television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up on washington journal, washington times cap reporter joseph clark discusses elon musk's release of the twitter files and the company's decision to suppress a story about hunter biden weeks before the 2020 election. later, author and university of baltimore law professor kimberly wehle joins us to talk about the supreme court hearing a case on state legislative power. potential january 6 criminal referrals, and legal troubles for president trump. you can join the conversation with your phone calls, text messages and tweets. washington journal starts now. ♪ ho: happening moments ago, brittney griner has landed on

u.s. soil after 10 months in russian custody. president biden announcing a deal with russia in exchange for her release, the u.s. released a known russian arms dealer from a u.s. prison. good morning. we want to get your reaction to this story. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you can also post them on facebook.com/c-span, or send a tweet with the handle @c-spanwj. we will get your reaction to brittney griner being released for a russian arms dealer but we

have other news this morning out of washington. politico reporting kyrsten sinema, the senator from arizona, has switched her party affiliation from democrat to independent. in a 45 minute interview with the publication, the first term senator told politico she will not caucus with republicans and suggested she intends to vote the same way she has for four years in the senate. "nothing will change about my values or my behavior." she's up for reelection in 2024. back to brittney griner and her release. the associated press photo of her disembarking from a plane , the new york times saying she was smiling when she got off the airplane and san antonio. she's expected to have a medical evaluation this morning.

this comes after the president announced at the white house her release. here is the president. [video] pres. biden: moments ago, i spoke with brittney griner. she is safe. she is on a plane. she is on her way home. after monta being unjustly detained in russia, held under intolerable circumstances, she will soon be back in the arms of her loved ones. she should have been there all along. this is a day we have worked towards for a long time. we never stopped pushing for her release. we took painstaking negotiations and i want to thank all the hard-working public servants across my administration who worked tirelessly to secure her release. i want to thank the uae for helping us facilitate britney's return. that is where she landed. these past few months have been held for britney and charlene. and her entire family and all

her teammates back home. people across the country have learned about britney's story, advocated for her release throughout this terrible ordeal. i know that support meant a lot to her family. i'm glad to be able to say she's in good spirits. she is relieved to finally be heading home. the fact remains she lost months of her life, experienced needless trauma. she deserved space, privacy, and time to recover and heal from her time being wrongly detained. host: president biden yesterday. here is the new york times. the photograph of what president biden was referring to there. brittney griner's wife in the oval office with the president, the vice president and the secretary of state. on the phone with brittney griner. we are getting your reaction to the news.

yesterday the russian state media released a video of her crossing paths with a russian arms dealer. the identification of the two visitors. this is edited video released by the russian state media. let's go to calls. tom and baltimore -- in baltimore. what you think? caller: i have all the compassion in the world for anyone that's been detained is very uncomfortable. in baltimore we had over 300 murders in the last seven or eight years. this young lady's predicament

really doesn't mean a whole lot of people who have suffered as victims of murder in baltimore city. we do care, because there is compassion and empathy. it is not a big deal for people who have lost people to gunshot wounds and killers. i would like to say all my best to her and her family. hopefully some of that compassion will be for the victims in the city. host: ottis, your reaction? caller: good morning. i'm happy with the outcome of the situation where they freed her. but in response to the other guy, we have hundreds of things going on in this world at one time that we can all celebrate. it doesn't have to be either/or.

brittney griner, she's at home with her family and i think the world should be satisfied with that and stop making a big deal out of whether they agree or disagree. just for the sake of someone saying that we left a marine behind, he should be home. however, mr. walton was a former marine. he got discharged. i'm not disparaging him. we need to put context when we want to start deciding who should be free and coming up with their own ideas. host: referring to paul whelan who remains in russian custody. from the wall street journal, mr. whelan from michigan has been held since late 2018.

he was convicted in 2020 on espionage charges. he has been sentenced to 16 years in prison. yesterday at the white house president biden spoke about bringing all americans detained overseas back home. [video] pres. biden: she wrote to me in july and did not as for special treatment. we have been working on her release but she requested please don't forget about me and the other american detainees. please do all you can to bring us home. we never forgot about britney. we have not forgotten about paul whelan. this was not a choice of which american to bring home. we brought home trevor reed when we had a chance earlier this year. sadly, for totally illegitimate reasons, russia has treated paul's case differently. while we have not succeeded in

paul's release, we are not giving up. we will never give up. we remain in close touch with his family. my thoughts and prayers are with them today. they have to have such mixed emotions today. we will keep negotiating in good faith for paul's release. i guarantee that. i say that to the family. i urge russia to do the same to ensure paul's health and humane treatment being maintained until we can bring him home. i don't want any americans wrongfully detained. my administration has right of dozens of americans wrongfully detained or held hostage abroad. many of whom have been held since before i took office. today we remember the other americans being held hostage and wrongfully detained in russia or anywhere else in the world. reuniting americans with their loved ones remains a priority for my administration and every

person in my ministry should involved in this. we will continue to work to bring home every american who endure such injustice. host: president biden at the white house. mitt romney of utah yesterday set at an event in d.c. by the washington post about this release of brittney griner. [video] >> i'm delighted she's being released. they held hair -- arrested her, put her in jail. it is outrageous. it says a lot about them. the trade they made it says a lot about both of us. we care about an individual, human being. it is symbolically good to great links to recover our citizens. at the same time, who do they want to get back? an arms dealer. it is symbolic of our two nations. i'm very disappointed that paul whelan was not part of this trade. i would think our focus ought to bringing people home based on who has been there the longest

as opposed to who perhaps is the most publicly known figure. i am sure the administration did their best to get paul out and hopefully we will see him soon. >> sure they have held out for something better? >> i've negotiated before. it's very difficult without having been at the table to know what was possible and what was not possible. i'm happy she's coming home and hoping we will be successful with paul as well. host: that was mitt romney with the washington post yesterday. let's get your reaction. scott is a republican from pennsylvania. what do you think? caller: i can't understand how the democrats want to take -- do away with the guns and have gun control in the united states but they let an arms dealer go. now they will probably kill hundreds and thousands of more ukrainians. host: bill in pennsylvania, democratic caller. good morning to you.

caller: good morning. thank you for your series on this. i personally think they made a wrong decision to let the nba star go. she gets all the press. you never hear about whelan. i think they should have worked harder to get him out, because the nba star was a thorn in p utin's side and that cap a lot of people -- how i want to say it -- up in arms about the whole thing. whelan does not get the press that biden is getting with the release of the nba star. i'm delighted she's out. i can't imagine the anguish the families a uergoing at this point in time. i think it was a poor decision on biden's part.

host: are you still there? caller: yes. host: i'm curious about your reaction to the wall street journal editorial board. they write brittney griner goes free. but paul whelan is left behind. "welcome home, miss griner. we hope you take of paul whelan in the same way so many others took up yours." what is your reaction to that? they are calling on her now that she is released, and she has the star power as a wba player -- wnba player to bring attention to paul whelan still in russia. what do you think? caller: i don't think it will happen. we have very short memories. all they are going to remember is that this star came home.

i'm delighted she did. but i think they put the emphasis on the wrong person. host: all right. dale in michigan, republican. caller: from wisconsin, not michigan. host: i'm sorry. you're right. caller: i got a couple of questions. how did she get illegal drugs in an airplane to go to russia? why didn't she get caught going -- host: you broke up. i think he said why did she do not get caught leaving here in the first place. from the phoenix mercury, a tweet yesterday. no more days. she's coming home. deborah in georgia, democratic caller. caller: i just wanted to say i

have listened to some republicans speak about this -- miss griner. trump made it cool to be cruel. thanks. host: dan from burton, michigan. "americans are so concerned about their citizens and foreign jails but continue to incarcerate the most people in the world." sandy in columbus, ohio. democratic caller. caller: i'm very happy she's home. i know from the press conference they had with biden her wife said they will be working to get that cinnamon home. i wish they could have gotten both home and the other 50 around the world home. i look back and i remember the previous potus. he never got nothing in return. i'm hoping whoever gets into

office will get all these people back home. i'm elated she was released and the other gentlemen was released not too long ago. host: let's listen to brittney griner's wife at the white house yesterday. [video] >> today my family is whole but they are so many other families who are not whole. bg is not here to say this but i will gladly speak on her behalf. bg and i will remain committed to the work of getting every american home, including paul, whose family is in our hearts today as we celebrate bg being home. we understand there are people out here and during what i endured the last nine months of missing tremendously their loved ones. thank you for your support. it's a happy day for me and my family. i will smile right now. thank you. host: from the white house yesterday morning. you can watch that entire event

on her website, c-span.org. steve in charleston, south carolina, reacting to the news. "certainly happy for griner, but this is surely a one-sided victory for the russians, which will encourage future detainments." peter in albany, new york. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. this whole situation reminds me of a line from katt williams. he was speaking about brittney griner and how she is a minority over and over. she's african-american, a lesbian. she is an olympian. she is seven feet tall. culturally speaking i think joe biden did the right thing and pushed to get r out. she was too young to spend 10

years -- i'm not sure about the cts of paul whelan and how the circumstances -- oioly we should get everyone out that is unjustly detained. if trump really had power he would have called putin right now and got someone released. he would not have done that even when he was in office unless it was politically advantageous for him. . that is all i have to say. host: kevin in ridgeway, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much for having me on. my opinion is that everyone should be treated the same, be treated equal. i feel like just because you are a superstar you should not be able to get by with anything and

everything just because you are a superstar. host: ok. susan in florida, democratic caller. what you say this morning? caller: i'm really annoyed at the republican response to this. for three years trump did nothing about getting mr. whalen out. he never even mention his name. yet he consorts with the taliban, releases 5000 taliban prisoners and got nothing in return. the hypocrisy is overwhelming. i don't know how people can tolerate listening to these people criticize biden for getting something done when the prior president did nothing. thank you. host: robert in little rock, arkansas, republican. good morning to you.

