2018 after the team's first ever super bowl victory. in this city with a penchant for deeply held civic grudges, trash talk, and celebrations of its rival prevails, and chris could he is put on telephone poles. the blocks around city hall began to resemble the super bowl prayed of 2018. in falling waters, west virginia. dan, independent. go ahead. caller: hi. i would just like to say that i think we can thank president integrity he voter

system because he's been disparaging it for as long as he's been president. and i think that's what kept election officials around the country on their toes to make sure that the voting integrity was good. and i believe that that's why they are not finding so much voter fraud because they did do such a good job in trying to keep it all in the up and up. host: mike next on the republican line. mike in st. charles, missouri, sorry about that. go ahead. caller: hi. i'd like to say that these people saying that there is no proof of voter fraud. the proof is just now starting to come out. and the truth is -- will come out. when you got hundreds ever whistleblowers coming forward ating that they were told to

late ballots and run them through and they are signing after dates. you have pole worker signing after dates stating he was told by his boss to back date ballots in maryland when they are expired. the truth will come out. couching ot democrats republican ballots. that's toll tothally corrupt. lindsey graham said for a long time, all these democrats have been a cooker. there is proof with that with joe biden. he's been in office forever as a senator and he's got all these corrupt accusations coming after him. he got all these emails that they can prove now. you got the f.b.i. sitting on their ass and they do not want to property. host: mike, do you think they will have enough eventually to overturn the election? caller: it's ridiculous what

they are getting away with. they need a third party that's neutral to come in and do these elections. that way you don't have the republicans count democrat votes, vice versa. host: how do you do that nationwide with elections run by the states, by the localities? caller: they need to take it away from the state. at election time they need to have a group of people that's unbuy ased -- unbiased. it's ridiculous what's going on. it's not going to change. host: robert, bath, new york, republican line. caller: yes. thanks for taking my call. 85ave seen on tv where biden years old. i'm not quite as senile as biden. that's the first thing. but he come on tv and admitted,

admitted the fraud had all been set up. he knew what was going on. that's why he never got out and done nothing. i don't -- i don't know why nybody would want him to run for president. because i -- i am a little senile myself. not that bad. host: this is steven in north hampton, pennsylvania. independent line. caller: good morning. i'm ait was -- i'm aghast by the last four years of president trump, i voted for him and voted for him twice. i have been voting since reagan came in. what i don't understand is we have no foreign policy going into the new presidential election. now i see a lot of -- i see from just watching the television and following up and be very up-to-date with current event with the media, this was all

projected back six months ago when they started talking about stuffing the ballot boxes. there's been a lot of irregularities that i see from being a voter and going up and voting myself myself in line with other people. host: you saw it this election? caller: i saw this election when we talked in line, a lot of people talking in line. i would say out of 200 voters waiting two hours for two machines, there wasn't one person voting for biden at all through the conversations going down through the line. and the conversation was directed at how in our county, the democrats have ruled the roost on elections. because of the voter maps. there has always been irregularities here.

and the mediation calling the election of the president before every single vote is counted is completely wrong. host: what part of the state is northampton? quarter.he eastern just above philadelphia. host: i will let you go there. more ahead on "washington journal." we will be joined by katie keith, a lawyer and health policy expert with georgetown university. we will preview the support -- the court case today. and later on, virginia tech political science professor karen holt will be with us to talk about the biden presidential transition. ♪ >> omer fbi deputy director

andrew mccabe testifies before the senate judiciary committee on the crossfire hurricane investigation that looks at russian interference in the 2016 election. atch live coverage today 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span tv. stream live or on-demand at c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. tv on c-span two has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. saturday at 1:00 p.m. eastern. from the recent southern virtual festival of books, sarah marsh, thomas burton, and wayne mugler reflect on life in appalachia. and then reflecting on the jim crow era of the south. discusses his book, "joe biden: the life, the run, and what matters now or cow - no- now."

matthew talks about his book deep delta justice about a civil rights case that helped reaffirm the right to a trial by jury in most criminal cases. and author stephanie horton and chris hamby offer their thoughts on investigative journalism and its role in a democracy. and at 9:00 p.m. eastern, law professor john fabian witt talks about his book, "epidemics and the law: smallpox to covid-19." weekend ontv this c-span 2. washington journal continues. next by are joined katie keith with georgetown university, the center on health insurance reform. she is also an adjunct professor of law at the law school at georgetown. thank you for joining us. katie: thank you for having me.

host: here to talk about the latest supreme court and the most significant supreme court on the affordable care act. give us the shorthand version of legally, how we arrived at this point. katie: to understand this case, we have to go back in time a little bit to 2012 and then 2017. if folks remember back to 2012, that was the first time the supreme court upheld the affordable care act. chief justice john roberts held that the individual mandate could not be sustained under the commerce clause, but it could be sustained as a tax. it walks, talks, cracked like attacks. -- quacks like a tax. fast-forward to 2017, republicans controlled both chambers of congress. timespent much of their trying to repeal as much of the

affordable care act as possible. it led to multiple high-profile failed attempts and the very dramatic john mccain thumbs down in the middle of the night one night. law inot repeal the 2017. then in the tax reform bill, congress changed the individual mandate penalty from $695 to zero dollars. saw a lawsuit filed by a coalition of republican toorney generals, individuals, and joined by the trump administration essentially asking the court to revisit that by saying there is no more penalty for the individual mandate and it can no longer be sustained as a tax. that makes it unconstitutional under the 2012 decision. that argument is what it is.

but what the kicker is, and they go so much further to argue, the mandate itself is so essential and so critical to the entire rest of the affordable care act that the entire law should be struck down alongside the mandate. the case that this is about is whether the mandate can stand now that the penalty is set to zero. and if not, how much of the rest of the law should be struck down with it? host: take us back to 2012. chief justice roberts in that inision, did he write about his decision, the expectation would come back to the court? and that these points would be argued with some sort of finality. wase: i don't think that the expectation at the time. and he saw and occasional -- an additional supreme court case challenging a separate issue.

that case in 2015 also written by the chief justice, he sort of closes that decision by saying it is not the court's job the question what congress did here. read that as saying, stop bringing these cases. that clearly hasn't happened, and here we are. ,he law turned 10 years old enacted and signed into law in 2010. withd behold we are back existential challenge to the law. host: that tax penalty shortly after the case began to develop, who are the plaintiffs bringing this case to the court? have been changes over time. i will give you who the parties are now. on one side, they are arguing the entire aca should fall.

you have a coalition of more or less red states. a group of republican attorneys general and governors. states led8 of those by texas. two individuals that serve as consultants in texas and lived there. you have the department of justice representing the trump administration in this case all on one side arguing that the mandate is unconstitutional and that the entire rest of the aca should be invalid. host: i want to remind viewers that we will be covering the oral arguments at 10:00 a.m. eastern with live coverage on c-span and c-span radio. our guest is katie keith to talk about the aca. here is how we are setting aside the phone lines for this segment. if you are uninsured, that line is (202) 748-8001. for those that get employers insurance, (202) 748-8002. for all others, (202) 748-8003.

