free video app. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the program bridging the digital divide one connective -- connected and engaged student at a time. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> good morning and welcome to washington journal.

supreme court justice clarence thomas is being questioned about his relationship to his wife and his ability to stay neutral in the following court cases. his wife exchange tax and may be called between the -- before the judiciary. clarence thomas may be asked to judge this in the supreme court. despite having a conflict of interest, how will the supreme court rule? some say that he should not have to recuse himself. should justice thomas recuse himself from election cases? if your answer is yes he should recuse himself your number is going to be (202) 748-8000, if your answer is no he should be

able to judge those cases your number is (202) 748-8001, and if you are unsure on whether thomas should be on the cases are not your number is (202) 748-8002 you can always texas at (202) 748-8003 and we are always reading on social media on facebook facebook.com/cspan on twitter http://twitter.com/cspanwj and you can follow us on instagram. we will be in washington talking about clarence thomas should recuse himself from upcoming cases involving the january 6 insurrection and cases surrounding the election of 2020. u.s. news reports beginning with the january 6 committee. the mostly democratic run in clear -- inquire heats up.

with them voting to hold two members in contempt of congress. with a seven hour gap from the phone logs on the day of the attack raise questions whether he used back channels to communicate adding a watergate element to the case. the shocking development is that ginni thomas, wife of clarence thomas had engaged in ongoing texting with former white house chief of staff mark meadows and was encouraging the efforts to keep joe biden from taking office. she brought the integrity of the supreme court in the next and judge thomas should recuse himself on cases with january 6 and the 2020 election themselves. and while they are usually minor

events, this is far more loaded because it involves it goes to the credibility of the work highest judicial office. now house speaker nancy pull lucy -- pelosi came out on whether justice thomas should recuse himself from january 6 related cases. here is what she had to say >> people are saying that clarence thomas should resign. >> thank you for your question, i will say that in our hr one, the bill to have transparent government we have calls for the supreme court to have a code of ethics. they have no code of ethics. the supreme court of the united

states making judgments about the air we breathe and everything else that we don't even know about -- don't even know what the ethical standard is. we have already passed the whole bill, to focus on the supreme court ethics standard legislation and the committee having a hearing on that pretty soon so that the supreme court has to at least have a code of ethics and why should they have lower standards then members of congress on reporting. well, it is a personal decision of a judge whether he should recuse himself.

if your wife is an admitted and proud contributor to a coup of our country, maybe you should weigh that in your ethical standards. speak host: speaker pelosi was speaking about a code of conduct. they were laying out with the code of coffee should be and i will read the relevant paragraphs, there are rules concerning the way they should behave and it is called the code of cod -- conduct. they apply to a range of federal jurors including the sacred judges, federal claim judges, bankruptcy judges and magistrates. the code of conduct among those

are the requirements that they should uphold the integrity of the judiciary. they should avoid the appearance of impropriety. they are not not to allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. a judge is not allowed for others to convey they are in a special position to sway the judge. also, judges on the supreme court are not upheld to the integrity independent -- that is where the situation says right now.

what do you think about clearance johnson -- clarence thomas'actions on the court? caller: i think they should recuse themselves any impropriety comes across. his wife should not be texting the chief of staff. it is wrong. host: should we judge what justice thomas does by what his wife does? don't they have two separate careers that don't cross each other? can you put the blame on a husband for something a wife does? caller: i understand what you are saying, she is a known political operative. she is the type of person who

was going to go out. they already say their best friends so you talk to your best friend. unfortunately, this is sad for our country. very sad. host: let us go to chris who is speaking from louisiana. good morning. caller: i love the show, i am a first time caller. the first caller mentioned impropriety, justice thomas has shown no impropriety whatsoever. he cannot be held accountable for what his wife says or does. these are highly educated individuals and i stress the word individual. second, my point would be, all judges have their own thoughts in every particular case and their job is to put their thoughts aside and be neutral. i firmly believe justice thomas

can do that. he should not recuse himself for his wife's actions. host: what if ginni thomas inside being called before the january 6 committee? is that a conflict of interest? caller: they are still individuals. these are her actions not him. host: can he judge a case fairly if she is involved in it? caller: that is a whole different can of worms. that would require some thought if his wife is involved in the case that he is adjudicating possibly he should recuse himself. host: what if it is a call that his wife supports? caller: if it's just a call, no. he is able to have his own individual thoughts and put those aside and be a neutral person in that and be neutral

person. host: let's go to don calling from tennessee. caller: good morning, how are you doing today? host: i'm doing great. caller: i don't believe that he needs to recuse himself. -- work for the democratic national committee. they got along just fine. also, president biden shouldn't he be held accountable because his wife married him after coming out of an adulterous affair? host: justice thomas is one of the nine most powerful judges in the united states and a cause that his wife supports and

actively advocated for may come in front of him in the supreme court. is there an issue there? caller: i don't believe so. he was voted to be fair-minded. host: do you think there should be any rules for supreme court justices or should they be able to make these decisions on their own? all nine judges separately on their own. i have a conflict here, i don't have a conflict here or the should there be rules that they all have to follow? host: i think the list that the chairman said earlier should suffice. his wife can have different points of views that do not have to influence the way he makes the decision. host: i was just about the same

this -- say the same thing. there are many husbands and wives have different opinions but justice thomas'wife works for a cause that may come before the surfer in court? caller: i believe a man is able to separate himself from that. host: let's go to my calling for massachusetts. caller: it's the appearance and it appears to me that there is clearly a conflict there. based on the appearance, yes. host: tell us what you mean by the appearance? there are many working couples that work for different sides and they all say that their spouse does not affect their work. caller: i'm single so i can answer that. i will say that based on working

in the system, for the opposing side is one thing. this is a coup on the american government. host: now mike, should there be rules that supreme court justices, all nine of them have to follow when it comes to recusal? right now, they make their own decisions on whether they think they should recuse themselves. should there be hard and fast rules that they all have to follow? caller: i would say yes to that. host: even if it takes -- putting a case out of place? caller: there should be some types of guidelines for tough questions. host: let's go to steve who was calling from annapolis, maryland.

caller: good morning c-span. the answer is overwhelmingly no. she is entitled to her free speech and justice thomas is entitled to his opinion and i think this is a big rules -- big ruse. host: do you think that justice thomas and his wife talk over these issues over the dinner table? . caller: i believe they do talk about their opinions across the dinner table. host: doesn't that give an appearance of impropriety if he is talking about something that he might have to rulon on in the supreme court?

caller: it does not impact his impartiality. she is not on trial. if she goes before congress and issues her opinion, is she the one on trial? that is not the issue here. host: it would not make a difference even if she is called before the january 6 committee, that would not make a difference? caller: no, because she is not the one on trial. she is soliciting her opinion. host: do you think the supreme court justice should make that on their own or is there one rule that all nine justices should follow? caller: i think the supreme court does have a set of standards that they are obligated to abide by and they need to follow the standards that they have there. host: they do not have to follow a code of contact. they have the option of not following it.

caller: then that is what they need to follow. the rules that they established for themselves. that is their rule. host: senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell, came out earlier to defend clarence thomas. this is what senator mcconnell had to say. "this performative outrage is not in earnest. this is a political hit. all because our laws and constitution because they occasionally inconvenience their radical agenda. this is not new. this is an old tactic. they had concert demands for justice scalia, just as gorsuch,

justice kavanaugh and justice barrett to recuse themselves with various issues that they might not like a certain ruling. all because of spurious accusations of fake problems on impartiality. this pressure campaign is a continuation of this well-worn pattern. it has no basis on justice thomas impeccable service on the court. the justices should feel free to completely ignore all this, justice clarence thomas is a great american, and outstanding justice, he is faithful to the laws of the constitution and his writing is clear and i have total confidence in justice thomas is impartiality on the work of the court. each of the high justices should feel free to make each judicial

decision they make with total independence and total freedom. which cases they hear, how they hear them, how they rule, whether and when they recuse themselves and whether and when they retire. these are all judicial's considerations. all nine justices deserve independence as they approved -- approach every decision they make. this clumsy leaning from political branches is beyond the pale. justice thomas is an exemplary jurist and has been for more than 30 years and counting. they should not give the radical left criticism a minute thought.

" host: let's go to marshall from louisiana. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: i'm doing great. caller: i think you should recuse himself because any time you have a spouse, family member , it is already showing the scale has already been tilted. and he was the only one that voted not to have those papers -- not to have them released. i feel he should recuse himself. host: do you think there should be one rule that all supreme

court justices should follow instead of letting them make their decisions individually? even if it would affect justices you care about? caller: most definitely. regardless, even if it is my favor or not. if you are going to show partiality to one person, it tilts the scale. so yes, they should have one rule that fits for all of them. host: let's go to stephen who is calling from los angeles, california. stephen, good morning. caller: how are you? host: i'm great. caller: he should absolutely recuse himself. to have your wife on a case and

to be involved in it it is absolutely crazy. the whole congress is trying to get involved. he is not getting fired, he is recused from one case. host: it is fair for us to judge clarence and his impartiality based on something his wife may or may not have talked to him about? caller: in my opinion, you read the whole anita hill scandal. he does not always make the best decisions. he needs to be recuse. host: doesn't his wife have the right to work on any because she wants to and it not impact her husband? caller: but if her husband is making decisions on what she was doing that is a problem. host: do you think there should be a set of rules for supreme

court justices when it comes to recusal? caller: of course, how else do you hold them accountable. i know they don't have a lot of rules but there should be something there that they all have something to follow. host: how do we get to this point because the supreme court is a whole branch of government. how do we get them to get to that point? caller: it would have to be, the other branches to get together. they should have some standards at least. host: let's go to earl who is calling from idaho. earl, good morning. caller: i have to say no because our supreme court justices are elected to be impartial and

lessons that go on at home should have no impact at all. host: do you think they are impartial now? caller: they have to be or they are not being honest with themselves of their country. host: what if ginni thomas ends up being called before the january 6 commission? does that mean that justice thomas should recuse himself from january 6 cases? caller: no. host: why not? caller: he has to be impartial in his position the supreme court justice. host: do you think you can be impartial with the case and involves your own wife? caller: yes, because that is why you are elected to that position and you should hold your own as