what is your reaction to this news? caller: she just confirms what i was about to say as far as mr. trump's efforts and his lack of trying to free mr. whalen. he never tried. he's in cahoots with the autocrats, which he has aspirations to be. he wants to be an autocrat himself and turn our society into a communistic culture. this is what mr. trump -- these are he's goals and what he wants to do. host: more reaction from republican lawmakers. here is senator john barrasso on fox yesterday. [video] >> the best ballplayer brittney griner, she's on her way home. at the same time there is a swap with a russian president, and arms dealer who is going back to

russia, we believe. do you think that is a fair trade? >> not at all, stuart. joe biden should have held for different results as a result of this. he is swapping the merchant of death, this arms dealer. this is a russian play right out of their playbook. use american prisoners and swap for something of incredible value for them. glad to see one is coming home but it's absolutely wrong to leave the marine there. host: from foxbusiness yesterday. senator john barrasso. now it is your turn to tell us what you think of president biden's decision to engage in this prisoner swap. brittney griner for the russian arms dealer. usa today says victor --viktor bout is a former soviet military officer and translator serving a 25-your present for conspiring to kill americans, acquiring

antiaircraft missiles and providing material support to a terrorist organization. bout claimed he was innocent and the, dismissed his prosecution as baseless and vice. bout have been held at the u.s. been a tense year -- penitentiary in illiis. he was scheduled to release in 2029. peggy in washington state, independent. good morning to you. go ahead with your thoughts. caller: good morning. i just want to say i very proud of president biden. it was my daughter, i would let my president to do everything to get her out. mr. bout had already done most of his sentence. i think it was a very fair exchange to get her out of there. i think we need to do more to

try to inform americans before they go to countries that are not friendly to the united states other possible consequences of them going over there, look at happened to them. if they do so choose to go, i think they need to sign something saying we will not come after you if you go over there. that is what i have to say about that. host: he was sentenced to 25 years in 2012. this is the wall street journal. merchant of debt met with open arms -- death met with open arms. he was on track for release in five years and secured release as part of a prisoner trade from figures, including the u.s. district judge who sentenced him. let's hear from najib in atlanta, georgia.

are you there? i have to push the button. apologies. caller: good morning. host: what is your reaction to this prisoner swap? caller: it was not a good swap at all. you are giving up -- diplomatically it is a horrible swap. politically i understand why biden did it to secure the blackout and the women vote in the gay vote. -- and the gay vote. but it was horrible. host: in what way? caller: it makes america look terribly weak. what do we get? nothing in return. paul whelan's ex military. you give up in arms dealer to go back on the battlefield and who will show up in western ukraine. now we have some of the back playing basketball. it is horrible. host: the white house press

secretary was peppered with questions about the president -- the prisoner swap of the president's decision. [video] >> we are happy to hear that she's coming home. i wonder if the administration is concerned about whether there is precedent set about with the government is willing to trade in exchange to release americans abroad. >> this was not a decision the president made lightly. he believes it was the right thing to do to secure brittany's release. this was a commitment he had. a promise he made. what we are left with is either we bring brittany home or no one at all. one of my colleagues said today that he believed there was a moral obligation here to get her home. this does not mean the president will stop with brittany.

he will continue to make sure we secure paul whelan's return as well, as well as other americans who are wrongfully detained abroad. >> was a risk assessment to determine how dangerous bout maybe now that he is released into the world? how should people be thinking about the fact that this man is free? >> this was not the decision the president made lightly. i want to be clear on that. we will always stay vigilant about our national security. it is something the president will always do and we will act to protect it. that was true yesterday and today, and it will be true after mr. bout's release. that's the commitment the president has to the american people. he believed this was the right thing to do bringing brittany

home. host: from the white house briefing yesterday. back to our calls. grace in new york, democratic caller. what do you think about this exchange? grace? caller: thank you for having me on. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: hello? thank you for having me on. can you hear me ? host: i'm going to put you on hold. you have to meet your television and just talk to you telephone. marvin in iowa, republican. good morning to you. let's try that again. marvin? caller: good morning to you. good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. caller: i think people are beating a dead horse talking about trump.

i think they ought to concentrate on the here and now and see what biden really does. is he pro-american? is he pro-biden? i think he was bought and paid for. i think nothing will happen with him other than what he can influence by the outside sources. host: are you talking about the prisoner exchange? caller: yeah. i think all or nothing -- i think you negotiated wrong. i think veterans should be first. celebrities second. they paid for our freedom and they should be first. host: derek from leesburg, virginia, democratic caller. caller: how are you doing? the more i hear about this i think both sides realized that

the punishment for bringing drugs into russia was way over the top. i feel like a lot of the emphasis is on getting brittany back, getting this marine back and not so much on what we had to give up to get them. there's an arms dealer on the loose. i don't know what the repercussions of that are. that concerns me more than a lot of the other stuff that's out there. there's a reason this person was in prison in the united states. now he is out there. i feel like the shift has been on what we got back rather than what we gave up. host: patty from atlantic city, new jersey. independent. caller: good morning.

i want to say that i'm absolutely thrilled brittany is home. the negotiation was really difficult and actually brilliant. when you are dealing with hoag in a dangerous place you have to kind of take what you get. you can never say i will not bring somebody home. it's like getting a touchdown or field goal. you have to put the points on e ard and work to get more i have to say i think it is shameful the republicans are taking the stance that they are. it looks racist and petty and they should not be doing that. host: more of your calls. you can text us, tweet, post on facebook. in other news yesterday, the

house passed a same-sex marriage bill, respect for marriage act. the house passed it 258-169. senators passed it last month 61-36. speaker pelosi, in one of her last act as speaker held a bill enrollment ceremony on the hill yesterday. take a look. [video] >> trying to make it as big as possible. [laughter] [applause] [cheers] host: from c-span's instagram account. you can follow us on instagram

@cspan. 30 never republicans also voted yes for that respect for marriage act. here is a list of them this morning. the respect for marriage act guarantees federal recognition of any marriage between two people if it is valid in the state when they were married. it requires states to accept the legitimacy of a valid marriage performed elsewhere that does not require any state to issue a marriage license contrary to its own laws. let's go to johnny in florida, democratic caller. we are talking about this prisoner exchange that took place between the u.s. and russia yesterday. brittney griner for viktor bout. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i think the president did a courageous job bringing her home. as you know, it was all or nothing. the republicans who are playing

the race card will find out in 2024 that it does not work. they are going to lose. i don't care if they get desantis or trump, they are going to lose. he's doing a great job. the republicans need to start trying to band together to bring the country together rather than tearing us apart with their racist acts of separating the people here in this country. i feel that in the future the young man who was state -- is still in russia, the president will get him home. host: a republican congressman tweeting out yesterday, "swabbing a celebrity best of a player for the merchant of death while excluding a marine and a history teacher is patently

offensive and exposes the administration's deeply rooted disdain for every day americans." anna in gaithersburg, maryland. caller: i'm an independent. i'm not part of the tribalism of the parties. i believe the brainwashing tactics of the media are very effective based on the comments i hear from their callers. all biden did is in bed russia with this -- aid and abet russia. not that i'm a huge trump fan but trump negotiated 50 prisoner releases without doing any exchanges, especially not releasing the merchant of death. i wonder how brittney griner is going to feel when americans and of debt at the hands of this merchant of death. common american lives to be have to lose to these terrorists?

all biden did was help russia in releasing this merchant of death back to them. why he did not release the military or negotiate for military, a marine and the history teacher's release is beyond me. bottom line, our government is corrupt. they are corrupt and they are compromised. they are not going to investigate. it is up to us to call them out and in this corruption. biden is one of the most corrupt presidents we've ever had. he's in bed with china. he's taken money from china and ukraine. host: before you go, the new york poster and a piece by john bolton, former president trump's national security advisor saying that president trump turned down viktor bout for paul whelan's prisoner swap.

caller: that was a good decision. we do not negotiate with terrorists. we do not release people who are committed to murdering american citizens for another prisoner. that should not be the exchange. we are setting a bad precedent here. we need to negotiate based on other factors. not releasing people who want to murder americans. host: christopher from charlotte, north carolina. republican. caller: good morning. i think it highlights that everything is not perfect overseas and america has a lot of good things going for it. host: stephen in ulster park, new york. democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? good, good.

i think the republican response to an american being freed from a russian prison is astounding, cruel, and exudes racism and their anti-gay feelings. it seems they would rather have paul whelan brought home because he's a white male marine. brittney griner is just as much an american. both of them deserve release. if you really wanted paul whelan ho that that, blaine trump who did nothing, nothing to save this man. never even mentioned his name. wow. that the american government would gain the release of brittney griner makes biden corrupt? it shows how worked the minds of these racist maga republicans are. thank you. host: glen, greenbrier, arkansas, independent. caller: well, all week long i've

seen ban guns in america. they can describe what an assault weapon is but they can't tell you what a woman is. they turn to terrorist loose while they're trying to ban guns in america. that is kind of two-faced. he is going to destroy people's lives. that is what i think. host: talking about viktor bout? caller: yes. he's going to be even madder at america. he will do terrorist acts in the united states. biden just gave him that but h's trying to take the guns away from all americans so they n otect the people from the terrorists he sent out to attack the world. host: in other news this morning, keep dialing in with your thoughts on your reaction to this prisoner swap. in other news, the washington

times reporting the president bo osts ailing union pension funds with taxpayer money. he swooped in with a $36 billion bailout for the teamsters ailing pension fund. the money for the essential state pension fund is the largest amount of federal dollars ever used to bailout a pension plan. a comes out of the $86 billion in taxpayer money allocated to faltering pension plans. mr. biden said the payout will ensure 350,000 union workers and retirees can collect benefits through at least 2051. without the bailout the fund would have had to cut benefits by as much as 60%, according to the white house. there is this legislative action on capitol hill yesterday. wall street journal reporting lawmakers cleared the defense policy measure. you can find the debate on the

floor if you go to c-span.org. in a 350-80 vote, they approved the national defense authorization act to increase america's national secure to budget for fiscal year 2023 to $858 billion. that's a roughly 10% increase from last year's $778 billion authorization bill. it includes $10 billion over five years to finance sales of weaponry and military equipment in taiwan. other provisions designate $800 million for the security assistance and ukraine. --in ukraine. a 4.6 percent pay raise for military service numbers and defense department civilians. the bill discourages the government agencies from purchasing items that contain semiconductors made by several chinese companies. again, to listen to the debate on this legislation go to c-span.org.