by the, thatvered number is (202) 748-8000. publishedh was yesterday, a preview. , one of theith things that you talked about, the issues to listen for, do the challengers, a coalition of states, have standing to challenge the aca? tell us what standing is and if the court will make that decision? is one of these bedrock legal principles. you don't get to go to court for any reason. you can't file any lawsuit you want because you don't like something the government has done. standing means you have to actually have been injured. , ans a procedural hurdle important one anybody has to

cross to be able to bring a lawsuit. argument being made by a group of states and california defending the law in the house of representatives, they made some pretty forceful arguments that no one is injured by a zero dollar penalty. how are states injured by a mandate with no penalty? individualse injured by a mandate with no penalty? justices troubled by that? do they have questions about standing? it is certainly something to be watching for. harmed innt that your a penalty without a -- in a mandate without a penalty is much weaker. host: justice amy coney barrett

-- do we have any kind of indication of how she has come down on cases for the aca in the past? katie: she has not ruled, to my knowledge, on any of the affordable care act latest cases. in her professorship and scholarship, she has been critical of the chief justice's decisions. it is probably no surprise to your listeners that she listed justice scalia as a mentor. she said his judicial philosophy is her own. he was a leading defender and both of those cases against the chief justice. sayink it would be safe to if justice barrett had been on the court previously, she likely would have been in the dissent. it is hard to say at this point quite what that means for how she might decide on this case,

but i think she certainly would have sided with the dissent. her: it's hard to believe confirmation hearings were just a month ago. exchange between the chair lindsey graham and now chair justice barrett on the issue of severability. >> the doctrine of severability is a doctrine essentially of statutory interpretation. what it means is that if you have a statute and the affordable care act is a long statute, if there is one provision within the statute that is unconstitutional, the question is whether that one section can simply be rendered null and excised from the statute, severed, so that the rest of the law stands. or whether that provision is so essential to the statute that its unconstitutionality, once it is pulled out, the house of cards collapses. the presumption is in favor of

severability. it is a question of your intent. thingr graham: the main is the doctrine of severability has a presumption to save the statute if possible. correct? >> that is correct. senator graham: i want every conservative in the nation to listen to what she just said. the doctrine of severability presumes, and its goal is to preserve the statute, if that is possible. so from a conservative point of view, generally speaking, we want legislative bodies to make laws, not judges. correct? >> that is correct. senator graham: and would be further true if you preserve a statute, you try to to the extent possible? >> that is true. senator graham: that is the law, folks. bet: the theme considered to severed here is the mandate,

right? katie: that's exactly right. thequestion here is, if mandate is unconstitutional, is that the part that could be pulled out and everything else left to stand or not. the court in recent terms dealt with severability issues on other laws that congress has passed? katie: it has. there are two recent decisions from the courts last term. decisions out in 2020, one written by the chief justice and one written by justice kavanaugh. both decisions really confirmed the description that now justice barrett was giving during the confirmation hearing that there is a presumption of severability. berts -- courts should conservative, not politically conservative, but judicially conservative to preserve the law. , that can look at intent

is what you're supposed to do. you are not supposed to take the pen and invalidate entire laws. thatis the principle diverse legal scholars agree on. we don't want the court rewriting whole statutes. host: the idea of severing the individual mandate, it is like severed like a limb off the law. case, if heis struck down the individual mandate, that provision would no longer be enforced. is not being enforced right now. we have been living in this world without a functional individual mandate is 2019. -- since 2019. average premiums are down a little bit. enrollment is stable.

yes, congress intended to zero out the individual mandate and it did not mean for the entire lot to be thrown out. -- entire law to be thrown out. everything is functioning as they otherwise would. probably more stable than expected. masters of keith, a public health from johns hopkins university. let's get to calls who is dennis, under the affordable care act in tyler, texas. of againstas kind obama care when it first came had a pre-existing and we could not get any other insurance companies to cover us. inough obamacare, we got there and they save my wife's life and myself because it allowed pre-existing. we pray -- we pay pretty good chunk, but it has been worth it.

host: give us an idea, what do you pay, if you don't mind? >> we pay $15,000 a year. host: we appreciate your call. katie: thanks, dennis. the affordable care act is not a perfect law. no law is. but i think it is families like dennis's where if the court invalidates some or all of the coverage dennis's would be severely disrupted and not something we should be prioritizing in a pandemic. host: go ahead. caller: is it possible that biden can use an executive order and give us insurance? can't the president do anything he wants to do? what hastop of that,

the trump administration done byher legislatively or executive action to change the affordable care act at all? pass inf this comes to texas is successful striking down the affordable care act, there is nothing a trump administration or biting administration could do. it would be in the hands of congress which has a range of auctions. -- of options. congress could keep it out of the court entirely. there may be some very narrow circumstances were a biden administration could try to help. but at the end of the day, this would have to be something congress fixes. the idea that you could use an executive order to fill in the gaps, i don't think it will work in this situation. it does not have the legal binding effect to require

insurance companies to do what the affordable care act were offer the coverage they need to people with pre-existing conditions. host: what was the original test of the mandate? intent -- original this was trying to have a healthy risk pool. it was to encourage younger, healthier people that otherwise wouldn't want to get insurance. if you are young and healthy, you think you don't need it. but having the mandate would require them to participate in the risk pool and get the insurance they need, and help stabilize premiums to keep costs low for everyone. theas turned out that carrot has been more effective than the stick. subsidies for low and middle income families is what is

keeping the market stable. congress at the beginning really thought this mandate was tickle. -- critical. mandatebeen without the for two years and things have been working just fine. our next caller, insured by his employer. caller: i would like to ask the guest, when the judges uphold , can they see why this keeps coming back. they voted. how can individuals or states out?back and take this one vc -- don't they see that this involves politics?

i don't understand that. why are the judges wasting their time? gay people that will not marry each other, it will just come back again. before, 20 years ago or 50 years ago. that we need to come back and politicize things. host: any thoughts? i can't speak to some of the other issues that john case,t up, but on this the challenges seem quite politically motivated. i had hoped after the repeal there was a015,

stalemate. i had naively hoped that we could move on from some of the affordable care politics and go on to working on health reform with bipartisan support. instead, we saw this lawsuit filed in february of 2018. it kept the affordable care act in the headlines. it certainly seems like proponents of the aca are creating a court system here. and politicoine says, not just obamacare, the supreme court conservative majority could remake american health care. medicaid could shrink or undermine obamacare's marketplaces if the health care -- marketplaces. if the court declares the law

unconstitutional, with that in the expansion of medicaid -- would that end the expansion of medicaid and states? katie: it could. is it really the court that draws the line? the court could invalidate the entire law and medicaid expansion would go away alongside the changes to medicare, the fda, the public health system, and a range of different parts of the statute. it could strike down just the protection. it could strike down the individual mandate. we will have a better sense after oral arguments today that we will be waiting on pins and needles to see if any of the rest of the law is struck down, what does it include? older on medicaid and states will be watching that closely because it has huge implications for state budgets.