one, sole person. host: let's go to kevin who was calling from bloomington, indiana. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i'm glad to be here. i have been listening to this since you started. i think we have gone behind -- beyond the point he should recuse himself. i think nancy pelosi should impeach him. they should remove him from office. i am a black man. i'm ashamed that we have a black man that does not represent black people. that does not represent the whole united states. i am offended at the people, his wife is with this man 20 47. if people think that he does not

influence a decision, they don't understand marriage. host: what has justice thomas dunn that he should be impeached for? caller: number one, i don't think that he did not understand what his wife was doing. i think he uses his wife as his voice. i don't think those were his -- her text messages i think they were his. i think she was the one doing the communicating. i think once they find out and start investigating everything going on here, it will all come down to the fact that clarence thomas was behind these text message. every body wants to hide. they have to get their voice out there. they want to hide behind the wall so nobody can see what they are doing. host: so you think clarence

thomas was actively involved in communicating with the white house about the election? caller: i think he was using his wife's phone like donald trump was using everybody was using everyone else's phone to communicate. host: do you have any proof of this or is this something you suspect? caller: i have been married for a long time. i know how marriages work. we understand each other. we know each other. there is nothing that we don't do that we don't know what each other is doing and i think, i don't have any proof of this, this is a gut feeling. i am 100% sure that nancy pelosi will do the right thing. she is going to impeach this man. she is going to get him away

from being able to harm our country so that he cannot do this again and i think she should do it now. she should not wait. she should not even wait for the hearings. we have enough evidence already from what we hear on television. host: let me ask you this question. you have been married for a while, i heard you say that. is it fair to judge justice thomas based, let us assume that it was ginni thomas saving those -- sending those tags. is it fair to judge justice thomas and his ability to be impartial to her activities? caller: i'll tell you what, my wife can influence everything. people know what their spouse can do. if they think that clarence

thomas, he has been married to her for a long time and heat she says clarence, everybody needs a vote on trump. host: let us go to thomas who is calling from virginia. thomas, good morning. caller: thank you. don't cut me off please. i've a question and a follow-up. i see that you are wearing a wedding band. does your wife and yourself talk about your work? host: all the time. caller: i think he should recuse himself. also, look up several years ago judge thomas's son was involved in the case that he had to judge. he recuse himself from that

case. what makes this case different from that case? host: i will add that every marriage is different. when my wife was in the military, and i was covering the military i did not talk about her work. it is possible for a married couple to not talk about her work. caller: my significant other, we used to talk about her work. for anybody to say that you cannot live with someone, married to them and you do not discuss their work, you are being disingenuous to themselves and their country. host: i disagree with you because my wife and i did not talk about her work when i was

covering the military. i know it can be done, i can't tell you what the thomas is due. that i know that they cannot talk about these things. caller: i disagree with you. host: let's go to jake who is calling from los angeles, california. caller: judges and lawyers are fantastically intelligent. you would assume that the supreme court justices are the highest moral and ethical standards. judge thomas is highly intelligent but the callers that are making comments about him or not. host: what do you think should be done? should there be one rule that all justices have to follow or should they be able to make these decisions on their own? caller: they make the decisions based on the case and upon their

moral and ethical standards. these are highly intelligent people. they do the highest degree of intelligence anywhere. they know what to do, they are governed by their standards and ethics. they should be given the benefit of the doubt that they are of that caliber of moral and ethical standards and they should make it case to case. they can police themselves by the time you make it to the supreme court, you have been vetted. you have gone through your confirmation hearings. i watched his confirmation hearing. everyone knows how stringent that they were. everyone knows what he went through and where he is from and everybody knows what he has been up to. he is an ethically capable person. host: some of the things that

you hear is that yes, we can trust the people in office now. can you trust the people who come after them? should there be a set of ethical rules that future supreme court justices should follow are you fine with the system the way that it is now and forever? caller: it is set up that way and it has been an ok system. if you dovetail it to the people in government and new group that in with the supreme court justices, i think the entire population of america is not being well served by our elective representatives. the supreme court justices are appointed. they are highly intelligent, they are morally, the highest

caliber, they can make their own decisions. the way it is set up, and i don't think it is for americans to decide, they have a system there and it works. i think to call -- to say anything about justices clearances wife or anything that she has done and whether or not she should recuse yourself, i think he is far more intelligent than anybody who is making any comments about him. for the most part, they have a system in place in the ignorance of the people making comments about it, and maybe i am showing ignorance about it too. these people have gone through the confirmation system. they are the highest standards. if they can be given that benefit of the doubt.

you have to begin something is ok about government, and you want supreme court justices a government, there you have. host: there has been talk in congress that the supreme court should come up with their own code of ethics or follow a code of conduct that is for all other federal judges. the hill has a story that talks about what is going on with congressional attempts to require a code of ethics and i will read a few paragraphs of that story to you. incessant republicans are skeptical of requiring a code of ethics in response to new scrutiny over clarence thomas that has thrown momentum behind calls for ethics rules for the supreme court.

it is, over ginni thomas's calls to mark meadows to overturn the 2020 election. they were text messages handed over to the january 6 committee investigating the riots put a new spotlight in cases -- it is being embraced by top democrats. it would need the support of 10 republican senators. i am uncomfortable with the idea of becoming overly prescriptive. justices have a pretty good instinct of went to recuse. so right now, according to the hill, it would be a tough climb for the senate to get a filibuster proof majority to

enforce a code of attics on supreme court justices. what do you think? do you think justice thomas should recuse himself from january 6 election cases? let us go to kim who is calling for marilyn. kim, good morning. caller: initially i was undecided. i was listening to the confluence -- conflicts of what is being said. many say that the supreme court justices can be unbiased, so why then in the past have they recuse themselves? as clarence thomas has recuse themselves in the past? why? if we look at this and try to be

impartial we have to assume that yes, he should recuse himself. this is not questioning his integrity. this is a question of whether he showed, it is our opinion of whether he sugar not. everyone is entitled to their opinion. host: what is your opinion -- what do you base your opinion on that he should recuse himself? what is your opinion based on? caller: either appearance and more, i question why does anyone face a case and make a decision impartially why have they then ever recuse themselves? host: the fact that they have recuse themselves from cases before show that they themselves can sometimes not be impartial. caller: or they do it because of

the appearance. because the appearance is yes, he can be influenced. by his marriage. marriage consists of compromise in most cases, in my opinion. host: let's go to greg who was calling from california. caller: i wanted to think your wife or her service and also thank you for your work on c-span which is a public service in itself. i wanted to get that out of the way first. my point about calling into say no, that he should not recuse himself was looking at pressers in the past. the late ruth ginsburg, prior to

her appointment she was the paid legal mouthpiece for planned parenthood and abortion but she never recused herself on any abortion case. if she felt that she was uncompromised by her previous work, i would not think justice thomas was compromised by his wife's opinion. to a large degree, we have constitutional methodology built in for impeachment of officers, including members of the supreme court for high crimes and misdemeanors. if they are accused of being bribed to rule and why will -- ruled in one way or another.

otherwise i will take their word for it they could be impartial. host: do you think it would make a difference if she was brought in front of the january 6 committee? caller: my opinion of the january 6 committee is similar to my opinion of the house un-american committee and the 50's. i kangaroo court to persecute their choice victims in america and prevent them from exercising their first amendment rights. freedom of speech, freedom opinion, freedom of thought should not be open for debate. that is guaranteed to us in the bill of rights and i think this. will be viewed as shamefully as the. in the early 1950's of the day.

host: i would assume you would agree that the people who invaded the capital should face some kind of punishment? caller: they were guilty of trespass and if there were other salt charges against any of the employees or capitol police, though should be prosecuted in the same way that antifa and bl me should be prosecuted for the deaths since the george floyd murder and 2020. depending on what side we are on of the political i'll be picking choice who we want to go after and prosecute and who we want to pat on the head and let them move on. host: you rock of ruth bader ginsburg and her work before she became an associate justice.

do you think there should be a set of rules that supreme court justices have to follow when it comes to recusing themselves in cases, whether it is appearance or actual conflict? caller: i'm not sure what is involved in the supreme court or federal courts, if you have to have a blind trust. incorporate cases if you have 5000 shares of gm and gm has a case before the court that would be a conflict of interest. i would assume there are built-in ethical procedures that would eliminate that issue. host: let me just tell you, you assume wrong. there is no requirement for the

supreme court for recusal. caller: i am not a legal scholar, i cannot think of a single member of the supreme court going back over 200 years that has been prosecuted for corruption. host: i can name one immediately off the top of my head, fortis. caller: that is an interesting issue, in 1964 he was tentatively offered the vice presidency by lbj.

he is an interesting character. he was more of a politician then he was a legal scholar. i think there are ways, in the same way there are and political life, there are ways to deal with these issues even if it involves impeachment. we have seen that particularly in the presidency. we have seen it in the past with judges, not at the supreme court level but other judges. there are built-in safeguards there and if we think that a justices being hypocritical. either justice thomas or justice ruth bader ginsburg, that is a political issue.

that is more of an impetus that if you don't like the kind of justice that is appointed to the court, you should go after the politicians appointing them. host: this is kim from washington, d.c.. caller: i think it is ironic term used with justice thomas, when you recuse -- i guess my question is when, how can you let these people decide their own recusal? she is clearly supporting trump supporters from january 6.