you can find our coverage of the house and the senate on our website, on-demand any time. priscilla in newburgh, new york. democratic caller. back to our conversation on this prisoner swap. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i am calling -- i want to address the lady in maryland. she was talking about brainwashing the american people by the media. i'm in my 40's. i stumbled upon c-span because you had fox and cnn. they all had their own angles. i came on here to hear the perspective of the american people. i did not know the first time listening these were older people. i am very pessimistic about the future when we hear older people spewing hate and nonsense

on the show. everyone was willing to let whelan come out with greiner. the fact he did not come out with griner is how dear you let this death of merchant out for her? obviously it's about race said the woman being gay. every american should be free, no matter who you are. thank you for your time. host: sam from crystal springs, mississippi. republican. caller: good morning, greta. how are you? so, this morin we have in the white house -- moron we have in the white house negotiates the deal friday megan hitting women

who basically -- host: we are going to move on. let's hear from capitol hill. democratic congressman colin allred on the respect of marriage act. here's a portion of what he had to say. [video] >> we received amazing news this morning. brittney griner is coming home. this is a huge relief for her, her wife, her family, and after months of uncertainty, russia's sham justice system. i want to thank the president, secretary blinken at the state department who made this happen. the stark differences of the freedoms between our two nations, the u.s. congress will vote in a bipartisan way to pass the respect for marriage act, enshrining marriage equality into federal law and protecting marriages just like britney's. i'm proud to vote to say that love

is love, no matter who you are, where you live and a matter what any future extreme, out of touch supreme court may say. i urge my colleagues to join in voting yes and standing up for freedom. thank you and i yelled back. host: texas democrat colin allred on the floor. reaction from republican congressman michael mccaul of texa he wrote this. "im relieved miss griner will be returned home. trading viktor bout, a dangerous arms dealer who conspired to kill americans will only embolden vladimir putin to ntue his evil pra of taking innocent mickens hostage for use -- americans hostage for as political ponds. my heart breaks for paul whelan and others in russia. they must not be forgotten." michael mccaul is a wrecking number right now in the 117th congress on the house foreign affairs committee.

he's in line to be chairman republicans take the majority in a few weeks during the new 118th congress. simoen in spring valley, california. we will hear from you next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i used to be a republican. i became independent on january 6 because i didn't like what happened. that is the most support and thing. she is an american. i don't care what people say. viktor bout had already served half of his prison time. it's more important for an american to come echo. -- come back home. i don't like her lifestyle. i don't like it at all.

guess what? she's an american. she's brought home. bravo to the president. thank you. host: kathleen in chicago, democratic caller. caller: how are you doing? i don't understand these republicans calling in, beating up on joe biden forgetting brittney griner home. this man, paul whelan, and i hope he comes home, he's been over there in russia for almost five years. well, trump was president for four years. trump was putin's boyfriend. how come trump didn't tell putin to let him come home and he would not have to worry about this prisoner that they say is so bent towards america. all trump had to do, because he went with putin on every step.

he went against this country for putin. why didn't he tell putin to let him go? let this man go. this man don't deserve to be locked up. we are supposed to be best buds. it is laughable. it is heartbreaking how these people can be so hypocritical. like the lady said, if they thought whelan could come home, and the fantasy could come home, all of a sudden biden was a moron. where was trump? trump could have gotten paul whelan home four years ago. host: heard that point. brittney griner has landed on u.s. soil. she disembarked from a plane onto -- in the city of san antonio, texas, according to the

white house she will undergo medical evaluation. as you heard from the president, she will be spending time with her family. george in maryland, a republican. caller: greta, my hope and prayer is that when britney is reunited with her family that she displays a great amount of humility. i think we are all grateful she is home. i'm a former marine and i pray mr. whalen will soon be reunited with his family. i can only assume britney will be on the today show, good morning america. she will be on all the networks. my hope and prayer is that she displays a great amount of humility and gratitude. this going back and forth with -- badmouthing president biden

and badmouthing president trump, that should all be put in the background now. i think where we go from here is take everything you can out of your gut and support whoever is in charge of trying to get these hostages back to the united states. host: you are looking at a picture from usa today of paul whelan standing inside a defendant's cage as he waits to hear his verdict in moscow on june 15, 2020. sham trial is what he wrote on a piece of paper. no human rights. paul's life matters. linda in missouri, democratic caller. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to say i'm happy

that britney is back. she really should have known better. for them to say she was held like she did not do anything wrong. she did do something wrong but she did not deserve nine year sentence. i hope she has learned her lesson and we need to stop going to those countries and trying to negotiate to get them back home. for all the hate we are hearing, if it had been their child, they would have wanted their child back, too. the president did what he had to do. he said it was that or nothing so you have to have something. i'm sorry for his family. i heard his family and they do understand and keep fighting to get him back. thank you. host: this is a cnbc story from september. wnba players skipping russia, choosing other places to play. for the past decade russia has been the preferred off-season

destination for wnba players to compete because of the high salaries that can exceed $1 million, and the resources and amenities offered them. let's go to bob in texas, a republican. caller: good morning. i wanted to acknowledge the last two colors both are republican and democrat were very balanced in their presentation. they were spot on with what they feel in their opinions. half of america is one way and pretty much half of america is another. greta, i'm sorry but i think he participated in one of the biggest problems we have in america. you selectively censored a gentleman a few calls back. granted, he called the president a bad name and he had his own opinion but you summarily censored him. a problem coming out in the

media is the twitter files and the censoring of opinions. it's very important that america faces this and understands this is a major part of our divisions in america. host: two things. one coming up in less than 10 minutes we will talk about the twitter files with joseph clark from the washington times. second, the moderator's job is to decide when a caller has or could cross the line. in that case i made the judgment to move on. keith in ohio -- heath, ohio,. kathy. caller: hi. i think that biden -- thank biden and i thank god that brittney griner is home finally. i feel sorry for the other prisoners that are all over the world. i just want to say there are

plenty of merchants of death running around in this world. one more being released, probably because his family is very rich, is no big deal. i'm sorry but that is just the way it is. the way america is turning out with all the haters and violent people in this country, maybe we could trade one of them over there for a prisoner. host: douglas and pineville, louisiana. independent. caller: yes, good morning. i tried away both sides of the issue. -- to weigh both sides of the issue. i believe brittney griner should come home. donald trump released 5000 of those people over there, prisoners in afghanistan.

i don't understand what is the problem with releasing this russian terrorist. i just don't see yet. she should be home. i'm in a marine -- an ex-marine. paul whelan received a dishonorable discharge. he was kicked out of the marine corps. a lot of republicans are kind of playing the race card here. for whatever reason they continue to do this. she's an american, he's an american. you wait it out and god bless america. host: that was douglas. david is a republican in south carolina. good morning to you. your turn. caller: good morning to you too, greta. i do appreciate you ended the call of the caller that used a

negative term. it used to be a normal term, moron, in medical literature. this is not my point. i have heard dozens of people say much worse things about trump. being called a traitor and -- host: we do ask the conversation be civil. avoid name-calling. that choleric was heading in another direction. -- caller was heading in another direction and that is why i decided to move on. caller: can i still make my point? host: yes. caller: can you imagine if a story came out that said the prior president colluded with rusted to say this person has an illegal substance. if you capture her, that will

allow us to release this dealer. then spend $30 million and two and half years investigating whether a previous admin tradition colluded with russia -- administration colluded with russia to release this arms dealer in healthy iranians and others. that would be a big lie, like the big lie against trump with the fake accusation of colluding with russia. no different. host: the washington post. who is paul whelan? they report a citizen of four countries, whelen served in iraq is an active-duty reservist. he was discharged for bad conduct in 2008 after being convicted of charges related to larceny. he then spent over a decade working as a corporate security

expert at the time of his arrest. he was corporate security director for an automotive parts supplier. why is he in russia in june of 2020? he was sentenced to 16 years in prison for espionage and a trial he has argued was politically motivated to heighten tensions between the u.s. and russia. his attorney said his client unwittingly received a flash drive with state secrets while visiting russia for a wedding in 2018. the foreign minister says he was caught red-handed during a spy mission. whelan was arrested in a moscow hotel and said he thought the flash drive he received from an acquaintance contained holiday photos. his family and the government have repeatedly stated the charges are baseless and he was framed. roxanne and district heights, maryland. democratic caller. good morning to you. caller: good morning.

just to take a little bit of a different look at this brittney griner story and whelan. i believe brittney griner does belong home and thanks to god for that. whelan needs to be home with his family as well. we are now seeing how i feel putin has made america turn on itself. putin's plan is working like a chessboard. we americans are turning on each other over the life of another american. let's just stop and pause for a second and just digest that. she's an american citizen. she has a family, a mother, nieces, nephews, and a wife. whelan has the same family, but

putin's plan is working. we don't like somebody because there are public and because they are independent, because they are black, white, gay. his plan is working. we are eating ourselves from the inside out. he is now watching c-span, msnbc, cbs, all these other stations drinking shots of vodka and toasting. we need to stop as americans and just pause and reflect on ourselves in the mere, look at history because he is taking it right out of everybody's playbook. host: roxanne in maryland. caller: good morning. host: good morning, guess i am. caller: i'm here.