host: on twitter, millions unemployed will file for aca health care. it is a pandemic and not time to resend coverage for americans with pre-existing conditions. in houston,alind texas. agree with that tweet you just read. how can we be considering cutting down on insurance in the middle of a public health crisis? i'm a strong supporter of an organization called the borgen project which has been working to secure funding to fight covid-19 abroad. we just heard from pfizer yesterday that the vaccine is over 90% effective. we are looking at the most progress we have made toward ending this pandemic and we are thinking about limiting health care? now is the time for congress to worry about how to distribute the vaccine, distributing to people abroad. limitinge looking at

it when we need to be bolstering it. host: katie keith. katie: thank you for that. i would add that some of the covid relief packages that congress has passed already really build on the affordable care act framework to do covid relief. of the covid testing provisions can be delivered. passed usesongress the affordable care act to make that happen. it is about something even bigger than health insurance at this point. host: she raised up the issue of timing. but what about the timing of the case itself. any insight into the justices placing this on their dock at the week after the election, or is that just the way things work out? katie: i think it was the way

things worked out. the schedule is entirely within the court's control. pandemic,cause of the there were a number of things held over from the last term. it pushed some of the cases, but i think it just happened to be that way. we will hear a little bit more and we will try to raise 18 leaf read a tea leaf -- leaf. people can enroll through december 15, but we won't see a decision in this case until the spring of 2021 at the earliest. i am pretty much expecting it to come this summer. effortsw have those been going under the trump new acaration enrolling

coverage? katie: things are remarkably stable. enrollment has decreased each year. obama administration was on its way out, we thought it would peek and it has fallen each year. i think part of it is they haven't done as much advertising, outreach, or education. year, we saw 11.4 million people enroll in hcare.govthrough healt and similar state marketplaces. host: is that new coverage or renewed coverage? katie: it is both. i can't recall the number of new enrollees off the top of my head, but that is for everybody. host: let's hear from vanessa in

albuquerque. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment is, i think they are just trying to get rid of the obamacare or affordable care act simply because they don't like it. this year, i became eligible for medicare part b and if you don't take it the first year you are eligible, there is a 10% penalty each year you don't take it. thingt's ok, and the only they are trying to do with obamacare is to try to get everybody to pay and -- to pay in, people would have coverage. how can you say it is not fair ?or them to pay that penalty we all pay taxes. stopping us from paying federal or state taxes. is to get ridsue of obamacare.

medicarede to take part b, i don't think i should take a penalty later on because i do have pre-existing conditions and i am a veteran. v.a. my health care at the outs.t sure of ins and i don't want to have to go get a supplement or continue to pay more money. it's easier for me to stay with v.a. so if there is a penalty for medicare part b, i don't see anybody trying to get rid of that. host: is there something analogous about that penalty? as she was talking, i was thinking in some ways, she was channeling the chief justice and the 2012 debate saying that it is a choice that people make similar to the medicare part b decision.

there are consequences if you don't do it, but it is within congresses authority to incentivize people to make decisions. i think they are somewhat analogous in that respect. host: farmington, minnesota. ken gets insurance on the aca. in farmington, new mexico. aboutmmunity hears is 100,000. -- here is about 100,000. i went on the aca when i retired. they won't make a contract with any of the primary care physicians in this county. they won't pay any bills. i have been fighting with them

for three or four years. anythingink there is they could do or the state could do? i pay $1500 a month for the silver hmo plan. thank you. it sounds like what you might want to do is reach out to your state insurance department. and there are some federal standards on this. it they're supposed to require insurance companies for network adequacy standards. enroll, it should have an adequate provider network. i think the mexico state regulators would be very interested in hearing from you.

host: when the court eventually rules on this case, could they negate the pre-existing conditions mandate in the aca? katie: they very much could. there is still a chance that that is true. possible is that they strike some of the affordable care act including primarily the people with pre-existing conditions. the argument would be that the mandate is so essential for those protections that they have to follow alongside it. -- fall alongside it. texas points to language in the legislative findings. is so the legislation is essential. that is another thing to watch for today.

how much does the court focus on conditions versus the other things. host: in new york, we hear from janet next. i am calling regarding a question. as we go into this new republic, this new democratic government why is it important that we are concerned about the aca or anything else when they promised they are going to go to medicare for all. that means any private insurance would probably go away. they have not stated that, but it will probably go that route. why are we concerned when the

possibility is we are not all going to have private insurance anyway? katie: i don't think that .edicare for all does options might not be on the table given the new congress. the political reality is that we will all be living with the affordable care act for a long time. president-elect biden has pledged to build on the affordable care act. it will be something to sort of address in the meantime. you can tell folks are really reliant on the affordable care act. and again, in the middle of a

pandemic it does not seem to be the time to destabilize health care. twitter saysn people have short memories. insurance premiums were out of control, emergency rooms with patients with zero coverage and taxpayers foot the bill. it was meant to give everyone skin in the game. thank you very much, c-span. i do have a question if my memory serves me correct. i am an avid watcher of all the ,earings and all on c-span doing that 10 years ago when the hearings were going on. am i correct in saying that part -- it's what they can spend on their administrative fees?

wasn't there something that they had to spend 80% or 85% of the premiums on actual patient care? and isn't part of the problem that offering a public option would be true competition because the public auction -- option isn't based on profit. isn't that why so many republicans are against the aca? is it currently there that the insurance companies just can't spend whatever they want on building their buildings and paying the ceos? that they must pay for patient care. host: thanks for listening and watching that hearing way back when and listening so closely. katie: she has a great memory. that is exactly right.

is the medical loss ratio requirement and exactly what you said. it acts like a prophet cap for insurance companies. torequires them to spend 80% 85% on actual medical care or quality improvement activities. to 20% can go to administrative costs, profit, advertising. it makes the premium dollars coming in have to be spent on care. insurance companies have to give rebates to consumers, to make sure that they spend the 85% that they have to. more than $2 billion is going .ut to consumers host: how have insurance

companies fared financially in ?he last 10 to 12 years katie: there were struggles early on. coming into a new market, covering a new population. insurance companies did not know how to price or what the risk would be. in the first years, there were pretty significant losses. that has fully rebounded. we have seen insurance companies profit from the individual market. in 2018.ds being set insurance companies withdrew from the market are coming back in. it took a little bit of time. host: let's hear from debbie in kensington, maryland. good morning. guess my comment is

that i feel that people are listening to a lot of rhetoric coming out of the democratic that they will lose all of their insurance during a pandemic. which i believe is not true. like the way political .arties insert fear to people that they believe the people running for office are speaking true. we are going to get free insurance -- i can't imagine that whatever be so. i have mostly not had insurance in my lifetime unless i work for a company that offered it. that wase catastrophic $140 a month and it went to $700 a month and i dropped it. i was penalized for dropping it. i am grateful for the republican party and president trump that i

don't have to get penalized. $800 is a lot of money for someone like me that can't afford $700 a month with the .ther bills i have i am 63, i'm single, and i've -- i don't really have any medications except for one. i don't need to pay $750 a month for a couple of preventative doctor bills. i did try this past year to go and get catastrophic again. but the living they offered was a $60,000 payout for cancer. that was it. and i was paying $270 a month just for that. that, to me, is like theft.

i'm not a fan of obama care or the rhetoric. thesh people would have integrity of their word and speak the truth, not try to give people fear. they are not going to take anything away during a pandemic. host: any observations? commentsthink your show a lot of this is personal. it's about people's health needs, it's about budget. they are difficult and personal decisions. i think there continues to be a risk that the supreme court could strike the entire law or major part of it. i hope that doesn't happen because i think it would be so destabilizing and not something we should be focused on at the moment. i think folks should not be too fearful at this moment.