going back to the collar asking about your wife, you have never had to do these things in the public eye. host: as a journalist there would be a journalistic conflict. caller: judge barrett did not recuse yourself from the nonprofit that supported her campaign. it should be a policy. you cannot allow them to decide what is ethical. imagine a nation where they owned human being means you had five supreme court justices that

owned slaves, should they not have recuse themselves? they decided what was best for the nation. even to ask the questions or pose that for most of these collars, they are already a moral people. host: senate majority leader chuck sumer said there is a clear conflict of interest for justice clarence thomas and justice thomas should recuse himself immediately from any january 6 case. here what he had to say "he/she should recuse himself. and yes, i will answer both of your questions. i think there should be some

kind of code of ethics for supreme court justices. the january 6 committee is investigating and doing a good job and i think he will turn over every stone and we await to see the outcome. there is enough evidence that he should recuse themselves." . host: the senate judiciary committee will begin its vote on the confirmation of supreme court nominee brown jackson. it will be convening at 10:00 a.m. on monday to begin the final vote to move her to the senate floor. full coverage of the senate judiciary committee vote begins at 10:00 a.m. right here on c-span, at c-span.org and you

can always watch it on our c-span now at. our question to you this morning, should justice clarence thomas recuse themselves from january 6 cases jackson lets go to vern from maryland. caller: it is willis. they have a lot of interesting thoughts running around through here. i have heard a lot of good thoughts either way. i feel that on the nose side of it, the supreme court is an institution that we can fully put our faith and trust in. the people that have been selected as justices, as you have brought up, as well as in

my life, i do not feel that some of my ex-wives issues because of confidentiality thing, there are so many different things that go this way. i don't like that chuck schumer saying this when you look at congress and our president in the offices they hold, they are not being held -- they don't hold themselves to a high degree of ethics as the whole world sees, as a whole united states sees. we all limit -- all as americans

want to believe that our supreme court, our justices should be able to judge and hold these laws. host: let's go to dave who is calling from ohio. good morning. caller: top of the morning to you. i am unsure about this because an article i read in the harvard law review, it calls out the supreme court and the pro-business paradox. the article explains how the supreme court has basically taken business and expanded their rights and has reduced their liability in the cases that they bring up our citizens united, hobby lobby, ford versus

minnesota 18th district, and an american progressive program in california six district. it explains how business rights have been expanded. we are able to get as much money as possible to politicians without ever stating who we are or what our programs are for. the supreme court right now, how can i put it? it is an imbalanced court that does not represent the constitution. host: so back to the question we are talking about whether justice thomas should recuse or not? caller: justice thomas recuse us himself, don't you think that justice roberts should recuse himself on anything that comes

up on businesses because it is evident that his court is pro-business. host: how would you be able to prove that and how would you be able to say that justice roberts and no one else should recuse themselves if it is the whole court, would all nine have to recuse themselves? caller: yes. what i am saying is that the balance of the court that you have right now is pro-business and proactive to business and not the constitution. host: let's go to carrie who is calling from oregon. caller: good morning. thank you so much. we have great callers this morning.

i don't know justice thomas, i don't know him personally. his wife, i read an article, i think it was from the hill where people that worked there, at the white house for trump. she would come almost weekly and give him a list of names of who to hire and who to fire. he would throw a fit, she hated when he came but when she came by. justice thomas, we don't know these people. we can see from the behavior that -- all i do is put myself in that position. if i was at a trial and it was for murder or something else that affected my life and i was

going to put trust in the judge. i would not want that judge to, say maybe he is the cousin of the victim i murdered. or he is connected to the business that i am suing, i don't want impartiality. i am not going to put that hypothetical trust into any human being. host: can we judge somebody by what their spouse does? caller: it is not just the spouse. look at judge thomas's record. on january 6, he was a -- it doesn't matter. i have only been to court a couple of times. i believed, i did not want to have the question whether that

judge was going to follow the rules or be impartial. maybe he didn't like women, i don't know. i want to know there is a set standard that i can trust in the justice system. a right now we don't have that in the supreme court. host: let's go to tammy from louisiana. tammy are you there? caller: hello. i don't think he should recuse himself. i think this jackson woman, she could not define what a woman was? so should she recuse herself from any women's issue? evidently, she is on the side of pedophiles, you know what i'm saying? host: let's go back to justice thomas. his wife was working on an issue

that may show up in front of the supreme court. if she thaad a phi -- testifies in front of the committee, should he recuse himself? host: let's assume she does. does he then need to recuse himself? caller: i don't think so. i remember that case in the colonel insisted that he call him a colonel. what was his name, solomon? host: i'm not sure what you're talking about but what is your point? let's go to robert who is calling from georgia. robert, good morning. caller: i think he should recuse

himself and i think if you feel comfortable, you and your wife work for the same company and you don't talk about each other's work. you should also interject if you think claire's tom perez and his wife discuss -- clarence thomas and his wife discuss what they do, her activism has been all over television. you and your wife never had an issue coming up on television because of her work. people are biased, that is why

some attorneys will choose to give their clients, to have their clients go to a certain judge because of other judges because they have a reputation. so does clarence thomas. host:-- host: the supreme court is different. they don't have the same rules as other judges in the united states. they can individually make their own decisions on whether they think they should recuse from a case or not. there is no one that decision can be appealed to. caller: i don't think i mentioned rule at all and i wasn't referring to a rule. i think she should -- he should recuse himself. not as a matter of our rule. i don't know of a rule. i'm saying the appearance. if the attorney promotes the

idea that he could possibly be biased, it is incumbent upon my attorney to get me before another judge. a rule has never been mentioned by me. i don't know what you are referring to. but he can recuse himself on his own accord. and i think he should do that. host: all right. let's go to mark, who is calling from los angeles, california. mark, good morning. caller: good morning. mark medina, sherman oaks, california. i don't know what's going on with these people that are calling. are these people crazy? oh my goodness, there is no question as to the integrity of the supreme court judge. hello? host: keep going, mark. caller: there is no question as to the integrity of the supreme court judge. what if he has to act or rule on a case for which his wife is involved? how could he rule that she was guilty -- of course he would have to rule she was innocent?

-- innocent. should he be ruling on cases of her in liquor stores, of course not. i think he should recuse himself , just because of that issue. to say that they don't have any connection with each other, they have a child together. they have had marital bliss together. they have penetrated each other's souls. there is no way he doesn't have any idea how she feels. i think he should recuse himself. he obviously could not do that. host: we like to thank all of our callers for the great calls during our first segment. mcgough next, we will dig -- coming up next, we will dig into the latest numbers in the u.s.

economic outlook with kristin weller. later, michael newton discusses the process of prosecuting war crimes in the international criminal court. stick with us. we will be right back. >> this week on the c-span network, both chambers of congress are in session with the house voting to hold peter navarro and dance could be criminal contempt for failing to comply with subpoenas by the january 6 committee and the senate may begin consideration of judge ketanji brown jackson. first, the senate judiciary committee must vote on judge jackson's nomination. we will have that live on monday, 10 :00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span2. embers of the president's cabinet begin testifying before congress. we will have two of those hearings on tuesday.

lloyd austen and the chair of the joint chiefs of staff, mark milley, testified before the senate armed services committee at 9:30 a.m. eastern, live on c-span3. help and humans services secretary present his budget to the finance committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern. that will be on c-span.org and the c-span now free video app. wednesday, janet yellen testifies before the house financial services committee on sanctions and the international financial system. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and the c-span now free video app. also wednesday at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3, presidents and ceos of six oil companies testify before the house energy and commerce committee on rising gas prices. watch this week, live on the c-span networks, or on c-span now. our free mobile video app. also, head over to c-span.org rescheduling information or to stream video.

live or on-demand, any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> now available for preorder in the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. go there today to order a copy of the congressional directory. this compact spiral-bound book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress including bios and committee assignments. also, contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. preorder your copy at c-span shop.org or scan the code with your smartphone. supports c-span's nonprofit operation. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back for a discussion of the state of the u.s. economy. we are joined by christian weller and veronique de rugy.

they are here with us this morning to talk about the state of the u.s. economy and those new job numbers. christian, we will start with you. tell us what we should take from these new jobs numbers that we just got, the new job numbers. guest: overall, very good. there is very little to say about the overall numbers. we added 430,000 jobs. on average in the last three months, we have added over 550,000 jobs perm on. we are bringing in more people, new people coming into the labor market and getting jobs. the unemployment rate is dropping down just -- down to 3.6%. we are finally making real headways in some areas where we continue to see weaknesses. especially among

african-american women. we saw a nice jump in terms of employment rates. overall, the numbers are good. there are some weak spots. i think those require us addressing them. the unemployment rates for african-americans americans is about twice as high as for white workers. the unemployment rate for latino workers is 50% higher than for white workers. we still have a lot of work to do when it comes to disabled workers. they still have an unemployment rate that is more than twice as much as nondisabled workers. while there is real momentum, we have had strong labor market recovery since the start of 2021, we are now back to the 90 -- back to 90% of the jobs we

had prior to the pandemic. there is work to be done. they are coming in as the numbers show. people are coming back into labor markets, finding jobs. we need to make sure those hit hardest by the pandemic are getting jobs to get back on their feet. host: what do these job numbers tell us about the state of the economy? guest: i'm glad christian gave the numbers. the labor market is recovering very strongly. when i heard these numbers, my first thought was well, so much for the great resignation. if you remember, scholars and economists spent a lot of time talking about how the state of the pandemic and its impact, its tremendous impact on the labor market, would actually change the labor market forever and

people resigning. not coming back, and apparently not. we are actually on the road to recovery, when it comes to labor. that is a good thing. i think it is more a product of the fact that a lot of the policies that have helped people back, are out of the labor markets and winding down. people will find they have no choice but to go back to the labor markets. over time, things will actually normalize much more than people thought they would even six months ago, when we were talking about the great resignation and this massive shift in the labor markets. guest: can i respond? i'd like to jump in. i'm glad veronique brought up the great resignation.

that was something the media hyped. they forgot the other side of the equation. there are two number that come out. one is how any people find new jobs in a month and the other is how may people quit a job. a lot of people quit their jobs but moved to another job. the one thing that has changed over the last two years is not that people went home and said they were going to become an artist and spend their time leisurely, that is true for the overwhelming majority of americans. what happened was that because of the weird recovery, there was more power for workers. they could not demand higher wages or say maybe this is too

dangerous ortega bliss trust for. so, i will move somewhere else. there seems to be a shift away from corporate power, toward -- there is a little bit more -- workers feel more empowered by what is going on. the other part is we are still struggling. we are not really coming back to where we were, because we still have pockets of weaknesses. one pocket of weakness is in the childcare sector. people laid off during the pandemic never came back because childcare centers just closed. that is a structural problem. it doesn't seem to have helped that mother's, as much as

possibly grandmothers, seemed to have an overflow for childcare needs. women tend to be the primary caregivers for children. the numbers tell us that mothers seem to be returning to the labor force in numbers that were prior to the pandemic. the people who are not returning our grandmothers. mothers are returning and women tend to be the primary caregivers for children. guest: can i add one thing? host: jump in. guest: health care centers were closed. let's not forget that schools were closed for a very long time. in arlington, virginia, where i am, my kids did not go to school for the end of 2020.