hello? here's what i want to put on. this is a typical, the trade-off it's a typical example. we have two people over there in russia, paul wehlan and brittney griner. we trade and notorious arms dealer for brittney griner, we have paul wehlan over there and it's evident of how we kiss up to certain groups. of course, we make a deal to trade. but that's the way things go in this country. it's a perfect example of why we are in the problems we are in. host: the hill newspaper, americans detained in russia being held and this is from the hill.

u.s. officials work behind the scenes to get grain are released at least three americans are still detained. includingwehlan who was in talks to be released. one american citizen in detention per year. a history teacher from pittsburgh he texted -- he talks abroad. he had a small amount of medical marijuana for chronic back pain. a woman from california to teach at a russian private school and was involved in a domestic abuse situation with her boyfriend and grabbed a knife to defend herself. she was arrested by russian authorities and detained. her boyfriend retracted the charges. when we come back joseph clark

talks about elon musk's release of the twitter files. how twitter handled the hunter biden story and later, kimberly whaley discusses criminal referrals of the january 6 committee. could transform federal elections. we will be right back. ♪ >> fridays at 8:00 p.m. eastern c-span brings you afterwards from the tv. nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalists, legislators anmore. tonit aol co-founder shares his book the rise of the west. he talks about creating

opportunities and different jobs around the country. he is by nicholas thompson. watch afterwards tonight c-span. >> sunday on q&a author of stonebrook. ask about walmart's efforts to anorm itself about wages. >> my peek into walmart really shook me this is a company that has really made a good-faith effort in its own context and it's done a lot. but, again, at the end of the day the average walmart worker is still making less than $29,000 a year. that is not a living wage. corporate america on it's on will never move far enough or fast enough to reverse this wage

crisis that we have in this country. so many working people getting up, working hard, and not being able to make in speed. >> sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118th congress. it's your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member important information for congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. scan the code at the right to preorder your copy today. $29.95 plus shipping and handling. at c-span shop.org. >> 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. if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joseph clark is with us this morning. he writes for the washington times, the hill. he is here to talk about elon musk and the release of the twitter files. why is it called the twitter files? guest: it's a full release he claims, or he is proposing documents answering questions that people have had about twitter over the years.

there's been a lot of questions specifically about the decision to's press stories about hunter biden's laptop. that was his first set of documents released. last night he released more files related to twitters blacklisting, if you will, and it sits in with his claims or his goal of creating a more robust environment at twitter. that's part of the reason he took over the platform, that's kind of his first foray into doing that. host: what do these internal deliberations reveal about that? guest: there was no question that they did suppress the

stories of the laptop before the election. the new york post story was published mid october 2020 going into the election. but these documents that were released to, and extensive twitter thread does of conversations going on around the decision. so that points to why did the executives make that decision to do so? there were also interesting pieces of that decision that came in. so we saw debates from a democratic congressman from california he weighed in on the decision as it was going on. it also reveals there was a

backroom conversation conduit. people in politics contacted executives to suppress it certain information they didn't want to take off on the platform. it was really, it was already known that this was occurring or that this had occurred on twitter. but this kind of discusses going into that. host: a tweet at elon musk yesterday it's the goal of transparency to build trust when i just release everything without filter? and let people judge for themselves including all the sections around current and future actions. make everything public now. guest: it's an argument being made not only by jack dorsey but some on the conservative side

are also making that argument. imagine that this would be, how would you do that? would you put this online somewhere and then over to the public to the go through -- to go through and ask questions and find answers. i get woody's doing. he's doing this through independent journalists, two very respected careers. they are going through pulling the information and telling a story through twitter. host: on twitter threats that are 35 tweets. guest: with screenshots of the documents that back up the statements they are making any there were words.

so it is insight for the public to see this. elon musk said on a twitter q&a over the weekend that he was considering just a full release of the information of the documents but if you can imagine you know, what would that look like? does he just pulled on computers for years from before he took over the popcorn? these are questions you could also release so much information that people wouldn't be able to decipher anything from it. host: number 24, here is a quote. referring to the hunter biden story is how one former employee characterized the decision with the excuse and within a few hours everyone realized that wasn't going to hold but no one had the guts to reverse it. remind our viewers about this

new york post story right before the 2020 election. what was the part of it -- at the heart of it? guest: at the heart of the new york post story, if we go back the story was derived from a laptop that hunter biden left at a delaware computer repair shop. it was turned over to rudy giuliani and steve bannon i believe was involved. so the key question that the insert in, or the question they got in that article is with president biden himself had any knowledge or any involvement in hunter biden's business. there were emails to suggest that he did know, he was introduced to these people and he had said on the campaign trail that he had nothing to do with this business dealings. they freelanced the decision.

i think that's the more interesting piece of this. they were referring to twitter, internal policy about how to deal with packing materials. there's a difference between the first amendment and twitter policy, right? obviously you would hope twitter policy guided by the first amendment that they are a private company. what you saw in this conversation was it seemed like there was this intent to suppress information and how did that intent fit into their policy? that's what they kind of freelanced. they found out that, hey, this probably isn't hacked material. this could actually be a legitimate laptop that was obtained legitimately. so the reasoning of this violates our hacked policy, the hacked materials policy kind of

just sits there -- fits their true desire. host: what did do once they decided on twitter to try to block the story? guest: most notably, they blocked or suspended kayleigh mcenany's account. she was the white house press secretary at the time. they would suppress the story, cancel tweets. i believe the new york post account itself at one point cut up in this. it was an effort to completely silence the story and other conversations related to the story. so it was a matter of keep this off the platform. we don't want it to trend ahead of the election. host: what was the company hearing from the biden campaign,

what kind of requested the biden campaign have and other democrats as well? >> that's another interesting point. what we see from the biden campaign specifically in the first thread is an email from october 24. so that is 10 days after the article was published in the new york post the still leading up to the election. while this was going on, while this decision making and the effort to suppress the story was going on there was an email between twitter employees signifying, or it stated that the biden administration had reached out to block a list of accounts that they said were problematic for some reason or another. that same emailed thread shows -- host: they were trying to have the company take on new photos of hunter biden? guest: it's not clear what

exactly they were requesting to be taken down from the tweet and from the screenshot. but it was a list of accounts they wanted to suspend twitter did so and responded that it was taking care of. one thing i should point out, while he says the biden administration did this they also did the same thing for other well-connected people in the republican party. he said that the term campaign for the trump insiders reached out to suppress accounts. same thing. and those were in some cases twitter employees would follow through. he said those were skewed in

favor of them accredits our more leaning liberal -- liberal leaning people. host: lawmakers on both sides of the aisle reaching out, twitter complied. they hear from government agencies? guest: that's another interesting point to this. i think more will come out on this. in the twitter threat he specifically said that from the documents he viewed there was no interference or direct injection of federal officials into the conversation. that being said, i just want to point out a couple things. we know from filing, and fec filing that a twitter executive in charge of platform safety

made to the fcc -- fec right after the election in 2020. he said that since 20 he was involved along with other social media executives from other pop arms and a weekly regular meetings with representatives, officials from the od and i. the fbi, the department of homeland security to discuss safety issues, misinformation specifically leading up to the election. specifically, the fec filing he mentioned they suggested there would be a specific hack targeting hunter biden leading up to the election. so there's no, in the first up of documents there is no

back-and-forth between the fbi and twitter executives. but we do know that took place and mark zuckerberg also said on joe rogan that he did make the decision to not put the story because there could be this russian or foreign actors trying to influence the election. host: jack dorsey testified before congress and admitted it was a mistake to censor the story. the impact reaction from some conservatives thing this is a nothing burger to quote one of them about the so-called twitter files. why? guest: part of it because this was all known that they did this. i think if you look at it as did something happen that we didn't know about any of these files?

well, no, we knew about that. when you look at the back-and-forth of why the -- why did this happen i think that's where the story is. it opens at these larger questions about what do we do with these platforms? we should realize that, hey, this is a new phenomenon. these are larger questions about how do we operate in this new paradigm and what are the implications for the first amendment? i think that's what, specifically, some comments are interesting. you see it play out in real time and attacking these problems in a first amendment it's very real and nuanced. host: that's an interesting question for our viewers. what should we do with these

platforms? i'm going to throw that to our viewers and if they have some thoughts on what they want, behind us of these platforms that will be interesting. peter lesko to you in new york. caller: thank you, greta. i think everything you said is right on the money. the most important part of this story because they shadow band people. even like mr. berenson who was trying to put information on the form regarding covid and whatever so he was surprised. it wasn't just conservatives being surprised. mr. baker who was the head attorney at the fbi who was fired for leaking information went to work at twitter. so he was the top lawyer there.