and again, it is open enrollment season so that folks can see if they qualify for coverage now. it continues to be a very real risk. folks did not expect this to be at the supreme court now but here we are. no one thought the court would take a whack at medicaid expansion and the court said it was optional for states. you have millions of people in .tates that have not expanded it is something i hope we don't see repeated. host: are there any other affordable care act cases? katie: another case they have had an argument over is rutledge

versus pc ma. the court of it is if the states have the regulatory authority over pharmacy managers. with drugfed up prices and are fighting for ways to bring those down. that challenge is preempted under federal law. the court is weighing if other states will have the flex ability to try to regulate pharmacy managers in the future. a little bit wonky, but i think it will have significant implications. this would be the work requirement program, the trump administration program allowing serviceo prevent providers from giving abortion

care, for example. we don't know if the court will take those cases just yet. host: let's hear from eric in connecticut. get his insurance through the aca. ander: i am 53 self-employed. i am on obamacare. putaffordable care act has many americans on medication that if they don't take, it will cause death or harm to their health. knowinglypreme court do harm or death to american taxpayers? the doctors take an oath that say they can do no harm to americans. is that true also for the supreme court? katie: that is not true for the supreme court. i think the concern here is that they would make a decision on legal grounds that has the impact that you are talking about.

it would make it harder for people to get the prescription drugs that they need. there are many studies that show having health insurance does help stabilize. it is not necessarily something the court would consider. i assume they are paying attention to health care needs like you just brought up, and the pandemic, and the destabilizing effect it could have on the health care market. at 10:00l arguments a.m. eastern and live coverage coming up as well. 10:00 a.m. on c-span, c-span radio, and following along at c-span.org. we have been speaking with katie keith. thank you for being with us this morning. as we enter the presidential transition period, we will talk

with karen hult, a political science professor at virginia tech and on the white house advisory board. that is ahead. ♪ >> the supreme court hears oral arguments on the affordable care act in the consolidated cases of texas v california and california v texas. today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the health care law was thelenged by texas when penalty was eliminated for not having health care insurance. c-span.org/ supremecourt or on the c-span radio app. laptop, mobile devices, or phone and go to c-span.org/election for easy

access to results. our latest video live and on demand for the transition of our. power. go to c-span.org/election. >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. it created as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. washington journal continues. host: next, we are joined by karen hult, a science professor at virginia tech. she's also a member of the white house transition project advisory board. thanks for being with us on washington journal. karen: good to be here. host: the white house transition project, tell us about it. this is a nonpartisan, nonprofit entity.

it is staffed by political science professors and others around the united states. 1990's for thehe white house interview program. they were trying to develop some institutional memory by talking to people that had various white house death and over time. staff positions over time. they can find out what happens to staff positions for both parties. directedolved and is by martha -- i am a member of the advisory board along with other colleagues as well as people like norm ornstein and other people from the larger washington community. providetry to do is

nonpartisan backing for what kinds of things have worked and not worked so well in and around the white house when a new president is getting ready to take over. in 2016 whencase president trump was coming to office and here in 2020 when the president-elect biden is likely coming into office, you speak directly with those campaigns or the transition teams? karen: i do not personally. what we do begins well before the candidates campaigns put together the transition team. but after each party nominates its candidate. what we make available to transition directors our materials. many will be password protected and not available to the general public. but we try to give them information on various offices in the white house as well as where the executive office of the president is.

and to ask people that serve in these positions as well as the briefing essays we have done. requested with people from transition teams. but really, we are a resource for the transition teams to work with. like a hugems undertaking to transition to a new presidency. scope ofn idea on the the individual agencies that need to be covered. it is a huge undertaking. starting with personnel, there are over 4000 positions a new includingmay fulfill, 1200 that need to be confirmed by the u.s. senate. when the president leaves the white house, everything leaves the west wing.

computer hard drives, files, everything. inauguration, they take everything and reinstall computer systems and things like that. so when the new white house emptyshows up, they face rooms, empty computers, and have to start from scratch. what the transition project as well as legislation that has been passed is to try to ease the transition process. the have the trail going back to the nominating convention. that is a point at which, according to federal law, each team serving in the white house and the biden team got access to in safepace, computer telephones. once president biden is ascertained to be

president-elect, it opens up resources for the new president. karen hultuest is on the white house advisory -- transition advisory board. we are talking about the presidential transition, both current and historical. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and independence, (202) 748-8002 . what leaves the transition? -- what leads the transition? karen: what we are hearing about now is the general services administration. i'm using a legal term here, they ascertain who the newly elected president is. what it does is open up

additional resources for the president-elect and the transition team. working with the general services administration is the office of personnel management, the office of government ethics to make sure the new transition team and administration is following ethics tools. according to the law, there is something called the white house transition council and executive agencies. these folks have been working since september talking with each other about the next steps of a new transition. the biden campaign has been critical of the gsa administrator, emily w murphy who is a political appointee of the trump administration. the new york times says miss murphy has the legal authority to turn on the transition, releasing $6.3 million in

federal funds budgeted for the effort, making office space available and powering team members to visit offices to request information. but there is no specific provision for when she must act. an ascertainment has not yet been made. she added the gsa and the administrator will continue to abide by fulfill all requirements under the law and adhere to prior precedent established by the clinton administration in 2000. what is this ascertainment? are you familiar with that? ascertainmentm comes from the statute itself. thean be thought of of winner of the race is the president-elect. what the trump administration is doing is using that as precedent, saying that remember

in 2000, the year of the hanging theren florida, because was a recount under a great deal of controversy, what was not clear was who the president-elect was going to be. administration decided to not recognize the w bush folks as having won the presidency. they have been steps updated since then. but having said that, it is the case that bill clinton within to george w.ned up bush and allowed the people to look at some classified briefings so they were not coming in completely cold. same thingdone the for the biden transition team. the: what did we learn from 2000 and 2001 experience with george to view bush winning the

presidency, his transition delayed by five weeks. does that affect the appointment of the 4000 appointed positions? did.: yes it especially those that had to be senate confirmed. undergominees have to thorough background checks by the fbi and a range of others. we should be clear. nor right now,0 did that mean no transition planning was going on. theas in 2000 while campaign was going on so that if george w. bush won, he would be ready to take office on january 20. late remember back to 2000, we also remember that w bush had a kind of helpful head

of the transition team while waiting for the results to be issued. electas vice president dick cheney that had been chief of staff and the ford white house and was quite familiar with the rhythms of the federal government. biden's transition team has been working since the spring as well . cochair of the transition team has -- is ted kaufman who has a history with biden. it was passed in 2015. host: and served in joe biden's seat for a stretch in the u.s. senate. karen: it was an interim appointment. exactly. team has transition team's ready. what they are doing is looking at possible nominees for various

positions. presumably, they are looking at getting a white house staff put in order. soon that they will name a chief of staff or vice president biden and they continue to do other things. what they cannot do is get -- what they are unable to do is get access to the various agencies that have in many cases big briefing books ready for the new administration. those briefing books were due in the fall. they are sitting at the agencies ready to brief the new administration and ready to welcome the agency review team, but the teams cannot gain access that vice ascertained president bryden is the president-elect. statutory is the obligation of government agencies to prepare for transition? the statuteshat say for government agencies is that --