also, a very large segment of 2020 win -- 2021. i had the ability to work from home. it did not cause much problems to me. there are a lot of people who were not as lucky as i was. people always talk about childcare situations. the fact the schools were closed held back women and mothers in particular to a great degree. and so let's hope this doesn't happen again. guest: structurally, the difference is that schools, most of them are public schools, they came back. they got the funding. with childcare centers, we never saw the investment necessary to maintain the childcare infrastructure and a lot of them closed permanently. what we see now is, yes, we saw last september that schools reopen. -- as schools reopened, mothers

of children returned quickly to the labor market. we still have this lack of childcare workers, which is likely reflective of the permanent closure of many childcare centers. it seems to correspond to the lack of jobs and employment by older women, probably mothers, the grandmothers. grandmothering is twice as likely among african-american and asian american women. i completely agree with the point that the closure of schools had an incredible number on -- did an incredible number on women's employment and career chances. host: let me remind our viewers that they can take part in this

conversation. we will open up our regular lines. that means that republicans, you can call in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, you can call in at (202) 748-8000. independents, your line is (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, on twitter at c-span to bj and on facebook -- c-span wj and on facebook. i want to delve into this before we delve into the next thing, which is i hear you both saying that the great resignation was either a myth or was way overblown. my understanding y'all -- my understanding y'all correctly? -- am i understanding y'all correctly? guest: yes. host: tell me why.

guest: a lot of the analysis we read, people only look at one side of the problem. when you look at government programs, usually people look at the benefits. they don't look at the costs. it is the normal tendency to do this. when it came to the great resignation, there was a lot built on the fact that people who were leaving the labor market, there was very little attention paid to the fact that people were switching jobs. by the way, i think this is a statement that when the economy is growing, the bargaining power shifts away from employers and actually shifts towards, at least to some degree, i will overstate this, to employees. in the case that we were, there

were a lot of things holding back workers, you saw a lot of bargaining power move in some areas toward the employees. i think it is a great figment that shows when the economy is working, it gives much more power to employees. host: christian, we should call it the great job switch instead of the great resignation, correct? guest: yes. the great reallocation, which a lot of labor economists are calling it. the great resignation, any economist was just going bonkers every month when we saw those headlines about the great resignation. we knew people were simply moving from one job to another. it gave workers a little more power.

it makes this recovery unique. it gave a lot of power to low-wage workers. we saw some of the strongest wage gains as a reflection of that. that was true for restaurants, retail and nursing homes. we saw a really strong wage growth. people said if you want me to work in a risky situation, exposing my health to enormous health risks, you will pay out. and that certainly is reflected. people got paid higher where they worked or said i won't work in a nursing home where it is extremely risky. i will work in an office situation, maybe at a hospital am aware it is a lot less risky and i could possibly get more money. this was a unique situation. the hiring and switching seems to be happening and wage growth is good but moderated.

i think we are moving slowly toward a more normal labor market situation. guest: in part, it is because of inflation. unfortunately, the problem is that all of these gains that are made in terms of wages are taken away, because of inflation. our wages in aggregate are declining. a lot of the games we are seeing in the labor market, i think everything will temper in 2022. host: which brings me to my next point. i'm glad you guys are doing my segues for me. what will be the economic impact of the high inflation that we are seeing right now? i will start with you, veronique, how is the high inflation going to affect our outlook over the next few

months? guest: it's hard to tell. unless the federal reserve takes rigorous action, which is not a good thing for the economy, i'm not saying they shouldn't, i think that when you have that inflation, i think the idea we could do self lending -- the supply of labor increasing and the supply chain getting better, to ingest -- address inflation is overstated. i think it is wishful thinking. there is going to be a self lending, let's say the federal reserve does not act. prices are going to continue going up. this is the definition of inflation.

the price of one good that is picked up by inflation that fundamentally is one good picking up all the numbers, all prices are rising, including wages. that is going to have an impact on businesses who are going to be less inclined to plan for the future. it creates a lot of uncertainty in the market. the labor market, the market in general. economic growth does not thrive during uncertain times. there is just a lot of questions up in the air. host: christian? guest: i'm glad veronique got the question first. it's not an easy one. i'm glad i'm not a policymaker.

i'm a little more relaxed. when it comes to inflation, what we worry about is inflation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that people fear there is more inflation on the horizon and they will spend all their money and drive up prices. the second one is that higher inflation drives workers to ask for higher wages. companies are waging -- raising prices. but take the first one first. where we should be seeing people spending a lot of money is stocks and housing. that doesn't seem to be the case. most of that spending has been flat or declining.

people are slowly shifting back to services. the second part is the wage price spiral, the sectors where we have seen the sharpest price increases saw initially some of the sharpest wage increases. that is moderated. especially with restaurants. there doesn't seem to be a clear evidence on the wage price spiral. the second question is what are we going to do about it? i don't think the federal reserve should aggressively raise interest rates. they have moved raising interest rates a little bit. they are easing out from saying we take this seriously but we will try for a soft landing. there is no evidence the federal reserve has ever managed to engineer a soft landing. the chance of a recession is

high and they are aware of that. we need to be very careful. the second part is i think congress can do more to build up supply chains to invest in the mess the master capacity and invest in public health. there is a limited amount congress can do. anything congress does now will take some time to work itself out. i think it is good to see that both the federal reserve and congress were paying attention to these things and are investing where they can. i think overall, it is not as severe as it is made out. what we saw on the price increases side is not homemade -- homemade, it is global. it will probably subside. that gets me to the other point. i think inflation is one issue. i'm not sure inflation is our

major issue when it comes to uncertainty. i agree that uncertainty is something we need to worry about. it holds back on the consumer spending. people are buried about what happens in the future. the same is true for businesses. businesses sitting on the -- businesses are sitting on the largest cash holdings they have had in the last 20 years. to some degree because they want to keep their shareholders happy. the uncertainty is this ongoing pandemic. what is the next wave going to look like? will china shut down completely? what is happening? are we going to have another outbreak on large cargo ships? the war in ukraine has created a lot of uncertainty. it seems like businesses and the stockmarkets are shrugging it off a little bit.

i'm not a financial foreign expert or affairs expert. i don't want to weigh in on that one. we have massive uncertainties in the economy. i think addressing them and investing in the u.s. economy to make the economy more resilient is the emphasis congress should have at this point. inflation certainly does not help the situation. but, i'm not sure it is one of the top issues at this point. getting the pandemic under control, investing in public health, making sure we invest in a domestic capacity in manufacturing and public health in other areas of infrastructure are top of mind. guest: i would add, if i may, i agree with what christian said with the exception that inflation has to be on everyone's list. this is the biggest inflation we have had in 30 years. that has to count for something

going wrong. while i totally agree with the ukraine war, the pandemic and the strain it will continue putting on the labor market, at some point i think inflation is going to matter. here is an additional reason why . it is not easy to be a legislator right now. one of the main tools congress has to address anything is government spending. there are a lot of studies that are coming out. last week, by the san francisco fed, that proved the inflation is driven by aggregate demand

increasing, boosted by spending. that should be a concern. it means that if the only way congress acts is by fueling more of this aggregate demand, it may fuel inflation more. it is a really hard time. it has to be an incredibly hard time to decide what to do. i would say that i would be more concerned about inflation because in particular, there are all of these other elements happening. it may make it harder to actually put in place the right response. they may worry and overdo things or under do things.

host: before you jump in, we have to give some of our callers -- get some of our callers in here. let me go to one of our callers and then christian, you can add your point in response to the caller. we have a bunch of people here, waiting to ask you two questions. let's start with john, who is calling from herndon, virginia. john, good morning. caller: hey, jesse. and our guests, thank you for taking my call. i love the show. and also, the c-span sweatshirt. i think that is cool. i have a question for both of our guests. as i'm sure both of you guys know, this was definitely a hot topic last winter, about how people were getting discharged and fired from their jobs because of the vaccine mandates on the local, state and federal

level. and my question for you guys is how significant of an impact would you say all of those vaccine mandates have had on the unemployment rates, as well as the labor force participation rate that we are seeing in some of the job reports that have come out this year? host: i will let you take that first, christian. then you can get your point in as well. guest: on the unemployment rate, i don't think it has made a big difference. i think it was overblown. unfortunately, the vaccine mandates did not drive up the vaccination rate in the country as it should have or could have. we are still a relatively low vaccinated country and that has hurt us with the omicron wave, in terms of death rates. in terms of the unemployment situation, a lot of the mandates were isolated.

it did not matter on the employment side that much. let me get back to the inflation side. when it comes to people, the question was whether we should worry about inflation and the macro phenomenon. and worry that it becomes a self fulfilling thing. i don't see that happening, necessarily. policymakers are aware of it and are paying attention. that doesn't mean it is not hurting people. the micro phenomenon, what happens on the ground, it hurts people. with higher gas prices and now higher rent. that is the quality of inflation that could be shifted. i think the primary emphasis right now for congress right now is to provide targeted relief

and do so in a neutral way. you help people and invest in housing and give housing allowances for low income people. you do whatever you can to reduce gas prices. at the same time, the budget for president biden has suggested you increase revenue by taxing billionaires. it has shifted from deficit spending to safety economy. people are getting hurt, especially our most vulnerable populations are getting hurt, we need to invest money to help them deal with the fallout of information -- inflammation. that is a different conversation than whether it hurts the

economy overall. guest: i think i agree with christian. the vaccine mandate, it didn't work as well. to the extent that there was impact, it was not enough impact. it was localized. i think relative to the overall numbers, i think it was not impactful. that doesn't mean it didn't matter. it is hard because it also ignored and made the difference between whether you had covid or had not. this is not my area of expertise. i agree that on a fundamental level, i don't think it had a big impact. it probably had a local impact. in some industries, the impact was felt.

the overall numbers probably don't seem to reflect this. host: let's go to jennifer, who is calling from hampton, virginia, on the republican lines. jennifer, good morning. caller: yes. i'm calling because i'm a parent. back to work, making $22 an hour. gas is high, rent is high and groceries are extremely high. now, i don't have money to put aside and save to buy a house. why can't the government invest in some programs now to help us, so that we can get into a home and then do something about inflation, gas, groceries and other stuff? host: veronique, i will let you tackle that one first. guest: i think the temptation is to do things like this.