also what was really significant, and i'm trying to be fair. they are talking about the trump justice department and the biden justice department. and the fbi that should to suppress this hunter biden story. they said they put out a statement that the laptop was accurate. that it wasn't misinformation. they didn't push the issue like they should have. so the issue really here is what was the significance of the fbi going to facebook, going to twitter and telling them, because they were telling them that the hunter biden laptop was russian misinformation at -- into disregarded. when they had that laptop on december 9 of 2019, they had it for over a year. so they knew that it was

legitimate. what they were trying to do was put the finger on the scale for joe biden. because president trump during the debate with president biden said about the laptop and president -- at the time vice president biden denied it was true. but it was true. host: thank you i'm going to jump in because we have other people waiting. guest: you brought up a couple very important points and i just want to expand on those. you mentioned the think of conservative voices. that was a move by former new york times opinion columnist or opinion editor and now independent journalist. there were two that had access to the materials. huge twitter files. pointed to exactly what you were saying. there were clear examples of twitter employees silencing

conservative, sometimes contrary invoices peter mentioned dr. j of stanford who spoke out about covid lockdowns so there were tools to d throttle those accounts through blacklisting tools that was very much revealed last night through screenshots. those were long suspected that that was occurring. it shows this actually was occurring. here are screenshots and the tools used to do so. this was about james baker who was a former department of justice official who later went to work at twitter and was only fired just this week actually. he was still at twitter after elon musk took over and he was

fired in fact for his, he was screaming they conduct, he was screaming before the releases. -- screening. it brings of these questions about what would jim baker's at ovation -- motivation to do he filter out pieces of information that would discredit his character or cast him in a batlike? -- bad light. it brings questions about that are officials influence within the social media platforms. they were saying fbi has an office in twitter that these are former officials that take

pretty high roles in these platforms. host: gary, new jersey, democratic color. caller: mr. clark, how you are trying to spin this. you are going to realize and there are investigations coming from the house of representatives that are going to bring this to light also. but this has gone back and the fbi, doj, you also had people, 51 people. about help those people. they signed to say this was misinformation. this goes back, and i'm a democrat. watching this go on and to see how you are trying to spend this and you are trying >> host: tell us how he is spending it so he can respond. caller: some of the democrats,

they tried you know squash the democrats. come on. the fbi had this laptop for a year. they warned facebook not to print or say anything on black twitter, not twitter but facebook. this has been going on for a while. this is a disgrace to this country. if you want to talk about democracy, and you are part of it, sir. host: let's get a response. guest: i think both sides of the aisle kind of disgraced for different reasons. republicans viewed i'm not sure exactly where you fall. i hope -- i don't intend to spend this either way but on the others out of the aisle they

viewed as a disgrace that twitter that this was published in the new york post. there was a memo signed by more than 50 former intelligence officials discrediting this laptop which now we know has been widely authenticated and is accepted as the truth. these are actual emails, actual documents. and the answer key questions that were notable during the time of the election. all of these are very important questions and i think it doesn't cite a lot of emotion around it. but i think in terms of the former official, i think that's a giant red flag for conservatives and maybe even independents as well.

what is the influence? what motivated them to draft this memo based on, you know, based on information we know is authenticated now. i think it does raise a lot of questions. host: a republican in a hundred 18 congress saying on twitter democrats continue to pressure private companies to censor and manipulate the truth online. former twitter employees, would be held accountable and i fully expect them to appear in the hundred 18 congress. then you have the incoming leader majority leader of the republican party kevin mccarthy. we are learning in real-time how twitter colluded about hunter biden's laptop. i 32 days, the majority will get

answers on the accountability they deserve. what do they plan to do? guest: definitely interesting current event going on while this is all being released. james comer and jim jordan who is the chair, incoming chair of the house judiciary committee have both pledge investigations into president biden's potential knowledge or involvement. a lot of them raise ethical and legal questions and look on face value quite questionable. mr., is going to be looking is there any document the evidence

to point to president biden's involvement in his sons overseas business dealings. jim jordan on the judiciary committee is looking for that. the fbi, the department of justice, they are involved in this, any potential involvement they would have in the politicized nation of the department of justice. i should point out kevin mccarthy has also said that congress needs to look more into these platforms but we should keep in mind that congress, you know, you can bring twitter employees in to testify, right? they can tell you this information. they can tell you from their point of view why they made decisions they made.

but congress has quite limited ability to impact these platforms themselves. they are private companies. the conversation comes down in congress a lot over section 230. so both sides of the aisle say, you know, they are discussing section 230 in mid 1990. to govern internet communications, communication decency. but they both target section 230 as not working in the current environment. they have separate reasons for why they dislike section 230. that is a string they compose when it comes to these platforms. but twitter employees can provide important insight, i think, into the larger question about politicizing the doj.

host: terry, iowa, independent. caller: i would like to take my time for this call, please don't interrupt. i have two things. mr. carr, -- mr. carr, use or on the fence. you are wanting to report it. if you have any journalistic values left, you need to break loose from the masses and go on and do your thing and deep dive. this is the biggest story in american history. number two, credit, i would like to give you the opportunity to explain why c-span and the "washington journal" and all your other people like you, every time i called and the last 2.5 years wanted to squash me every time i talked about this hunter biden thing. you would put up a little article. no, you're complicit. your part of this problem.

you, the media, are just like twitter. you are all complicit in this whole thing in 2020. mr. clark, you can make a big name for you and become the most famous reporter in history if you want to get off the fence into the deep dive and leave all the partisan politics behind. host: we will have a response. guest: i appreciate the call. you know, i understand where you are coming from. you want to hear more about this from outlets and i think that's what's coming out. reporters are constrained in some ways in terms of access. especially when it comes to private companies through government agencies. there is the freedom of information act that we can leverage to gain further information. that is dependent upon forces inside as it turns out elon musk

is a massive force who owns twitter now and he is releasing these files. so i don't believe, i do believe there are quite a few journalists that are asking questions, asking the right questions and reporting what they know. i wouldn't say i'm on the fence but i think it's important to look at this from a nuanced view from both sides. i think it's important, classic journalism to have a full headed approach. host: barbara in connecticut wants to know why didn't rupert murdoch publish it in the wall street journal? why use it tabloid of the new york post? wouldn't that have made the difference? guest: that's a good question. i don't know that. first of all, i don't know that it would have made a difference. i don't know what was behind the decision behind that.

i listen, we know the laptop was obtained a rudy giuliani and at one point it was also turned over to the fbi they could have approached multiple journalists, we don't know. but the new york post which is a role respected -- well respected newspaper, very old newspaper for widely read. so the information wasn't out there. i don't think it was any less credible because it was in the new york post. i don't think it would have necessarily been more credible if it was in the wall street journal. i could be wrong. host: from washington dc, democratic color. caller: if you can answer this question was it turned over to

the fbi? guest: when they received the laptop, the laptop repair man in delaware turned it over to the fbi. when he turned it over the political operatives he indicated that he had turned it over and he had paperwork to back it up which the post actually published. it was actually turned over to the fbi first then to the -- host: the files in the laptop returned over? guest: the laptop and the hard drive. host: and how did trump operatives get access to this? guest: the laptop repair man did not receive response from the fbi perhaps motivating for someone to turn it over to the

political operatives. that is how they received it. they receive the hard drive, copy of the hard drive and it had all of the data from the laptop. that was what was turned over. so is far is when they receive that, i have to go back. i don't know exactly when steve bannon and rudy giuliani actually received from the laptop repair man. so i think what you're getting at is that there was this political, it was handed over by people who were definitely were persons in trump's camp. it was definitely a political surprise. what you would expect obviously this happens a lot in washington going into the election. in the new york post article

they laid out quite clearly. this is who we perceive the laptop from. they through it out there that it was turned over to the fbi. they clarified that, hey, this is who we got it from. journalists know when you are working with the source there is always a motivation for turning over information. then you look at the information, respective of that. i think the you new york post did that. host: from dayton ohio, republican. caller: good morning from dayton, ohio. i had a couple of comments here on what i've been observing. a great man left italy to come to america to get away from benito mill is any -- benito mussolini. this great man, who was my father, i was 10 years old. he said joey, the media is going to destroy this country.

that is what he told me in 1970. he got away from benito mussolini. this country becomes a fascist country. especially when james baker, the first drops of the twitter information on friday. he's going to be scrubbing documents from january 6 committee, not my words. and it is golden. it is amazing how cbs, msnbc are not covering this at all. because their whole agenda was pushing the russia, prussia, russia lies to try to destroy trump. sir, have a good day. guest: i appreciate the insight there. i take a more optimistic view of the media and where we are going. i understand the mistrust in the

media at this point and i think i understand the discussed with what we're seeing in terms of platforms. from all political leanings. i would say and again this goes back to our comments. i think what we are experiencing now we are grappling with the technology into new paradigm of journalism of reporting of the media. the first amendment, i think there are lawmakers individual citizens that really hold tightly to the first amendment and really value that. i think we are just saying that play out here. i appreciate what you are saying.

caller: i am reading all this. didn't i read that the rnc took this to the federal election commission and didn't they both -- vote 6-0? and also he talked about whatever his name is the congressman and didn't he say to go ahead and open all this up? thank you. host: are you talking about his interaction with twitter? caller: all these things that were being discussed. didn't he say to open it up because eventually it would be " i thought i read that. guest: that is correct. i will hit on the second question first.