,hat is supposed to happen current government agencies at the beginning of a presidential election year are asked to start planning for the transition. either the transition to an existing president and the second term or the transition to a new president. six months out the agencies have to report back on what they are closer afterwe get the candidates are nominated they are also tasked to lead a white house transition council and an agency review council to develop transition materials and the agencies are bound to do that by law. hult, a two for karen member of the white house transition project advisory board, also a political science professor at virginia tech. tina is from alabama, good morning. caller: good morning. during the

transition period with president trump there was a general fund making calls to heads of state. there was a report that president-elect biden is making calls to heads of state. do you think that justice will be same for both? prof. hult: that's a good question. biden notn about mr. being officially declared a president-elect by the general services administration is that biden does not have the assistance of the state department to facilitate those calls with heads of state. clearly heads of state have been issuing statements and trying to reach out to mr. biden. administration would prefer is they have the facilitation of the state department, that does not seem to be happening. the: from massachusetts on democrats line, russell, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? know if this is so much under the criminality of the

lady who is supposed to approve all this or if it's in the constitution. my question would be, what authority would be taken next to force her to sign this over? what it have to go to the courts? i don't see anything in the constitution requiring the gsa lady to sign over this to president biden. i worry about it because when we dysfunctionality in this society, i can tell you as a taxpayer and a voter, from what i have seen with this whole process played out i can tell you it put a lot of doubt in my the as far as not just government of now but what is to come. host: the question about can that action be forced by the gsa administrator? prof. hult: that's a good question.

russell is right, it's not in the u.s. constitution. the ascertainment language comes from the presidential transition law.so it is statutory it basically gives the administrator of the gsa the authority to ascertain and it's not clear as it might be as we -- is the president elect certain circumstances. she is well within her statutory bounds to wait to be sure that all the votes have been counted legally. what she may be doing now is saying, i want to wait and see how some of the investigations in some of the court cases are going to continue before i make that ascertainment. hopes it, though one does not go to this, it may be that the biden team is investigating its own legal possibilities to take the gsa to her to make the

ascertainment. at the moment it appears on the face of things that she is acting in accordance with the wall. -- with the law. the washington post writing "white house tells agencies not to aid biden transition." they write that the presidential transition act does not specify what factors the gsa administrators must consider when determining the winner of an election. to makeurphy leeway that call. experts on presidential transition said. a legal challenge from biden could be aimed at her authority to ascertain the results and make an independent judgment when she is taking instructions from a president who has a vested stake in the election. haveoving forward could national security implications because the incoming administration would be ill-equipped to handle current threats facing the country. "there are a number of legal transitionbiden

official head, -- said, declining to be more specific. prof. hult: i think that's exactly what's taking place now. i wanted to underscore the national security implications of this. what the trump administration is what mr. is repeating clinton did for the george w. bush administration which is to provide that transition team with all the intelligence information that vice president goer was already receiving as vice president. host: the new york times writing about the lack of concession complicating security handoff. let's hear from iris in south michigan. talking about the presidential transition, iris on the independent line. caller: good morning. that there is not too much security in this whole transition stuff. changed overat are

have to learn everything from scratch. it's like starting a new business every four years. it's like always playing catch-up and it does not have a smooth flow. i never knew this occurred, i thought that you get a job in the white house and it is pretty good. it gives you longevity. it doesn't seem to be that way. you have to change people -- there doesn't seem to be any job security in all this. i never knew this occurred. i thought a new president gets to select their own people and nobody else has acknowledged it. it's the biggest job in the world. host: there are career employees inside the white house. prof. hult: there are.

that's another thing worth saying, many of the people in the white house change with the new president that comes in, but there are a number of career employees in and around the white house and the national staff in the office of management and budget. the entire executive branch and theagencies, most of employees are career civil servants. there is basic continuity and knowledge. it's exactly right that a new president comes in to a blank slate, but it's not fully blank. one is you have these outside the white house transition resources, whether it is the white house transition process or a range of other outside , but there also is the memory that is they are in the political parties, the people that have governed before and are ready to help the

new people get started area it's not quite as abrupt as it might appear to be, but what is the case is that this long transition process is important to help the new people talk to existing people, sometimes go through national security exercises, sometimes have who havewith people held various positions so they can get up to speed when they take over the presidency. cases in there notable transitions of a reluctance of one team to handoff to another or hijinks in the handoff between on administration and another? there have been historically. in recent history those that have been mentioned like in the clinton administration administration into the george w. bush administration, remember all the difficulties about the s on white house keyboards and the damage that

was done to west wing offices. we have found that some of that was exaggerated. whether it is hijinks or simply disappointed folks having to positions often to the other party, that makes it fraught and difficult. thecally, especially since 2000 transition and after 9/11 when the national security issue became really central for a new administration coming in, since then the transitions have tended to be civil if not friendly and done quite professionally by people on all sides. that is true across political parties. i just wanted to say very quickly, we know for example withpresident obama met president-elect trump within three days after the election. he sat down with him in the white house which would be difficult now. that has been a norm until recently. what that seems to do is set a

mark for the rest of the administration to undertake transition in a relatively simple fashion area -- fashion. host: the transition effort is different than the inaugural effort? prof. hult: yes. the inauguration is held by a different part of gsa and they worked closely -- let's go to mary in orangeburg, south carolina. little my question is a confusing. on the transition -- if biden hasstand won so many states why it seems like donald trump trying to block his people getting in earlier to have access to the different apartments because it's not like bush and gore where it was only one state. you are talking about five states if not more.

he's not worrying about the ones to be recounts, i don't see how it's possible that he shows that he can change that that amount ofh electoral votes in them. mary, thank you. i think that's a very good question and as you probably know as well many legal experts are making the argument that they are -- even if some votes were pushed to the other side not enough to change the outcome of the election. fromg said that when -- the trump administration side they may say, states are not done with mandated recounts and there is a pending court case with regards to pennsylvania. from their perspective they certainly have the legitimacy and the basis to say let's wait

until the court cases and the recounts are finished. host: let's go back to the ascertainment issue, the gsa faces pressure to recognize biden as the election winner, handover keys, and formally start the transition. the gsaa decision that administrator would make, this ascertainment regardless of whatever the president or others in the administration may say. is this a defined number you see or defined recognition that the presidential contest is over? prof. hult: one doesn't know, because as we pointed out before the statue is vague on the criteria that she looks at to make that judgment. rememberingy worth that the administrator of the general services administration is apolitical and pointy. we also -- is a political appointee. we know the general counsel took over on october 20 ninth and

that man came from the white house counsel's office. one might imagine from the outside that there is a range of political and partisan pressures on the gsa administrator. host: next is lakeland, florida. good morning. god firstaise be to c-span. a gift to america. a place where citizens can talk. i am the coordinator of the blues herder coalition and i am organizing republicans to work with biden. i have five u.s. senators and i'm giving them an anti-tote -- antidote for their black tongue disease. many of them come from states where they have moose, romney, murkowski, and collins. i'm trying to get marco rubio. i want a job in the bided administration to be ambassador at large to republicans. i am a lifelong republican.