unfortunately, it would put very much of the inflation, if you do anything that increases the demand of a particular good and you do it enough, it only increases demand, which will put fuel on the inflation fire. i think the tim tatian is high to do this type of thing. i don't think it will help very much. i think it may actually make things worse. something that is important to understand is i think it is important right now to look at all of the ways you can actually free the supply of things. we were talking about childcare earlier on. the tendency is to say let's subsidize childcare. one of the things that you want

to make sure of is that you have freed the supply and increased the number of people who are going to be a childcare provider. unfortunately, it is very hard to address this issue at the federal level, considering that a lot of the restraint and the barriers to childcare provision is done at the state and local levels. i think before, the federal government stepped in and subsidized all of this. we have to make sure that a lot of the things that are constraining the supplies are going to be removed. otherwise, it will make the problem even worse. host: christian, is there a quick add in there? guest: i would agree. the emphasis has to be on the supply side and it was. making it more affordable to

have childcare. it has to be done in a way that keeps kids chafe in -- safe in the childcare centers. again, similar to the point that veronique made, when it comes to housing policy, a lot of that is played out at the local level, not at the federal level. zoning restrictions and zoning regulations at the local level determine how much housing you have. we have had a housing affordability crisis well before the pandemic. it was overshadowed in early 2020 because people moved in with each other and the number of households trying. there was an eviction moratorium and it is whirring back -- roaring back full force. we need to make sure people can afford to live where the jobs are. there is room for all levels of government to invest.

it is a supply question. we need to build more affordable housing. that requires all forms of government. guest: it has an important impact on the labor market and it has an important impact on the economy. where wages are low and unemployment is high, it is because access to higher wage markets are not worth it, considering the wage premium they would get and the increasing wages are inching up more than housing costs. if supply is addressed, if there is much more housing, this will lower the cost and make much more accessible to lower income workers or to workers who are stuck in areas that are not

economically vibrant, they will have access to more, better labor markets. when i think christian said was exactly right. the issue of the supplies of housing is extremely important. i would put less emphasis on the government. removing all these zoning rules, the ones that should be removed, that's not my area. i can't say i know exactly which one needs to be removed, but there is a lot of literature on how these are hindering the supply of housing. and let the private sector build as much as possible. there is so much room for improvement that i think we can find ways to agree that there is

a mixed solution. host: president biden says it is his policies, the american rescue plan and other efforts by the administration that are behind the strong jobs numbers in the economy. here is president biden talking about his policies and how they are helping the economy. pres. biden: with the american rescue plan, we were able to get americans vaccinated, schools opened and businesses humming. moody's estimated because of the rescue plan, 4 million more american jobs were created and unemployment is 2% lower than it would have been had we failed to move that legislation. thanks to our infrastructure law, we have more than 4000 projects getting started this year. 4000 in every single state in america, a total of 4000 in all 50 states. we are rebuilding america. we are building american

workers, strong and resilient. able to overcome the headwinds of delta, omicron and even war in europe. our policies are working and we are adding results from the american people, which it is all about, to state the obvious. record unemployment declines, record wage gains. jobs and unemployment are not just another statistic. they go directly to the core of what the economy represents. the ability for hard-working americans to live in dignity, support their families and build a better life for their children. host: christian, can president biden take credit for those strong jobs numbers and the economy going up? guest: to a large degree, yes. when you look at the situation we were in in late 2020 and early 2021, we were worried about a double dipper -- double dip session -- recession. with the delta wave or whichever

wave was hurting us at that point. there was a lot of uncertainty with high unemployment. when the american rescue plan was enacted, we are talking $1.9 trillion being thrown into the economy in a targeted way toward helping people. it did two things. it re-energized the economy because people had money. it addressed the issue of uncertainty. it allowed people, with the stimulus check that came in march, and with the extended childcare tax payments, child tax credit payments for parents, to spend some money amid the uncertainty in economic recovery. but also, to build up a buffer for the follow-up of the omicron way. that made people more comfortable spending money. that sort of strengthened the economic recovery.

i think the economy would have been on a recovery trajectory. but the fear in late 2020 and early 2021 was that there was slowing down, possibly going to recession. i think he certainly deserves credit on that side. the infrastructure investment bill is a different bill that he mentions in that clip. that one is a more longer-term issue. we need to separate the recovery from the pandemic and building up a stronger economy before the pandemic has two problems. economic growth overall and the second one was massive inequality. we still need to address them. that means investing in research and development, infrastructure and other factors. host: veronique, do you agree that president biden gets credit for the rise in job numbers and the economy? guest: this is one lacework

christian and i are going to disagree. i think the economy was on its way to recovering. i think there may have been some space for some spending. it is well -- if well targeted. it is not a surprise that some of the best economists, the economists who have been on the left of center and worked for president obama, were very wary of the american rescue plan. because it was oversized. let's not forget, it came right after a $900 billion dollar covid release. -- relief.

the spending was 1.9 showing dollars. that is at least two or three times more than what was needed. more than what was needed, just thinking in terms of how the economists think about these issues. what it meant was it was way too big. it was way too big. it was only a matter of time for inflation to kick in. this is why economists like layer -- larry summers and jason furman, all people on the left, were warning at the beginning of 2021 that this is totally oversized. it was uncalled for. they didn't say there was no need for any of it but it was oversized. and i think the president was doing a lot of marketing to take the attention away, especially

as economists -- and more and more studies are coming out from different federal reserve's -- blamed the inflation on oversized spending. so, i think that we have to -- this was always going to be a very difficult period of time. where we have a situation where -- sometimes because of the fiscal policies put in place. a lot of times because they were worried. they didn't want to get people sick. sometimes they couldn't take care of kids. it will always be a difficult situation to address. there is a moment where the fear of the pandemic and the need to

work kicks back in. all the incentives that are put in place or people at home disappeared. the fact that we were going to experience a strong labor market at some point was inevitable. and i think, again, i don't blame president biden for trying to get credit for this. this is a politician, that is what they do. i think in reality, it is much harder to give him credit for all of this. that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve any credit. but as much as he claims, i don't think is correct. host: holland, christian. we have not gotten enough of our callers in. let's go to the speed round, where i will ask my callers to ask quick questions and i will

ask for quick answers so we can get as many colors as we can before the end of this segment. go to clifford, who is calling from washington state, on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me get on here. i have just one question. that is that i understand the inflation thing. i'm retired. it is really hurting me because my wages don't go up. they are the same all the time. and the prices are going out of sight. so, i have a suspicion that may be unfounded. is there a price gouging in this whole scenario? does it effect -- doesn't affect the economy and doesn't affect me? -- does it affect the economy and does it affect me? guest: it is incredibly hard to determine. it is probably not happening.

companies are passing this on to maintain their profits. companies are still enormously profitable. that is a big debate, should companies try to maintain their profit margin? so their profit margin stays the same as profits go through the roof? or should they maintain a flat profit overall rather than a prophet margin? comedies have the power to pass price increases on to consumers. that is showing up. that is a monopoly power. it is not necessarily price gouging. host: veronique, price gouging? guest: there may be some companies who are doing things that are not beneficial to consumers.

but price gouging is not the reason why we have inflation. it would mean every single company does it at an extent that it rises all prices and wages. if it is really about price gouging, inflation, again, we need to remember it is the rise above prices, including wages. you can't have it both wages -- both ways. inflation is not about price gouging. host: let's go to kevin, who is calling from marshall, texas, on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, my issue is with how both of the panelists defined inflation. maybe i am old-fashioned. but, i always thought inflation referred to the money supply. i think that is important to remember. when we are increasing the money supply, that is inflation.

prices are going to rise. if things are being produced to keep up with that extra money supply, prices will rise. we need to increase the money supply or the fear is prices will fall too low and that is what caused the great depression. that would mean i am paying more, even though the price that everyone seems to associate with inflation, even though the price does not go up, i am still paying more than i would have been, had there not been a stimulus. also, the one panelist, he mentioned that -- he made a good point. the fear is that people will

drive up demand, hurrying to buy things. well, the only thing that stops that is when people run out of money. host: very quickly, respond to his allegations. christian, are we defining inflation correctly yucca -- correctly? guest: there are terms of inflation, to answer the question. generally, we mean the overall price increases for goods and services have gone up. what we worry about with the primary cause, there has been a moral standing debate on economics over whether the money supply drives up inflation. even in the fundamental textbook example, that simplifies things. that goes to the point of how people see inflation. the velocity of money, how quickly it turns around the

economy, that is not what we need to worry about. there is no evidence people are spending money more quickly. it is not a self-fulfilling prospect -- prophecy. a lot of people are afraid of what happens next in the economy. there is more money in the economy. but most people are putting it in their savings account. that doesn't have an effect on inflation. guest: the definition of inflation is that all prices rise including wages. this is why we didn't have inflation -- the inflation we thought we were going to have during the last recession. the federal reserve did the right thing by putting in place

measures so that money would stay in the banks and actually reached the economy. just to give you an idea, there were over $5 trillion spent and 2.7 choi in of those dollars -- trillion of those dollars were the federal reserve buying treasuries. giving it to the federal government to send people directly. that money went into the economy. all of this rose aggregate demand above and beyond what

they cap in the economy was. and this is why we have inflation. host: real quick, question. guest: a lot of the money was saved. guest: people are actually spending that money. you can see. even the price of a service, everything is going up. everything is going up and you cannot explain this. you can't explain all of these prices going up simply by supply restraint. guest: that's not the only thing. host: let me stop it right there. i can tell, we could talk about this for another two hours.

let's see if we can get one more collar in before the top of the hour. let's talk to john on the democrat line. good morning. guest: it is time for the charles darwin of economics to step up and tell people the truth. the dow jones industrial average is 30 companies, including mcdonald's and walgreens, which is no reflection whatsoever of where the economy actually is. the federal reserve has nothing to do with the federal government. like federal express, it is just a name that is used. the money the government borrows from the federal service is to their advantage. to do everything so that the federal government prints money and prince money. that is incorrect. they continue to print money and give it to the public. i live in upstate new york and

interstate 90 goes from massachusetts to buffalo. that is the highest taxed highway there is. so, why is that money not included in the infrastructure plan? it comes to common sense when it comes to this. people avoid the elephant in the room and they just keep on saying the federal reserve and the dow jones industrial average. or when used to come forward and let people know -- darwin used to to come forward and let people know what is actually happening. guest: this caller actually makes a point that is interesting to think about. in the context of talking about inflation and the federal reserve, we had policies for a long time. and very low rates for a long time. people have been very surprised

that we have not gotten inflation until recently. the dow jones comment made me think about this. actually, we have a lot of dramatic increases in prices. they were contained to assets. they were contained to things that have not spread until now it to the overall economy. -- until now to the overall economy. we have always ignored these dramatic increases in prices in the last 10 to 15 years, i guess. host: you get the final word, christian. guest: not much to add. the price of inflation is something we need to worry about because it has massive inequality implications.