what we saw from the first release, it's a screenshot of a couple emails between congressman, and twitter executives as it was playing out real time. it was on october 14 when he sent these emails. his first emailed was just a quick your decision to suppress the story, to block this is causing what he said a firestorm on capitol hill. there is massive blowback on capitol hill over this decision. there is some back and forth. they indicate, hey, we believe this violates our hack policy. our hack to materials policy. he responds with more of a first amendment question. noted on your policy my concern is actually with what it means for the first amendment. and he said, he said in his

email i am pro biden. i support president biden for president. but your actions in suppressing the story is making it a bigger story. and then he also made an argument that we just need to, there's no room for silencing the spirit of the first amendment. it would say release the story. he points out that there's no need to release through pictures of the president's son. the information from the laptop, he advocated for releasing. host: this is post 32. what mr. clark was just talking about, you can see the emails

between the congressman and twitter and it is in the email the congressman rates --wrights that it is becoming a bigger deal than it would've been. why did he think it would be serious to curtail section 230? guest: so the conversation was already going on on capitol hill. aloft midnight juice targeting what was then a budding internet and how to deal with the ability of just a regular citizen to reach a massive audience through the internet. it's dealing with decency. so what they found was these rules as they are written aren't

really effective when we are talking about these platforms. specifically, section two and i'm no lawyer, but it deals with the problems ability to kind of release the information without being held liable for inducing communications or indecent posts or whatever actually make it through the policing for the filter. so what democrats say, right and other argument is these platforms are becoming a haven for hate speech or for inducing communication that we want to put tighter controls around. republicans have argued this is news in the making. the republicans argue more to

the effective section 230 gives deplatform a massive amount of power because they are not actually held liable for making decisions to police posts. they are not viewed as a publisher, per se. so the argument on both sides of the aisle is pointing out and what he's saying is this is going to ignite that debate further and it could result in massive blowback for the platforms. host: capitol hill reporter, there is a piece this morning you can follow the reporting on twitter at clark joe m or at washington times, washington times.com as well. host: we are going to take a break. when we come -- legal analyst kimberly wehle discusses

potential criminal referrals. and a key piece of legislation that could transform federal elections. we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing tir latest nonfiction books. at 9:15 p.m. eastern martin duke archers his book takingern describing the capture of the city in 1945 towards t e of world war ii. entrepreneur and aol co-founder steve king talks about his efforts to create opportunities, innovation and generate jobs around the country. see interviews by atlantic

magazine ceo nicholas thompson. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime apple tv.org. -- on book tv.org. ♪ >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2 explores the people and the offense that tell the american story. on lectures in history richard loftin explores world war i by examining the correspondence of a farmer from german-american family and at 9:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency, historian talks about the collection of papers she and her late husband had recently donated to the university of texas at austin. and now the collection goes to understand the 1950's.

explore the american story, watch american history tv. and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> reporter your copy of the congressional directory for the 118 congress. it is your access to the federal government bio and content information for every house and senate member. important information for congressional committees. the presidential cabinet and state governors. scan the order to the right -- co-2he right to process your order. every purchase helps support our nonprofit organization. shop online at c-span.org. >> listening to programs just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to "washington journal" daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern text washington today for a fast-paced report stories of the day. listen to see spent any time. just tell your smart speakers play c-span radio. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" host: host: continues. law professor, good morning. thank you for being here let's talk about the supreme court case the oral arguments. what is this case about? guest: whether state legislators , that is the equivalent of members of congress for states can basically have the final say in federal elections. it is an interpretation of the constitution which sets the time, place, and manner of federal addiction -- elections.

it's a really radical theory because essentially what's being argued here is that state court judges under state constitution cannot hold state legislators accountable if they violate state constitutions. it's a really radical legal theory. it needed all the way to the supreme court. it doesn't look to court is going to take the radical view of the constitution. host: what's at the heart of this? guest: a gerrymandered map in north carolina. gerrymandering is the process for determining how to carve up the state for purposes of federal elections to the united states congress. the north carolina legislature had their jenny mayor durkan map josh -- gerrymandered map. the states court struck it down as unlawful under north carolina

law. now the legislature is coming to the supreme court wanting the supreme court to say essentially whatever the legislature does, stance. no matter how illegal is under state law. so that is really the state but it goes beyond just gerrymandering. the most extreme version were to hold in theory when it comes to the next presidential election state legislatures could do whatever they want in picking collectors for the presidency. so it has implications not just for north carolina not just for gerrymandering but for federal elections that could go all the way to the white house. host: u.s. constitution ections because reads the time places and manner for holding elections shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof but the congress at any time, by law, make such regulations.

so how do you think the justices read this? is this a really important part of the constitution in this case? guest: i think it surprises people there is no affirmative right to vote in the u.s. constitution. the language that you just read states decide their own practices. this has nothing to do with state elections. it decides how the electoral process works. like, we know we can register to vote at the dmv. that is a congressional statute. so here with the supreme court is trying to decide is whether when it comes to federal elections what the legislature says in the bottom line. the word legislature, believe it or not, isn't just mean. elected officials back at the time the constitution was

ratified. it meant all kinds of politicians and i think one of the wrinkles that arose for the challenger here, the people that what the legislatures to say we have the final say as they admitted a governor could be to something the legislature did. the constitution creates all the parties of government so it's really bizarre to say once it creates the legislature, it can be evolved into the constitution. i don't think, as i said based on the oral arguments we can talk about which justices this way. host: before we talk about which justices are lining up which way is heavy listen to part of the oral argument. this is amy coney barrett and taking issue with t portion of his argument.

take a look at this. [video clip] >> a try -- a way of try to do with our president or the constitution itself? it's explaining why the procedural limitations are ok but some are not. >> we certainly have tried to craft an argument that is consistent with all of the courts precedents. but we think there are good reasons why there would be a limitation. even if not a procedural limitation. we can see this in james madison. 367 were james madison he singles out one state, south carolina for arogram for their partisan gerrymander. it was found right in the state constitution. that's the rule that my friends on the other side are advocating for. they are saying you can have a partisan gerrymanderg. host: proceral substance so

noto much the matter of the test but pulling things fromhe history and say like the madison comments supports the procedural substance in mind. guest: we grounded in precedents, your honor, and tax and structure and history. -- text, and structure and history. guest: justice barrett was a civil procedures professor. the distinction is trying to say when it comes to procedural the supreme court supplies the constitution when it comes to substance, stick with the legislature. she said it's very complicated in other areas of the law and i'm praise it -- paraphrasing the idea you are blowing up a bunch of work and we will be in court over and over to try to define with that distinction is. i think she is one of the justices that might not be willing to just go down this path which is just a lot of new

ambiguity for the constitution host: some of the other justices that might follow her or she is following them. guest: will, thomas and justice alito and justice gorsuch have already shown support for that radical idea that it stops at the legislators court. state constitutions cannot overwrite a legislature. like kavanaugh, the chief justice roberts as well as they look like they are in the middle of squarely -- want to stick with tradition which has been going on for 22 to 30 years. host: critics even claim or of e harbor could set state legislature or it could let them reverse the results of the presidential popular vote. but the u.s. constitution says congress may determine at the

time of choosing the electors. the federal law phase they can't take presidential electors after the fact. any intent would be of those in federal court despite what you might hear. guest: that's a really complicated question but it really boils onto something called the electoral count. it is a really old statute that the congress is thinking about amending. if you combine it with the old statutes, i disagree if you think there is already even without the states coming out in the radical way there is already sort of room between the november election and december 1 for state legislatures to me and say we don't care with the boaters said we are going to pick with the electors -- which candidates and those the ones that the congress would have to gavel and in january after some little problem. we will take more on this.

maybe the expectation is early summer where we hear all sorts of things. host: some others. we have a case on affirmative action, whether it's going to hold that is unconstitutional to consider race in an application that is a big deal. we have a case on whether you have constitutional first amendment right to refuse to serve lgbtq clients. notwithstanding a state law protecting against discrimination on the basis of gay, lazy and status but also it could bleed into things like race that there would be a constitutional right to discriminate on the basis of race. those are just two examples. there are others having to do with presidential power. that is when states come in and sue a president to say what you are doing under federal law is

affecting our budget. so if the court in two cases were to say yeah, they can do that we would see a lot of second-guessing and a lot of spiraling against >> whichever political party controls host: the white house. host:caller: (202) 748-8002 host: host:-it is again a very rare area caller: (202) 748-8001 caller: caller: when it comes to artificial -- to our viewers, yn call in with any questions or comments that you heard so far this morning in our conversation with kimberly wehle, abc news legal contributor, also a law professor, visiting law professor at american university here to talk about the legal ises. another one is the january 6 committee, considering criminal referrals to the justice department. what is the significance of this? guest: nothing when it comes to criminal activity. congress cannot bring criminal charges against anybody but i do

think it is somewhat symbolic and educational. i've said before, a big role of the january 6 committee is educate the public through the hearings. we will have a big report. the idea of potentially even theoretically indicting a former president is so substantial and significant for our history and president that i think sort of laying out the evidence that congress developed against donald trump and then cnn reports probably four of its closest advisers might be in that group where they would refer -- make criminal references. host: the former president as well? guest: the former president donald trump as well as rudy giuliani and others. the sort of people reading and talking about that would almost warm people up to the idea this might be coming down the pipe through special counsel jack smith but they cannot actually

-- doj could ignore what congress does and not take action whatsoever. host: so does this go to merrick garland or does this go to the special counsel? guest: i think based on the referral by merrick garland to the special counsel, this would be within the power of the special -- authority in the special counsel, that as well as the mar-a-lago documents taken out of the white house. host: why is that? guest: because the way the regulation works, just so people are clear, the special counsel takes jack smith out of the direct line of command to merrick garland. merrick garland can step in but has to expire to congress why he might interfere with what mr. smith does but referral gives the topic he is responsible for. one is january but only the top brass on january 6, the people at the capitol, the 900 plus people now in the criminal justice system, that stays with

local u.s. attorney's office in washington and the second big topic that has been carved out from maine justice to jack smith is the mar-a-lago documents investigation. host: this week jack smith asked officials in three states with communications with former president trump from the legal standpoint, what is -- what does that mean for his investigation? guest: it means one of the things he is looking at is the attempt to have the states create fake slates of electors to that states congress and just so we are clear, it is illegal for you or me to vote fraudulently, certainly illegal to come up with fake slates of electors to do the united states congress into gaveling in someone who is not elected by the people pursuant to the law. if it happens, it is against the law and i think that is what these subpoenas go towards. host: from page of the washington post, doj asks judge

to hold the trump team in contempt. the prosecutors urged the judge to hold donald trump's office in contempt of court for failing to comply with them subpoena in return -- to adjourn -- return all classified documents in his possession. why is this significant? >> documents keep trickling in from donald trump and doj ask for a couple years now and there have been assurances over and over that you have everything and i think last week there were more that came out. what the doj wants is an affirmative statement from what we call a records custodian from the trump team that says you have everything. the trump team says we do not want to say that, we will say we have done a diligent search but we do not want to say you have everything because you never know and the doj is saying we are tired of this, you are not complying with subpoenas, you are not -- you are getting cute