with for biden openly letters to the editor and speaking on free-speech tv and c-span. have you seen any of my faxes or letters at the transition committee? host: i will let you go there. he says he wants a position in the biden administration. if you are one of those potential 4000 who wants a job or a ambassadorship now is the time to start that process to submit an application. you mentioned an fbi background check. prof. hult: there are several processes here. anyone who thinks they want to work in the biden administration i would go to the biden administration website and go about submitting a resume or application. i think the caller from florida -- in the office of political affairs in the white house and

may be as a party liaison as well. time and that makes the transition process harder. now is the time where the apparent winner is getting deluged with resumes of people that want to join the new administration. among the things that transition people are doing is setting up, i'm sure they have a computer process being set up and they are taking those resumes and have people look at them. they have a personnel operation going on at the white house and for the executive ranch and they are looking at all of those things and trying to develop things like policy priorities and trying to figure out plans for the first several weeks or months of a new administration. -- ifnterested in work you are interested in working in the biden administration now is the time. host: if there are thousands of people waiting to come in there are thousands who will be looking for work as part of the whole transition for those folks to get them back into transitions -- is there

assistance for that job search -- prof. hult: what is interesting about that is what these news reports are saying is that the current administration will, if not fire immediately, but certainly ask people spending their time on the job looking for another job to leave the administration. this is a difficult time. many people are moving out of a job and they will now be on the job market looking for a related job perhaps. they have others that are anxious to join a new administration in a whole variety of positions. this is a difficult, but fun time for people looking for good people to fill important positions. coleman will hear from in tulsa, oklahoma. caller: good morning. bit onto visit a little the role of the media in the transition. you have mentioned a few times is feeling pressure,

of biden beings the apparent winner. i want to speak to the role of the media. this is a media driven process. thatow from the votes washington, d.c. voted over 93% for biden. we in oklahoma voted 70% for divideso there is a big of the people who love biden and love the jobs you are talking about and the media pot -- of in theia's role constitution is being violated because the media is supposed to be an independent protector of citizens against government corruption and abuse. the media has to cleared biden the winter, votes were still

being counted, still lots of states in question, still lots of issues of corruption. i would like to comment on, isn't the media violating its constitutional prerogatives? professor, do you have a response? prof. hult: i think i do. under the first amendment guarantees a free media. certainly there has been concern about possible differing directions on framing what the media are reporting and not reporting. what is going on here may involve something in addition. as of the caller points out there are questions about votes, allegations of voter fraud. from the gsa administrator's to,pective she would like

following attorney general barr, take those seriously before ascertaining. having said that, most of the people who work for the u.s. federal government do not work in washington dc. many do work in states like oklahoma and kansas and other parts of the u.s.. one has to be careful about linking the people that voted in the district of columbia with folks that work for the federal government. many people who work in the district live in maryland or virginia. having said that, one of the things that concerns the current administration and the biden that thisnk is transition process, which is about setting policy priorities and getting people in place to pursue those policy priorities and making sure there is a smooth exchange in a security sense from one administration to the other are concerned about how politicized this has gotten. this should be a time where the temperature starts right down, a

time that looks boring, tedious, and not of great interest to a whole group of people. there is a lot of work to be done for those people in the administration. we are all focused on what is going on day-to-day. host: the apparent delay in a presidential transition raising concerns with the democratic leader in the senate, chuck schumer. i wanted to play you the comments of senator schumer. nonpartisan members of the current administration have refused to move forward with the formal process for the incoming administration. according to the washington post, the administrator of the general services administration has declined to sign a letter allowing president-elect joe biden's transition team to formally begin its work. it does not matter whether the president is happy about the results of the election. aaceful transfer of power is

hallmark, the bedrock of our democracy and it must proceed unimpeded. the gsa administrator should sign the paperwork immediately in order to allow the important work of the presidential transition to proceed. america remains in the middle of a worsening health and economic crisis and there is no excuse for the outgoing administration to impede the new administration's preparations to deal with these urgent challenges. there instances in past transitions where the gsa administrator has refused to certify the ascertainment of -- necessary for the transition? prof. hult: not in recent elections. in the most recent elections in the to thousands and 2010, that letter has been forthcoming. delayed in this case by the fact that the vote counts were delayed by the enormous number

of absentee and early about collected around the u.s.. but toads to some delay, this point it's getting very close to being unprecedented with the situation by the gsa waiting for ascertainment. host: let's hear from carl on our democrats line. caller: hello, god bless america, i think there is a lot of nitpicking and backbiting. our enemies are fishing in muddy water and she partially answered a question of mine several calls back, but i would like her to elaborate on what happened with richard clark and the team that was operating against osama bin laden after the 93 bombing and how they got dismissed or overlooked. i love this country and i wanted to be safe and i think most americans agree with me, whether they agree with my politics.

i think right now we run a risk while we are fooling around we are leaving our back door open. thank you, that's my comment. host: professor, any comments on his 93 reference? prof. hult: i think it's a good question. as we remember, worked on the national security council staff. those staffers to some extent are close to permanent officials , but they served at the center of the president. a new president with a different set of priorities could certainly have chosen to replace that person or put them in a different capacity. some of that with the national security issues has gotten more attention i think after 9/11. we know that the congress in separate statues has talked about the need for people to be going through security

clearance processes before the election. many of the biden team have done that so as soon as possible they can go and look at intelligence briefs. that is why this gsa letter is so important. it does need to be said that the people around the president often are going to be serving at the pleasure of the president and need to be consistent with the president policy priorities. host: what prompted the passage of the presidential transition act of 1963? prof. hult: we forget the history but you can see these transition acts getting more attention when something happens. 1963 after the assassination of john f. kennedy, in that case unanticipated crisis filled transition and it did capture congress's attention and they said they have to get better at how they handle the passage of power. through the years, problems in a particular election that often

lead to an amendment of the 1963 transition act. we have to take this seriously not only the existing administration but also an incoming administration if they are coming in in the midst of a national emergency or crisis. >> before the inauguration was moved to january, it used to be in march, the whole period between november and when they transition to a new president or things didhaos not get done. prof. hult: it's a combination. that's the 22nd amendment which move the inauguration date from march to january 20. had long transition period the cost that many things did not get done and an outgoing administration could do some mischief during the transition period. seem932 transition did not

to operate that way. herbert hoover worked as well as he could with the incoming franklin roosevelt to ease some of the pressures, but there's no doubt when it comes to different policy priorities and a different political party that can lead to those kinds of tensions. host: we hear next from jack in massachusetts. caller: i have a question about the 2016 election, was not donald trump made aware of the surveillance or the spying of the department of justice by the transition teams? or did he find that out much later from comey. why was he not made aware of the spying and the surveillance? sounds to me like he wasn't. prof. hult: i think that's an important question and let comment is not going to be very satisfactory because the comment is we don't know. much of that information remains

classified and privileged. he did not know that as mr. trump coming into office did not know the full scale of what might be going on. we remember when he got into office there was real concern about the extent to which his incoming national security assistant michael flynn was meeting with members of the as now senior counsel to the president jared kushner. theredo underscore that can be mischief that is taking place in the run-up to a new administration. going back to 2016, i think it's worth adding that mr. obama met very quickly with president trump and first lady melania trump. within two or three days after the election. the chief of staff of the white house met pretty quickly with the new chief of staff reince convened an

executive lunch for mr. priebus with everyone that had worked on either side of the party as chief of staff. there was some cooperation, but on the point the caller is talking about i don't know. oft: senator marco rubio florida being critical of alleged phone calls by the president-elect. "i remember when democrats and some in the media condemned the trump administration for having phone calls with peers to discuss upcoming changes in u.s. foreign-policy. a couple more calls here. we go to jeff in nebraska. you are on the air. that --i know i believe that gore and bush -- i believe it was 34 days it took for three counties and one state with the hanging chads. states and a ton of stuff with these allegations