the government is paying attention to it. i think at this point, emphasis is on protecting people and protecting the strong economy. host: one quick question for both of you, what is your take on the president deciding to release oil from the petroleum reserve? quickly. guest: i'll pass on this one. guest: that's not my area of active -- expertise. for all the talk of how -- the price of oil goes down with increase in supply, that shows you which part of the inflation is supply driven versus demand driven. host: we would like to thank both of our guest's, veronique de rugy and christian weller, for talking about the topic of the u.s. economy.

thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up next, we will move to our open forum, where you can call in and talk to us about your most important political topics. and later, michael newton will be here to discuss the process of prosecuting war crimes in the international criminal courts. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ >> something i do because i find it intellectually challenging and demanding, and to some i do because i feel it has to be done. >> professor noam chomsky was the first author on in-depth. live this afternoon, join us for

our discussion with noam chomsky as he joins us to talk about policy. his most recent books deal -- join in the conversation with your facebook comments, texts and tweets today live at noon eastern on c-span2. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word as it happens here, or here, here, or anywhere that manners -- matters. america watches c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back and we are in

our open forum segment. that means our viewers can call in and talk about your most important political topic of the day. we are opening our regular lines. that means republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. independents, you can call (202) 748-8002. we are always reading on twitter and facebook. before we get into our calls, let's get an update on what is happening in the war between russia and ukraine. at the new york times has a story this morning. " global outrage against moscow over allegations that russian forces had executed civilians in

ukraine with western leaders redoubling calls for war crimes investigations as the retreat of russian troops offered a clear picture of the devastating toll of vladimir putin's six week old war. as russians pull back from areas around the ukrainian capital, civilians have emerged to clamor for bread distributed by ukrainian soldiers retaking territory. the husks of tanks clutter roads. bodies lay uncollected in streets, littered with debris. the dead include civilians some of whom ukrainian officials accuse soldiers of executing. the ukrainian defense ministry shows men in civilian clothes on the streets of bucha. one photo shows 3 people lying

on the red side, blood darkening the ground beside them, one with white cloth binding his hands. that is an update in the war between russia and ukraine. what is your most important political topic this morning? let's start with carl calling from traverse city, michigan. caller: good morning. i would like to tag along on the previous state of the economy discussion. both give out some very good information, and most of it pretty accurate. what i would like to posit it as , it is a resizing of the pie. wages are still chasing inflation. because of the wages going up, companies have to account for that. if you look at meat prices alone, all the way down the line

from growing beef to processing beef to shipping beef and to get it into the shelves, wages were up. that is why you have the incredible beef prices you have now. the companies have to get that money back. they are creating a bigger pile of money and they have to find a way to get that money back. host: let's go to jan calling from pine, arkansas on the republican line. caller: it is pine, arizona. host: my fault. caller: i am a proud republican. what they are doing to ginni thomas is -- they have been after judge thomas since he was put on the supreme court. she has not been charged with anything. you will not do anything about hunter biden.

his family has made $300 million. you have to start being fair. host: we just did a show on hunter biden on wednesday. i guess you did not see it. caller: i just want to say what they our -- are doing is so one-sided. that is a kangaroo court. nancy pelosi said " most of those people that are on that committee were on the one to impeach president trump. look at the people that are on their. just look at them! host: let's go to phil calling from orlando, florida on the independent line. good morning. caller: i must admit i think i must be missing something the

average republican does not see but we are putting oil before the survival of civilization and the planet. it is so obvious to most people, rational people, that we have to reduce the carbon, but the industries that want us to spend money in their particular fields, i guess that is more important to them. money over life. this thing is not going to last very long! we have all the signs around us, extreme weather events wherever you look. we have issues with people not having enough food all over the planet. how long do you think we can stay stable, especially with all of these weapons being around. governments might decide " we

need to take somebody else's spot so we can feed our people." host: debbie from south carolina on the democrat line. go ahead, debbie. caller: i thought i was calling to say that clarence thomas needs to be recused from the court on certain issues that his wife is bringing up -- the election. host: ok. caller: because she is telling everybody that trump really one and -- won and as someone from queens, new york in the 70's, he is a liar and now he is a fascist-lover. host: let's go to john in new york. go ahead. caller: thanks, jesse.

this what if question -- i hope it does not go down the pathway of what if. what if this new nominee, it all comes down to appearances, but when joe biden nominated her, he said he wanted a black female. if she comes up with a case that involves, say race or gender, would he have to recuse herself? that is a what if question. i don't think she should have to. it was joe biden that came up with this. clarence thomas, your wife has every right to her opinion and her own free speech. i hope you do not do many more of these what-ifs. thanks for the opportunity. host: supreme court justices do

not have to recuse themselves at all if they do not want to under current supreme court rules. let's go to monty calling from texas on the independent line. good morning. caller: i would like to make a comment that c-span, america should be grateful for c-span. it is one of the few bastions that does not have an agenda. if you think that c-span is biased, you have your own bias. take what c-span is giving you and be grateful. i would like to speak a little bit on the history of russian sigh ops against america. in the 80's out of east germany a sigh up was run called operation denver. this sigh ops said that the cia distributed the hiv virus. will smith were victims -- was a

victim of this sigh up. governor abbott activates the national guard because of a russian sigh up known as operation jade helm. i encourage everyone to do their own research. host: let's go to austin, texas. freddie, good morning. caller: i am calling in regard to inflation all over the nation. industries, even rental property is going up significantly because they do not respect this president. i used to be a democrat. the way the democrats are, it is terrible for families. everything is woke and racial issues.

the wheels have come off the wagon. host: let's go to ben who is calling from michigan on the democrat line. good morning. caller: mi on the air -- am i on the air? host: you are on the air. caller: i think the economy is in a bad position right now. wages are not going up much higher than before. you are making about the same amount of money, but you are spending so much more. i went to say -- want to say -- host: let's go to frederick in brunswi, georgia. caller: there are so many things going on you don't even know

where to start. as for the handling of our country right now and everyone coming over the border, they are saying you have over 500,000 a month. we are broken this nation already. how do we support that? the new have the economy that is faltering. you have so many things happening that is hard to see where we are going. host: let's talk to david who is calling from los angeles, california on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to take it back to the other gentlemen before the last caller was on. when he talked about the value of c-span, i have been listening to c-span since its inception.

i am a longtime listener. another program about what i perceived to be the cross-pollination of right-wing infiltration into what is normally -- and i agree with him -- and c-span was the pinnacle of social discussion. i can assure you with this cross-pollination if we had a discussion about ham sandwiches they would figure out a way by which they can politicize that from a right-wing perspective. host: let's go to jesse who is calling from michigan on the democrat line. good morning. caller: give me a few minutes please. host: we are running out of

time. make it quick. we have 30 seconds. go ahead, jesse. caller: i never get to say what i want to say. ok. host: all right. jesse will have to call back in next time. coming up next, we will talk to michael boudin who is a professor of law and an expert on -- michael newton who is a professor of law and an expert on war crimes. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ >> first ladies in their own words. our eight part series looking at the first ladies, their time in

the white house, and the issues important to them. >> it was a great advantage to know what it is like to work in schools. education is an important issue for a governor and for a president. >> using material from c-span's award-winning biography series first ladies. >> i am very much the kind of person who believes you should say what you mean and mean what you say and take the consequences. >> we will feature lady bird johnson, betty ford, rosalynn carter, nancy reagan, hillary clinton, michelle obama and melania trump. watch first ladies in their own words on american history tv on c-span2.

♪ >> all this month, watch the top 21 winning videos from our documentary competition. every morning before washington journal, we will air one of our student documentary winners. you can watch all of the student cam documentaries anytime at studentcam.org. ♪ >> spring has sprung and it is time for c-span's spring sale. save 25% on home decor items. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our operation. c-span's sale now through tuesday. scan the code at the left to start shopping now.

♪ >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with law professor and war crimes expert michael newton who is here with us to talk about the process of prosecuting war crimes in the international criminal court. good morning. guest: good morning. host: let's start by defining what exactly a war crime is. what is a war crime? guest: most people have heard of the geneva conventions. that is only a small part of this big body of law. there are three strands -- prohibiting things like weapons in civilian areas, and a whole set of law on how you fight. there is a whole set of regulations on who you fight and how you treat those not subject to the fight, which is where the

prohibition against murdering civilians comes from. a piece important in ukraine is the law of occupation. once you have taking control of territory however transient that is there is a huge body of law that regulates your rights via they it civilian population. host: is all of that in the geneva conventions? guest: no it is scattered around. the chemical weapons convention, the genocide convention, the conventional weapons convention -- there is a whole bunch of law here. the geneva conventions were supplemented by a whole range of state practice, what you might call customary binding law. it fills the gaps in the conventions in important ways.

do you have to be a country that has signed onto the geneva conventions for these were host: ? -- host: do you have to be a country that has signed on to the geneva conventions for them to apply to you? guest: no. nobody in the world can just pretend ignorance or dispute about what the real body of law requires. they might dispute some of the marginal things, but the core, completely, undeniably binding on everybody. host: based on all of that, in your opinion, have war crimes being committed in ukraine? guest: i am a prosecutor.