about this and we are tired of it, we want to know if we have everything. because you're not complying, we want the judge to hold you in contempt which could be a fine everyday until they certify they turned everything over that was illegally taken from the white house. host: anthony in new york, democratic caller. caller: thank you for the opportunity. my question is for your guest but more portly for the academics at c-span. i would help in future programs you can address my two concerns. there are two acts by president obama when he came into office. the first act he did was to dismiss -- to dismantle a standing lawsuit whereby he had dismissed a standing lawsuit for americans being unconstitutionally spied against , and he basically wiped the

lawsuit off of the dock. there was no redress for the class-action lawsuit whereby americans were spied upon. and he said it was states secret trumped the constitution. forgive the pun. the constitution comes first. you cannot say the government's right to secrecy and privacy is greater than the constitution. the final thing and other point is, and barack obama's last act as president was on november 5 after the 2015 election he ejected the russian dignitaries from two of the seas, one in long island and glen cove and another one in the midwest but that was the beginning of the russia russia hoax which was orchestrated from the oval office. i would hope c-span in future programming will address those two topics because i believe

that is where tear and he has begun in the united states of america. thank you for your time. host: do you have a response? guest: the first point i do not know about the case but barack obama, no president has the authority to dismiss a case pending in court, in federal court. what sounds like as they made an argument there should be dismissal and a gruff -- a judge agreed. there is no individual right that supersedes national security when it comes to these classified -- and i don't know this is classified in the lawsuit -- but in theory, as americans we can get a freedom of information act request. there is an exception as you can get classified documents. as for russia, i'm not a national security expert but following the molar investigation, -- molar bang -- mueller investigation, the russians did decide to interfere in the 2016 elections and i think that is the kind of thing, politically, we can all get behind, that we do not want

foreigners having an impact in our election. i do not think it is so much about donald trump, more about using leaders and not having undue influence -- george bush called the russians one of the axes of people and i think consistently vladimir putin has not been a friend to the united states. host: mike the republican. hi, mike. caller: good morning. i understand you are the liaison for abc, kimberly. do you feel like you have been put out there as damage control for abc? host: she can talk about her role at abc. guest: i'm here as a professor. i cover legal commentary on a

number of networks right now with abc and really the reason i got into this five years ago is about civic and public education because my view is that there is a very elite group of people that have access to legal education and the law school classroom. it helps people understand how to become -- empower themselves to make their own decisions about this news we get all day long and we do not know how to sort through it. my job here the way i see it is to help people make these decisions for themselves with basic tools of civics and i have written a few books on this and that is why i'm here, has nothing to do with whatever network i'm affiliated with host: host:. brian in michigan, independent. caller: hi, thanks. considering the pfizer court. we know for sure carter pages civil rights were abused and

that was the way the fbi got into the trump world, so when are we going to discuss the constitutionality of this special pfizer court since the patriot act was an act that i have no use for that patriot act. i want to remind you william barr at the beginning said there was spying going on and that was a big deal. as far as russia goes, russia has been surrounded since world war ii, so we have not even lived up to the originality of nato, so there are so many bad things going on. i wonder when we are going to get to the truth but let center on carter page. host: brian, we heard that point and i will have kimber --kimberly wehle jump in. guest: brian raises a good point that there is this court,

and the spying ratcheted up -- and i put spying on air quotes because there are nuances as to what is legal and what is not under the bush administration. at that point, americans were really worried about international terrorism and in those moments i think the sort of government gets more power, whether we like it or not and in hindsight he might be right. in this moment it is still functioning, under multiple presidents, and this is a balancing. it came up in the earlier call as well, how much are we willing to give up some of our freedoms to ensure greater national security and safety because the government needs information? there is no clear line to be drawn there. that is why we have a three branch system of government, why we cannot have a president with unlimited power, and that is what i think the trump administration did differently than prior administrations, take this view of the president has a king and the president is not aching. host: houston, texas, democrat,

welcome. caller: good morning, everyone. kimberly, thank you for being on the show. my question concerns the articles of the confederation and the primary reason i want to know how the constitution connects to it, if elections are judged by the states and make sense of this. please explain that to me where the secretary of state in this other stuff, tell me about how the articles of confederation connect to the constitution and why we are giving so much power to states. the wonderful day. guest: so the articles of confederation preceded the constitution. at the constitutional convention, the idea was, let's fix the articles of confederation and they got together and said we do not like it, we will scrap those and

start over and in that instance created more powerful presidencies, representatives, gather -- government rather than direct democracy whether there is a concern of populace whether people friend ideas taking over but i think what the caller is asking is how does the bureaucracy of elections work? he is right that the legislature sets laws and then there is all kinds of people, thousands of people beneath that or in relationship to that that administers elections and makes decisions including secretaries of state. every state is different. what more versus harper in the extreme version would do is cut those people out and say, for example, if we have another pandemic, we saw the last time, people work hard to make sure voters could vote in a pandemic. tweak some of the things within the various administrative

bureaucracy to make sure the voters could vote. moore versus harper says he would have to have the legislature meet and make those rules themselves. just to be clear, legislatures are not always represented of the people and that is the concern around gerrymandering in federal elections, that at the federal level the way the maps are carved up that they are so distorted and tortured that even if you have any overwhelming support for a candidate, the way the maps are carved up, the voters cannot actually pick the candidate of choice. so that is why having a state constitution and state judges come in. two second gets this is good for every voter, good for americans, and as i said earlier in listening to an oral argument, my guess is the supreme court might tweak the law but they will not go to that extreme and give a blank check to legislators. host: nikki is in rockaway park new york. hi, nikki. caller: good morning.

i have a question that you may be able to answer. what do you expect of citizens united versus fec? i think it has allowed so many individuals, super pac and dark money, to basically diss inform the voting populace. the input of foreign interference has been enabled by that decision. i'll believe it was a five to four decision. can you expand on that? what was your view? guest: thanks for that question because i think you are absolutely correct that that had a major change, major shift in how our elections are run. election laws legitimately just do not want officials to be bribed. that is if i give you enough money you will vote the way i want you to vote when i want you

to. citizens united was basically held that when it comes to a big statutory package that put more constraints in place to make sure -- there is may be problems with it -- but make sure elected officials are not unduly influenced by money, the court said corporations can by constraining their ability to spend their money on the airwaves on behalf of the candidate or behalf of an issue that that violated their first amendment right. the court essentially said you cannot restrict the ability of corporations and others to spend money on ads relating to politics. you and i and nikki, many of us do not have millions of dollars to flood the airwaves with a certain message and our ability

to influence campaigns is capped at 2007 hundred dollars. you can donate to a particular candidate but so long as there is no coordination between the ad campaign and the actual candidates or the campaign, the court said that is a first amendment right. what we are seeing is people with money, billionaires and corporations who have money, being able to spend a ton of money on ads because of the first amendment right where as regular people who do not have that kind of financial ability to flood airwaves have a vote and have constraints on the amount of money they can contribute specifically to a campaign. as do corporations, corporations cannot give it all, they do it in a different way and i think the argument is that campaigns know when they see an ad they do not need to have a direct ordination, they kind of know who is paying for it and they are not unaware of that once they get an office, that is the argument. host: we will go to sam, a republican in georgia.

hi, sam. caller: how do you do today? host: doing well. question or comment here for kimberly wehle. caller: two questions. think you for taking my call. first, i'll have one within the gerrymandering topic, i would request if your guest is not mine she go on record and stating whether not she thinks one party engages in gerrymandering over the other as far as both parties will accuse the other. i think any sensible mind might see both parties do it as much as the other but she mike on record saying dems do it then -- dems doing more than republicans or other way round. i am beginning to start to wonder if six years of relentless pursuit of donald trump and while i'm no great fan of the man six for lightless years of the best and brightest minds of the prosecutorial apparatus just a swing yielded only a minor tax fine. at some point doesn't not

undermine confidence or the legitimacy of the prosecutorial wing of the justice department or justice department in general. you keep saying there has got to be something going on with the sky but cannot prove anything. it goes on and on and there has been a lot of taxpayer money spent so i share the concern of others about that. my question about the apparent legitimacy of this just is not stop at some point and say what we do not like him but we cannot pin him with anything so what are they, a rounding error in the new york times? thank you for your time. host: in the first issue, 100% agree -- guest: in the first issue, 100% agree both parties to participate in gerrymandering. if they can lock in power as they are in charge of carving up the districts, that is human nature to want to lock in power. the last time i want to look at this was russo versus, cause, a

supreme court case that closed the federal courthouse doors to political gerrymandering. i believe the statistics where there was more on the republican side then democratic side. i do not think that really matters meaningfully for the loss. on the second question, her starkly for sure there can be overreaching by parser cuter's and prosecutors need to be kept in check. the mar-a-lago, for one example, that is reason, happened -- the fbi was executed the search in august. that is extremely serious stuff, national security stuff. january 6 is very serious stuff. this is not a delay, those are not dragged out, delayed investigations. i think they are going at a pretty fast pace. we can sit here and take a whole hour the various investigations that have impacted former president donald trump but as far as those two, by no means is it time to say enough is enough.