going around. certainly we can take the time to figure this out, right? i'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot i would hear a whole different thing coming out of your mouth. if we have the same type of obama gave mr.r. trump, we have problems. whether youying want to admit it or not. i'm telling you the investigation coming out this next week is going to tell us what the obama administration did to trump and get it -- host: what about that transition between president obama and president trump? in general how did that go? you mentioned they met three days after the election, was it

a smooth transition in your eyes? prof. hult: in many ways it was with a couple exceptions. it was a smooth transition that followed norms with mr. obama and mr. trump meeting in person, then the chief of staff commit. it's the case that national security assistant susan rice met with michael flynn pretty quickly after the election and they exchanged more than 200 78 memos going back and forth to ease that transition. having said that, what help to make the transition rock year than it needed to be is mr. trump after the election had a transition team headed by former governor chris christie that collected all kinds of information and had information about people nominated for positions. threw away all the binders of the nomination information. at some level started a

couple steps back in terms of transition because they dismiss their own transition efforts. that transition still followed many norms that his predecessors had followed, including the norm we have not talked about, the gold standard of transition, which was the 2008 transition from george w. bush to barack obama. that makes the highest marks of doing it well and quickly. host: a question from twitter, who is tasked with preserving records and documents from being destroyed by the current administration? prof. hult: that's a great question. the national archives and records administration is the central actor in all of this. itre are parts of represented in all white house staff. all papers in the white house are seen as presidential papers and they are taken immediately to the national archives and will ultimately go to a trump presidential library. host: david from elmira, new york. caller: hi, how are you.

thanks for having me on. i think it's a little disturbing to me how we had seen so many people during the 2016 election cycle tell the democratic party that elections have consequences, that when voter turnout happens the people of america decide the election. the denial from the republican party to accept the results of the 2020 election is astonishing. the claims of the trump administration that there have been voter fraud are baseless. every major news outlet is saying the same thing. even fox news, and they are highly biased towards the republican party. cnnould get into msnbc and and how they lean more left, i agree with that. as a democrat, i agree with that. this is a problem when you have a president who claims that it's fake news. host: we are wrapping up here, we will talk about that more in our next segment.

any final thoughts on looking at this transition process in 2020? >> -- prof. hult: it's pretty clear that we remain in a polarized environment and that creates all kinds of challenges for the transition process. guest a board member of the white house transition project and a professor of political science at virginia tech, karen hult, thanks you for joining us. we will ask you the efforts by the justice department to look into potential voting irregularities. the attorney general making that announcement yesterday and support by republicans getting behind baseless efforts to contest votes in various states. the line for democrats is (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. all others (202) 748-8002. we will be right back. ♪

♪ on c-span two has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. saturday at 1:00 p.m., from a , authorsrtual festival sarah, thomas, and wayne reflect on life in appalachia. others discuss the jim crow era in the south. 7:45 avenue and discusses his book "joe biden: the life, the run, and what matters now." on sunday at 1:00 p.m. eastern from the southern festival of matthew talksst about his book about a civil rights cases that help to reaffirm the right to a trial by jury in most criminal cases. author stephanie gordon and chris offer their thoughts on investigative journalism and its role in a democracy.

at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwords, this professor talks about his book american contagions, epidemics and the law. he is interviewed by georgetown university law professor. onch book tv this weekend c-span two. washington journal continues. host: up until 10:00 eastern here as we await the start of the supreme court case. we will bring you oral arguments in just a bit as our cameras are out in front of the court this morning. we continue with our conversation from earlier on efforts by republicans and the justice department to look into president trump's allegations of voter issues. "top voter headline fraud investigator steps down in protest after ag bar memo authorizing election probes

following the decision to authorize the department of justice to probe any substantial allegations of alleged voter fraud in the 2020 election. -- a top boj official left his post. let justice department official who was slated to aid in the voter fraud investigation stepped down from the post is a career. he prosecutor who oversaw voter fraud related investigations and told colleagues he would move to a nonsupervisory role on corruption prosecutions." a call from ralph in the nation's capital on the independent line. hello, i used to be a democrat, i voted for obama twice. i have been watching the politics going on, and i truly believe that the democrats

[indiscernible] because they thought it was to get rid of the demon. i do believe that the republicans cheated during the bush junior administration. [indiscernible] a prison sentence for five years. on the others, this animosity -- the democrats, i'm kind of a left-leaning, the democrats threatening to burn down cities and they have boarded up stores and if trump won they were going to burn down cities. that's not democracy, anarchy and that smacks of fascism and communism. mirror to look in the and look at this insanity going on in portland and seattle and say you cannot allow that to happen. thank you. host: from potomac, maryland on

our democrats line. has been think barr prejudiced the entire time he has been in the office. what he is doing now is more of evidence there is no of voter fraud from any of the .lection committees by making these -- anyone can say anything but you have to have evidence to go to court. as our attorney general he should know that, that evidence is required. he has not found any evidence and will not find any evidence because nothing irregular has happened. states electoral committees have said that. it has nothing to do with being a fraud she is such a lie and such fake news. host: here is some of what the attorney general said in his memo to the justice department

officials. said, given that voting in the current election is concluded i authorize you to pursue substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities wired to the certification of elections in your jurisdiction he is talking about federal prosecutors in various states. in certain cases such inquiries and reviews may be conducted if there are clear and apparently credible allegations of irregularities. in centrale you, washington this is peggy on the democrats line. caller: hello? barrreally bothered by stepping into this. when you have republican and democratic election officials agree there has been no evidence that even low-level voting a leg you hurt -- irregularities and not widespread. he has said this stuff before.

ofaccused ted cruz committing fraud during the 2016 iowa caucus so i am really bothered by barr. host: there's a tweet out from the maricopa county election board, here it is. arizona, it'sy in official, we completed our hand count on it and had a 100% match. thank you to all three maricopa county political parties who appointed members to participate. twitter saidmp, on this "we will win!" also says he is making big progress. reporting about one of president trump's aids and his view on the process, trump campaign advisor says conceding is not in their vocabulary. the president refuses to acknowledge his election loss

since the race was called for biden. that campaign advisor, stephen miller -- jason miller. in washington dc this is mark on the independent line. think the investigations, recounts, are premature, as was the calling of the election. statest five close key of votes yet to be counted are several more times larger than the purported margin. we need to finish the initial count and find out the actual electoral votes. when will that happen? host: from new mexico we hear from micah. there you go. republican line. good morning, first time voter here. host: great to have you on.

recounts and the the " fraud -- the integrity of people is not what it used to be. election, i don't think it's a horrible thing to counted toys. we all make mistakes. deal. pretty big if they won fair and square then move on. hello? host: you said you are a first time voter this year, right? caller: i am. host: did you vote for president trump? caller: i did. host: are you disappointed he did not win there? i am.: i am confused how our state is still blue. it is what it is. we have to work together.

like i said, a recount everywhere would not be a bad idea. host: is there a recount happening in new mexico? caller: i don't believe there is. host: thanks for calling. we go to stephen bristol, connecticut on our independent line. caller: how are you doing. all the states report there is no fraud and no evidence. , theyepublican party might as well consider the republican as domestic terrorists because they are doing everything to break up this country. partyre more for the than they are for the country. these people should be watched, trump should be removed, and the barr should be removed. -- diplomats overseas

this is a bad situation for this country right now and that's my comment. california, wanda, good morning. caller: i was going to ask the lady that was just on, how long is it going to take the fbi to analyze all those computerized voting machines that were flip votes from trump to biden in 28 states. those machines were manufactured by the husband of senator feinstein. in some cities they had more votes -- host: who made these machines, what manufacturer? caller: dominion i believe it's called. bloomily owned by richard , the husband of diane feinstein. i was just wondering how long is it going to take to analyze that? how can there be more votes than there are voters in some places?