i have proven this beyond a reasonable doubt. there is no reasonable doubt at this point. i have to be very clear -- it is one thing to say war crimes as a political statement of rhetoric. it is an entirely different matter to go into legal detail, committed by him, ordered by whom -- whom, ordered by whom. we are seeing murder of civilian officials. that is a violation of occupation law. one thing that is vitally important to add before you move into questions or whatever -- the geneva conventions grant every country in the world criminal jurisdiction to prosecute these. every single one. you could see were crim's trials in the hague, but you could also see them in japan -- war crime

trials in the hague but you could also see them in japan. the world to really step forward and decide if these are words on paper or if it really mean something. host: who brings charges? how are charges brought? who is in charge of saying " i want to accuse this person of a war crime"? guest: the ukrainian prosecutor general has organized a team. i was talking to them this week. that team is busily documenting. the first instance is the territory in which those crimes were committed or the territory against whom the crimes were committed. countries have taken the law

from the geneva convention and embedded it in their domestic system, including the united states. you could see charges in any court around the world. there is an overwhelming need for justice here and it is an integrated system. no country, no court can prosecute 2 -- it will take an integrated effort to make the system works the way it is supposed to work. host: most war crimes are charged against people who are on the ground and their superiors. how do commanders get charged for the actions of their subordinates when they commanders are not normally even in that theater. host: that is a nice question. we have this entire body of law

developed in this field about the law of command responsibility. i prosecuted a case in the international criminal court. dozens of these cases rely on the law of command responsibility. if you aided or abetted in some other way, but the law of command responsibility says you have a duty as a commander, either military or civilian, to control those people over whom you have effective control and in the law it says " take reasonable and necessary measures," to investigate postop -- the commanders are responsible for acting in good faith end they can be prosecuted for all of the offenses committed under their authority for failing to take the measures that are deemed appropriate by a court of law.

host: what is a difference between a case that goes to a war crimes tribunal in a particular country versus a case that goes to the international criminal court? who decides which one goes where? guest: i am a prosecutor by trade. you have to defer to prosecutors aching there best judgment about what the sufficiency of their best evidence is. procedures very radically around the world but also at the icc. the icc is a complicated come along, drawn out procedure. if you have an easy case it might make sense to do it in some other forum where it might be quicker. the icc is very clear -- that is

easy at the icc. it is going to take countries and jurisdictions operating together in good faith to make the system work in a synergistic way. host: what happens if a country says " i do not care if you charge me. i will not participate. i will not allow you to extradite any of my fighters." what happens then? guest: we had that exact same scenario in sierra leone. we had that in charles taylor good's trial. there is no statute of limitations on these offenses. frequently you have seen countries take that position. you are seeing officials on

trial in the hague even as we talk this morning so things change. the key thing right now is not necessarily to focus on what happens long-term in what court but how we build these cases in real time. we document the evidence with granularity because that is the necessary predicate for bringing any charges in any court. we will see what happens. i interviewed the lady in the milosevic trial. she said " nobody will ever charge milosevic," but i knew her statement was important. she gave it and when milosevic was charged her evidence was critical. let me -- host: let me remind our viewers they can participate. republicans, you can call in at (202) 748-8002.

democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. independents, you can call (202) 748-8002. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on facebook and twitter. you mentioned earlier the political act of calling someone a war criminal versus the actual trial and conviction of someone as a war criminal. why do you think joe and his administration have repeatedly called putin a war criminal? guest: to be clear, i worked at the state department, as well

there is -- in the words of the -- the political official is not just to this free-floating unsupported assertion. it comes after some legal analysis in a macro sense but that is a very different question than the mechanic of a trial based on a particular set of victims. going back to the law of command responsibility, the perfect example to me are the leaders of occupied crimea right now. they have committed violations of occupation law and therefore were crimes based on the evidence i have seen. the challenge is to get them on trial. there is every reason to make that political judgment. let the wheels of justice start

to grind. nobody can say that putin or any other official will not face trials. you go back to the laws of command responsibility, a responsible leader knowing the video evidence and the interviews, a responsible leader would have at least said " i'm sorry." i have not heard an apology at any level. or invitation to journalists or western media to document why did you bomb a hospital? we are so sorry, here is why. compare data the american reaction where our investigation was made public and it's all on the internet. it's an effort to enforce the law. the more time that goes by and you see no russian official doing any of that, it is

circumstantial evidence of complicity. host: what is the actual likelihood of a trial or conviction of any russian leaders at this point? guest: hard to say. at minimum they will never be able to travel because there is universal jurisdiction and no statute of limitation. but you never know what the future holds. he thought he was above the law and he did and he's in jail today. i could give you so many other examples. serbian officials never thought that would stand trial and they did. serbian paramilitary never thought it would stand trial and they did. a number of rwandan officials. this of course builds on the nazi precedent. there were any number of german officials who never thought they would stand trial and they did. there's is one important historical footnote here that is ironic in a way but the largest

murder trial in human history was the case where the ss political leaders and the ss military never thought it would stand trial. murders of civilians took place on ukrainian territory in world war ii. the wheel of justice grinds slowly but they do grind. host: who sits in judgment at the international criminal court? >> it's a treaty-based body and that's the important necessary thing to understand. it's -- it has territoriality meaning estate that is joint has consented the court to handle cases committed on their territory. when you ratify the treaty you are saying you can prosecute people for anything you deem appropriate. so the judges are selected in what can only be described as a

tortuous process by those states that have joined the treaty. they have this very difficult sorting process so you get judges from all around the world. the most recent was selected from the united kingdom in the most recent set of elections as a british judge stepped down. it's a very complicated process. host: if i'm not mistaken, of the u.s., russia and ukraine are not signatories on the international criminal court. does that mean this conflict will never be part of this court? guest: no. article 12 of the statute. when you do the macro numbers, the u.s., russia, china, india, of these major powers are not signatory to the treaty. when you ratify the treaty you

are conveying territorial jurisdiction. so there's a separate clause that says even if you are not a full-blown treaty party you can also consent, you can transfer territoriality and that's exactly what ukraine did back in 2014 buried there is a declaration where ukraine has consented to the jurisdiction for crimes committed on its territory. that's why they have every right to try these cases. i would also say occupation law cases going back to 2014. from a ukrainian perspective they would argue this war started back then and not in february of 2022. host: let's start with grant calling from washington, d.c. on the independent line. good morning. caller: thanks a lot.

according to the michael haas book, george w. bush war criminal. he detailed 200 69 specific war crimes conducted under the bush administration including 36 war crimes committed in the conduct of the war on iraq, six and the launching of the war of aggression. 175 war crimes in the treatment of prisoners including torture. 52 war crimes in postwar occupations. so a two-part question. do you agree that george w. bush is a war criminal and just how long do you think you would be employed if you took that position and push as aggressively as you are today on the ukraine issue. thank you. guest: you mean employed at vanderbilt are employed

anywhere. i served in the bush administration, i was just in iraq last weekend one of the things noted by the iraqi judges was with particular distinction of the american approach to war crimes allegations committed in iraq, they did investigations and prosecutions. i haven't read the book and i don't know the particular instance he's looking at, but the law is very clear that as a responsible commander you have an duty to investigate and prosecute crimes where appropriate and i can guarantee you we did that. we took that obligation very good faith. iraqi judges last week noted the distinction and commitment of the united states for the effort to investigate and prosecute cases out of iraq and they were making distinctions with some other governments that have not and have tried to get them to sake the same sorts of actions.

the laws very clear. if you violate the law, you deserve that. but you have to back it up with granular evidence. this is by the principle of individual responsibility. why are you personally criminally responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. host: is there a statute of limitations to prosecution of war crimes. guest: no. neither is there one for genocide i might add. crimes against humanity, this connection between treaty law and the law of war and the larger body of state practice. we don't have a specific treaty for crimes against humanity except for the statute in the criminal court which is the most comprehensive and there's no statute of limitations. that's why these are long painstaking investigations. host: let's talk to patricia

calling from washington, d.c. on the democrats line. caller: good morning. can you repeat the question? host: we were checking to see if you had questions about the war crimes topic we are talking about right now. caller: i would like to ask this question. why there is a doubt that putin has created war crimes? there is no doubt that he has done that. host: i guess the question is is there any doubt that war crimes are going on right now and if there is not, had a procedure been started for those war crimes to be prosecuted. >> that is exactly what we are

doing right now is documenting precise evidence what happened at a particular place and time and who was responsible. it's important to add when you talk about senior political officials like putin or the minister of defense, it takes an orchestrated effort not just from the ground level, in these cases you typically see things like phone intercepts, diplomatic cables intercepted. you see sometimes espionage that brings out good evidence with specific orders, specific involvement of senior-level officials. we want to know what he knew and when he knew it and why he knew it and what he did about it. the baseline principle is he has an affirmative duty, as do all of his officials to take action to enforce the law in good faith. so there is no doubt war crimes

are being committed on the ground. we will get there. nobody thought we could build a case, but we did. it takes some time. host: what are the rules of evidence in these cases and what type of punishment can be levied? is there life in prison, are their prison terms, fines, what types of rules of evidence must we follow in these types of cases and what type of punishment can be levied. guest: you asked about where we prosecute. the answer for this is different places across the map. the icc, of the rule is essentially 30 years. other domestic jurisdictions

have capital sentencing. it will depend on where these cases are brought. unlike the united states of america and other common law countries, the rule of evidence is much more relaxed in the sense that you are professional judges who will hear what is called probative evidence. to assess probative value to assess what's relevant and what's not and to then give weight to pieces of evidence over others. so you will see these -- you'll see a dossier coming in and that is admissible evidence. and it's up to judges and prosecutors to go through the statements and then frame that against criminal charges. that's what's going on as we speak. we are collecting evidence on the ground of refugees and in ukraine proper. host: one of our social media

followers as a question. why do we have to wait so long to prosecute war crimes. a mass shooting is stopped as soon as possible know such a urgency with genocide. guest: that is a good question. during world war ii the comment was made you have a greater likelihood of being prosecuted for killing one of two of your neighbors and for killing 1000 to 2000 people in an occupied setting. statistically that is correct. it's a complicated system and i think the distinction between the political rhetoric and the legal rhetoric. it is a reality these are not just criminal cases. they are inherently political cases, these are not easy cases. so it takes this real concerted political legal effort and i would say as well funding effort. that's the big thing is deep

opacity gap in a lot of systems. we have this with technical experts, we have to work together and pay for the production of evidence. that's why take so long because it's not just a cut and dry aggravated assault case or we develop the evidence and put on trial next week. >> let's talk to karen from alabaster, alabama on the republican line. >> you keep saying there's no reasonable doubt, but isn't it true it's still an alleged crime and in accordance with the jurisdiction is the one that's responsible for determining the guilt in this specific case. the next thing a wanted to ask is what happens if russia comes back and uses the biolab's research is the reason for invading ukraine? guest: it's always easier for me to remember them in reverse.

that would never be a legal grounds for an invasion anyway. what they have said is i think fraudulent allegations of genocide committed against russian citizens and it's worth noting that's what's being litigated at the international court of justice. you can abuse the law of genocide as a pretext for invasion. they've never done that, even if they tried that i don't think there's any legal merit. but you said exactly what i was saying. there's no reasonable doubt war crimes have been committed across the country whether it's murders of civilians, that's a very different question then in a criminal court of law beyond a reasonable doubt proving, and that's the phrase individual responsibility. you can say russia's responsibility at large for activities. some of which are crimes against amenity as well which require

widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population. the critical piece is to take the criminal step of individual responsibility and assess the particular criminal case on a particular set of charges against a particular political or civilian individual beyond a reasonable doubt. war crimes happen. and we get the charge in particular individuals they will just have a set of charges. until a prosecutor proves those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. that's why we call it individual spots ability. host: is the invasion of a sovereign country a war crime by itself? guest: no. at nuremberg the language was the necessary predicates for all the other posts that follow. we haven't really talked about the crime of aggression.

that's what nuremberg was really all about. crimes against peace, nazi aggression against neighbors. it was really not a war crimes case or genocide case, at the time. those came later. the international criminal court does have a parallel crime of aggression which, of the way the treaty is worded is fairly complex cannot prosecute russian officials. so the icc is not a viable forum unless you change the treaty for prosecuting officials. if we are going to prosecute aggression, we have to do essentially what we did in world war ii and set up a parallel process focused on aggression or as we said in world war ii, crimes against peace. all the evils of waging of incremental warfare. there's a lot of thoughts on how to do that, there's a fair

amount of rhetoric on what that would look like. host: guest: have any america -- host: have any americans ever been accused of or prosecuted for war crimes? guest: for war crimes, absolutely. i can give you the long list of folks. and there's plenty of other people who say this was a war crime or not wasn't prosecuted but you have to go back to what i said. the prosecutor has the available criminal evidence, puts on the case in a forum where you have personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. the american military takes a great deal of pride. this is the professional code of what it means to be a professional soldier by professional military practitioner. if you don't follow this body of law or you tolerate the subordination of this body of law, you are no different than a

brigand or a renegade warlord. this is what it means to be a professional in the modern age. lots of americans have been prosecuted and lots of americans that have been acquainted based on available evidence. we take this very seriously. >> speaking of the international criminal court, what was the last war crimes trial that actually happened? >> the most recent one is doubt -- that was concluding with the trial from timbuktu on the destruction of cultural property. it is an emblematic case where the civilian population and civilian property and civilian lives should be protected from the effects of conflict to the greatest extent -- extent possible. they were destroying cultural property and really the cultural heritage of mankind in tim buck

to but there's almost always a war crimes element to an international criminal court case but it will stand alongside a crimes against humanity charge or genocide charges. there's a lot of cases going on around the world right now. host: speaking of terrorists and terrorism, are war crimes only charged against war fighters like soldiers and government officials? can civilians be accused of war crimes who are not part of the military? >> sure. going back to the roman era, your lawful right to wage war, your ability to conduct hostilities comes from the state. if you're operating outside the official purview, then of course you can be charged with war crimes or, any other ordinary crime. so depending on who you are and

where you are, i could charge you with a war crime of murdering civilians unless you're directly participating in hostilities, or i could simply charge you with the domestic crime of murder. it depends on the evidence and who you are and where you are and what you are doing. it's one of the instant things to me is when ukrainians asked for volunteers from around the world there's a legal process to be followed that grants anybody who comes from around the world of any nationality, there is a specific process in the law on how you get the lawful ability to wage war. and from there the law of war gives you some appropriate bounds of discretion but also constrains that by saying these are the outer limits of what you can do. if you ignore these boundaries you can be prosecuted. host: back to our phone lines

and talk from texas on the democrat line. good morning. caller: i just have a comment. how many years will it take. boudin put a warning on our military men out there, why don't they put a bounty on his head. get rid of him. guest: that's an interesting question. we have done that in other settings. we call the rewards for justice program. it's tricky with the sitting head of a sovereign state, but as time moves on you may well see bounties or rewards and they are provisions in u.s. law that. just as there provisions in u.s. law to facilitate prosecutions of the international criminal court. we have a whole range of legal tools available to us and i

think over time what you will see is we use all the political tools. it does take time because these take place in an overarching political environment and so we complicated legal questions against the backdrop of complicated political question spring that's also why it's hard and fascinating. i don't see russian officials just quietly pretending these crimes didn't occur and the rest of the world just sort of saying no harm, no foul. they are finding mass graves just like in world war ii. the forensics piece, you have the intelligence piece documenting the flow of orders and when you get documentary evidence of specific russian officials ordering specific offenses, that's the granular thing. >> a perfect segue to a clip we have for -- talking about the

potential challenges of prosecuting war crimes against vladimir putin. [video clip] >> there is a chain of command and we are able to hold responsible under international law those directly responsible, those complicit or otherwise engaged in a criminal enterprise with the perpetrator. the doctrine of superior responsibility allows for commanders to be held responsible for acts committed by subordinates and they are aware of the acts and to punish them after. also criminal law tools can be used by any court in this particular case. unfortunately i will say the u.s. war crimes act may be of limited utility in this context.

it's limited to perpetrators were u.s. citizens or to victims who are u.s. citizens. so war crimes committed by russians against ukrainian citizens would fall outside the jurisdiction. there's a number of proposals floating around with the paired of accountability here. i imagine those proposals will be looked at carefully as to whether or not world -- there will be some discrete fixes. guest: she is exactly right. the one, she saying exactly what i said. you've the toolkit of superior responsibility, a command responsibility. she's right about the defect in the war crimes act. as a technical matter, of the law she mentioned was a body of law generated. so they would follow this into the same line of evidence.

the only thing she's referring to with the war crimes act as with other countries, that's federal criminal court. but as i said you have your never saw -- you have universal jurisdiction with the geneva convention. you've this variability in charging and language. at the end of the day it's the same body of law enforced against russian officials in a jurisdiction or we can get them in custody and put them on trial . a long road for russian officials. host: let's talk to helen who's calling from california, independent line. good morning. caller: i'm going to start off by stating the obvious. what war is kind and a gentleman he can show me that he's analyzed that is kind, then please present it, give me some criteria to judge how to

determine a war crime or not. war is not kind. someone loses because they are destroyed and the other one walks in and they conquer. here's another element drawn into the idea of war crimes. increased technology. wars are fought more by technology, air to surface missiles, biological warfare, chemical warfare. there is no individual actually they are doing atrocities as there was in world war ii. what i'm seeing more of is russian soldiers occupying an area but i'm seeing a lot of missiles, destruction done that way. so who is really culpable? host: a couple of interesting questions there. can you have a war without war crimes and what happens as we continue to use more technology in war where war fighters are

not on the actual scene. >> she used the word kind. you never heard me use that word. there's nothing kind or gentle about war in any way. that's why we have the body of war crimes law to prosecute on the outer boundaries that goes beyond that. so with technology i can give you the litany of rules. indiscriminate weapons. somebody ordered that weapon or the big bomb that went off in the town center of kharkiv. someone ordered that weapon to be fired. someone certified it would go. that's a war crime. there's a duty to warn the civilian population. there is an affirmative duty to protect the civilian population. sometimes we prosecute the trigger pull her, but in many other circumstances, the actual

culpable person is not on the ground. that's why this body of laws important. no war is kind but it acts as a humanizing influence on the way war is fought. that's absolutely undeniable going back to the history of warfare. the case in bosnia, they were shelling the old city and they got prosecuted for it indiscriminately in the way russians attacked indiscriminately civilian areas in ukraine. i think it's the idea, it that can be turned on its head, the idea some people of advocated his war is inherently messy and therefore there should be no rules, there can be no rules and everybody in the world rejects that proposition. there is law and it's up to us to enforce that body of law when we have the available evidence against the people on the basis

of individual responsibility. sometimes they are military, sometimes they are civilian. host: let's talk to mike on the independent line. caller: with respect to ukraine and russia, who is the foreign invader? host: who is at fault here, who is the invader in the russia ukraine conflict? guest: d aggression no question launched by russia. in ukrainian size launched in 2014 when they took crimea. they had no legal basis to simply take crimea or the other region where they have support insurgents with active-duty officers on the ground. there's no question this was started by russia and russian

officials for russian purposes. now we are seeing is the newest iteration of russian aggression. so the word invader in legal terms really is aggressor which is another way of saying unauthorized warfare. you can easily wage war for lawful reasons ones important based on self-defense or a litany of other legal criteria and the russians had no legal basis whatsoever to do the things they have done. host: we would like to thank michael newton, former senior advisor in the u.s. state department and current professor of law and political science at vanderbilt university. thank you so much for being on with us this morning. >> i hope host: host: you have a great day. host: we would like to thank all of our guests, viewers and callers for another great edition of washington journal. stay safe everyone. have a great sunday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] >> c-span's "washington journal" -- every day, we take your calls live on the air on the news of the day and discuss policy issues that impact you. monday morning, the congressional reporter from politico and white house reporter from bloomberg discuss the week ahead in washington. we will look at the latest elements in the russia-ukraine conflict with a former state department official. watch "washington journal" live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span or c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your texts and tweets. >> monday morning, the senate

judiciary committee will vote on whether to send supreme court nominee, judge ketanji brown jackson, to the full senate for a vote. if confirmed, she would be the first african-american woman to serve on the high court. watch live coverage beginning at 10:00 eastern on c-span. online at c-span.org, or watch on our free video app, c-span now. >> c-span as your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including sparklight. >> the greatest town on earth is the place you call home. at sparklight, it is our home, too. right now, we are all facing our greatest challenge. that is why sparklight is working round-the-clock to keep you connected. we are doing our part so it is a little easier to do yours. >> sparklight support c-span along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> lawmakers gathered on capitol

hill to pay tribute to alaska congressman jude. -- alaska congressman don young. he was first elected in 1973 and went on to become the longest-serving republican and u.s. house history. in recognition of his role as dean of the u.s. house, he had the honor of his body lying in state at the u.s. capitol.