host: usa today did a piece on that end we read it earlier. that has been disproved. they went through every state and no state reported more registered voters in their state. many were averaging 72% or 75%, but no voters reported more votes than registered voters. this is the lead editorial in the washington post this goping, on astonishing slander, mitch mcconnell and others do great harm by adopting president trump sly about the election. you might expect that they would finally put nation ahead of political calculation and level with the country to avoid further erosion of faith in democracy among them being encouraged -- they are silent or worse. senator lindsey graham declared lost, that "trump has not do not concede mr. president."

he listed a handful of minor alleged irregularities far too small to affect the results. senator ted cruz insisting that president trump has a path to victory. mr. mcconnell implied there were severe irregularities, saying all legal ballots must to be counted and any illegal ballots must not be counted. the process should be transparent. choose a morens decent path. senator ben sasse congratulating the next president joe biden and the next vice president kamala harris. former president george w. bush said sunday that though we have political differences i know joe biden to be a good man who has won his opportunity to lead and unify our country. the views of the washington post. lucille in los angeles, good morning on the democrats line. caller: good morning.

i wanted to bring a little bit of clarity. donald trump is fighting for his life. there is no voter fraud. that the southern district court of new york has a stack of cases they are going to save and he is trying to himself, that's it. clearwater, florida nathan on the independent line. welcome. and godgood morning bless america. on like to make a comment eight guest you had. -- [indiscernible] to comeothing was going out of that whether he was impeached or not. i made a statement that the election won't make a difference .

saidessed you had the time they were not worried and he would transition early. now he is claiming voter fraud. we have been having collections in the history of america and we've never had issues and now we have a president that refuses to step down. is starting by blaming the american people. we voted for you out -- we voted you out, please respect our vote. republicans help him respected and please move on. host: pam is in lake city, tennessee. caller: 71 million americans voted him in. the lady that was on talking about the transition i'm a we remember how obama transitioned. onwas already spying president trump and they started that fake news russian dossier. one woman said she did not trust eric holder called himself obama's wing he refused to

prosecute the black panthers who stood with clubs in the door of a pole to keep people that were not going to vote the way they wanted to vote from voting. to know what happened in this election. that computer program that flip to trump votes to biden and they said they got it. how many times did they not catch it? host: from the wall street journal, "the trump camp sues to stop states certifying results" unveiling a new tactic, suing to stop state officials from finalizing results due to fraud allegations. in michigan's and the limits imposed on pole observers in pennsylvania, they should -- blocking final vote counts about seeing substantial evidence of fraud widespread enough to change the election.

the trump campaign filed a federal lawsuit in pennsylvania and a conservative legal group said it filed a state lawsuit in michigan calling on judges to block state officials from certifying election results. the trump campaign pennsylvania lawsuit alleges that pole observers were kept too far away from vote counters and that voters in republican and democrat majority counties receive different treatment. ask the judge to require pennsylvania officials to invalidate ballots in cases where voters were notified and allowed to fix problems. in huntington, indiana we hear from my run next on the independent line. caller: hello? i am independent. i vote whoever i want. , trump sayings that the democrats changed everything illegally, do we have guards around to make sure that trump can't cut when there and

change it to his it -- go in there and change it to his advantage? it sounds like there might be some people that if it's not guarded it can change all the votes. people that went out to vote and i'm trying to make sure that their vote isn't changed illegally. host: jacksonville, florida next up on the independent line this is j. i think it's a real shame that right now in the oval a true con man. lies a guy who lies and seemingly with no consequences. he has a cadre of people helping him along. republicanlected officials, it is pitiful to watch. you hear the callers on here, some of his supporters and it seems like otherwise rational people who seem to be going along with whatever they hear.

i want to take a minute to knock down a few myths that are out there. the other day on fox news they were talking about in milwaukee there were several counties in milwaukee that had more than 100% voter registration. meaning there were more registered voters than the population of the county. this was being told by republican hacks on fox news. you go to google and type it in real quick you can come up with a couple of different articles quickly disproving this, snopes and otherwise. in nevada the other day the trump campaign is talking about thousands of voters supposedly who were out of state and could not --

supposedly as a result were not supposed to be voting in nevada? all they had were the voting rolls, they had no proof there was any fraud whatsoever. youcan vote out-of-state if are a college student or if you are military. a bunch of the people were military, over 100 people were military. the lady that they had when they did a news conference, some trump campaign officials did a news conference and they were talking about all these thousands of people voting illegally. you would think that you would bring forward your best case, instead they brought forward a woman who sounded very sincere, but the official in nevada, joe gloria i believe was his name, who was the head of the electors said that he had looked at that woman's particular claim and saw that they did not think that the signature matched up.

wey told her at that point, don't think your signature matches up, but you can cast a provisional ballot. she declined to do so. it next claim was not what was cracked up to be. host: we will get one more call here. jesse from new york on the democrats line. hello, this is jesse. [indiscernible] trump is saying something about fraud in some states, but what about the states he won? [indiscernible] if it's fraud because he's losing i don't know how it wouldn't be fraud across the coal country. that's my question. host: we are back at 7:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow morning. in just a few minutes we will take you live to the supreme court. justice is hearing the case on

the affordable care act to combine consolidated cases live here on c-span. i look forward to seeing you here tomorrow.

[inaudible] through. want to come sterling -- [applause] playing] ♪

♪

>> a live picture outside the u.s. supreme court this morning where the court will be gaveling in at 10:00 eastern, a couple minutes from now to hear arguments on whether the affordable care act should be invalidated. about 20 million americans get their health insurance through the aca. law bars insurance company from dropping people or refusing coverage for previous conditions and allows parents to keep children on their health insurance until the age of 26. this will be the third time it goes before the u.s. court. in 2012, chief justice roberts

upheld the individual mandate. 2017, the republican led congress repealed penalties for not getting insurance. it is expected to get underway in just a couple of minutes. live coverage outside of the supreme court. there will be comments after the case, and we will bring them to you here on c-span. >> yes. next, we are going to hear from local talent. her name is nadia. i was scrolling through my instagram one morning and black lives matter d.c. posted a video poetrydoing some of her during the days when we were saying count the vote. this young lady speaks to why we have adults who need to take heed to the young people. yes, not just hear them, but

listen to what they are saying, because they have a strong message and we need to follow their lead. yes? let us welcome her. >> good morning everybody. i am a nine-year-old d.c. resident and i am here to support health care for all. health care for all, let us go. get it together, i can speak like tamika mallory. up, kids that kind of look like me get there -- have their life set -- that up yet it is yours, do not ever

give up. cycle, handing the chapels. black lives to, because we get there faster. now we are dealing with corona and coo clocks all over the klux.-- ku fluxm -- i am here to warn you -- >> chief justice and associate justices of the united states. , all people having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states are advised to give their attention for the court is now sitting. god saves the united states in this united -- honorable court. >> we will hear an argument in texas9 840, california v. and the consolidated case. general monaghan. justice,ief