i think they are very serious and i am interested in seeing the process play out fully. host: let's hear from pamela in dixon, tennessee, democratic caller. caller: good morning. greta, i would like to say you do an excellent job. c-span does a good job of listening to both sides. sometimes you guys have to listen to so much vitriol. i would like to complement you and say you are always ladylike and do a wonderful job. ms. wehle, thank you for being here. i'm one that is anxious and had to go on vacation during the four-year regime of the revia's president and a lot of people want to see him being held accountable for these cases like january 6 to attempts by him. we want to see people held accountable for that, even though it has taken two years for it to be investigated. and i felt angry for a long time

and now that it seems things are closing in on him, conversely i found myself feeling sorry for him, trying to be a sympathetic and into -- apathetic loving person left over from my happy days. i wonder -- because i feel like -- i hope i can say this has my opinion strickler as a nonprofessional medical person, that he is mentally ill and that his narcissism has reached the level of a disorder, rather than a condition and i wondered if he could with all these cases coming up, do you see a gri defense? is applicable? i don't know if that -- i don't know if that is applicable for certain types of crime. if you went to a medical hospital instead of jail, with that preclude him from holding the presidency again? i hope. thank you for your time and i appreciate it and c-span is wonderful and retta, so are you and other -- all of the other hosts. guest: on the second question,

that is could being confined to a hospital theoretically could be being in jail, bring -- being prosecuted. any of that precludes someone for running from president. the answer is no. to run for president you have to get on the ballot through the state level under state law but under the constitution there are no bans on that. there is the 14th amendment that if you participated in an insurrection you can be stopped from running for office and there has been litigation in that regard but it is not -- there is no clear mechanism to enforce that. the first question i think got to this mental health defense or insanity defense, people might remember john hinckley who shot president reagan and ended up in single live -- saint elizabeth mental institution instead of a prison and after united states

constitution dashing isaacs congress amended the constitution to make it harder to bring an insanity defense. i was at work for the federal judge who had the trial the first time that defense was litigated and that involved someone by the name of francisco martin durand who tried to shoot who he thought was bill clinton on the white house grounds and he was convicted. he did not sort of meat that high burden of proof. the short answer is at the federal level, it is very hard to raise and successfully achieve an insanity defense to not be held accountable in the criminal justice system. host: we hear from eric next, buffalo new york, democratic caller, eric? caller: how are you doing? thank you for taking my call. good morning. guest: i am from buffalo. say hi to my buffalo friends. caller: i will. thank you.

civics, you are abc news for civics education for the people. part of the word civics is civility i believe, correct? correct if i am wrong but how do you bring the civics into a conversation without the divisive notice? citizens united -- whatever down the line, just recent political exchange -- version or exchange. brittney griner, we should be happy and american citizen came home and work on the other ones coming home eventually but it is just fox news. you know what i'm saying? you want to bring civility back into the conversation. thank you. guest: as i mentioned, i wrote three books, one is how to read the constitution and why in the basics on how to think about the constitution but my most recent book is how to think about a

lawyer and why, to understand what you're talking about, to break on hard decisions into a five-step process so people can communicate. there's a couple takeaways from that. one is we all have a value system. when we choose our religious leaders or doctors are best friends, we have a common sense of values, integrity, honesty, hard work, loyalty, forgiveness. i do not know why we have to leave those at the door when it comes to politics. if we can figure out how to sort of get together on our core beliefs system, regardless of red versus blue, i have found in my conversations with people you can get -- you can start from a point of connection and then it is really hard to get into the vitriol on both sides because at the end of the day, we want to take care of families and live a

good life and i do not think that is a red versus blue value. host: we want to go to virginia, glenn is an independent. caller: thanks for the call. it seems trump as much blackmail the republican party at this point. i'm not sure what the solution is going to be. i think earlier the question i had was answered, isn't there any felony or misdemeanor or anything that would disallow a person from becoming president? guest: the answer is no. in theory, a person could be president from a maximum security prison in theory. there is no law that would bar that. this is something the voters have to account for if you are a republican and you just want to

move on or you are a democrat and feel like there needs to be accountability through the judicial system. either way, in a good way i think the -- for the most part in this moment, our system puts this power in the hands of the people and i think the midterms demonstrated that across-the-board that is where republicans and democrats want the power to stay. they wanted to stay in people and not in politicians and i think that is a good thing. host: bob in pennsylvania, hi, bob. caller: good morning. i was wondering during the trump presidency, he said that you can prosecute or -- a sitting president. i'm wondering what happens if

trump was elected in 2024 and has a number of lawsuits against him, do they just stop or are they deferred or do they continue? guest: i wrote a big large article on this in university law journals. there is no law that bars prosecuting a sitting president. there is no stature, it is not in the constitution, it is an internal doj policy and the policy is basically on the lines of a president cannot do his or her job if they are worrying about criminal prosecution. any attorney general probably could change the policy at any moment. i think if he were -- of donald trump were to win the presidency a second time and there were ongoing investigations, and the policy was in place, the investigations would we stayed finishing his term. if they are bright now, one

thing significant is it would toll the statute of limitations for under federal law you have to bring an action in five years. so if you had gotten a second term for example and -- instead of joe biden, he would've run out the clock on anything within five years because he would've been in the white house for eight years. that would have been a way i think to immunize himself from liability even though there is no absolute immunity from criminal liability per se. host: thank you for the conversation. we will take a break and we come back we switch our attention to the news we learned this morning that arizona senator kyrsten sinema decided to leave the democratic party. she is now good to be registered as an independent. we want to get your action to that. or are the lines on your screen, arizona residents who voted for her, we want to hear from you, 202, 748, 8003.

--(202) 748-8003. and the rest of you. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: a couple weeks ago the conservative heritage foundation published its index of u.s. military strength. the study concluded the current u.s. military is at significant risk of not being able to meet the demand of a single major regional conflict. we discuss the indexes findings with the editor, dakota wood. we wanted another point of view on the current u.s. military posture. we asked a longtime observer and critic of the u.s. military procurement process, winslow wheeler, to talk with us. he spent 40 plus years working on national security defense

budgets and military reform for both political parties, the government accountability office, and center for defense information. announcer: winslow wheeler on this app is -- episode of book notes plus, available on the span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ announcer: middle and high school students, it is time to get out your phones and start recording for your chance to win $100,000 in cash prizes for the grand prize of $500,000 entering c-span studentcam video documentary contest. for this year's competition, we asked students to pickers -- picture yourself as a member of congress and tell us what your top priority would be ny. create a five minute to six minute video showing the importance of your issue from opposing is a forcing ash aborting point of view. be bold with you documentary and don't be afraid to take risks. it is time to get started and

the deadline for entries is january 20, 2023. for competition rules and for tips on how started, studentcam.org. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back, your reaction to the news this morning, that arizona senator kyrsten sinema will no longer b a registered democrat. affiliation to independent. she says in and -- in an interview she will continue to caucus with the democrats. republicans, 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. indets, (202) 748-8002. arizona residents can call us (202) 748-8003. all of you can text us at that same number, (202) 748-8003. just include your first name,

city, and stay. you can also join us on facebook.com/c-span for this conversation or send a tweet with the handle @cspanwj. the arizona senator on twitter releasing this video about her decision. >> we make decisions about what is best for ourselves, our family, and our community. we'll spend a lot of time thinking about is this a republican idea or a democratic idea, is this a liberal or is this conservative? that is not how arizonans think. what we think about is what is right for my family? what is right for my community? what is right for my future? there is nothing better than waking up in arizona, nothing. whether you are waking up in phoenix or press kit, you wake up in the morning and you think to yourself, i live in a place where i can be whoever i want to be. what i love about the survey as

i get to hear from arizonans day in and day out about what is working in washington or more frequently what is not working in washington. i really am grateful that folks trusted me to take back those concerns they have. i promised i would be an independent voice for our stay, promised i would always do what is right for the people of arizona and that is what i've done. registering as an independent and showing up to work with the title of independent is a reflection of who i have always been, a reflection of who arizona is, a reflection of the folks i talked to the grocery store, hear from at the park. it is who we are as a people, we do not line up to do what we are told, we do what is right for our state and country. i will be the same person i've always been, that is who i am. i will show to work, do my best for arizona, i will continue to

deliver results for everyday people. nothing will change for me. i don't think anything will change prayer zona and i think arizonans across the state will say yeah, that is the kiersten we elected, that is who we sent to d.c. and she is doing exactly what we asked her to do and there is nothing arizonans deserve more than a senator who gets that done. ♪ host: a video posted by the senator about her decision to switch from democrat to independent. the rollout of the news has been with politico, in any interview, cnn, she is putting out this video on twitter and writing in today's arizona central newspaper the following, it is no wonder a growing number of americans are registering as independent. in arizona, the number often outpaces those registered by their national parties. politicians are more focused on denying the opposition party a

victory than on improving americans lives to people who lose our everyday americans. that is why i've joined the growing number of arizonans who reject party politics by delaying my independence from the broken party partisan system in washington. i registered as an arizona independent. lisa who covers capitol hill for pbs news tweeting out big news as we have seen. she is no longer a democrat but independent. i asked her team if she would caucus with dams. she does not attend their weekly meetings now. this is a quote from our office, she intends to maintain her committee assignments through the democratic majority. then you have this tweet from kyrsten sinema as we showed you, you can go to her twitter handle to find the video. bridget everett who writes for politico, senator sinema is switching her party affiliation

from dem to independent. she says in any interview i do not anticipate anything would change about the senate structure. she had she is not talking about whether she is running for reelection in 2024. then you have kevin robillard for the huffington post, the idea progressives chased cinema out of the party as silly. progressives in arizona lined up to bakker in 2018 she spent the next six years ignoring them entirely is what he reports. one more before we get your reaction, nate silver writes this with 538. cinemas was not very popular with anyone. i'm not sure whether today's move increases or decreases her chances of winning another term. i suspect decreases, but they were low to begin with and remain low. him citing a pole you can see there next to the tweet. we want to hear from arizonans this morning, especially if you

voted for her, your reaction to this news. let's go to our first color in richmond, illinois, a democratic color. good morning. caller: hello? host: your reaction -- yes, we are listening to you. you have to new york television please. caller: all right, i figured she was going to do that when i seen her in kentucky with mcconnell getting gifted bottles of whiskey. [laughter] host: ok. caller: i hope they do find someone to primary her. host: she won't have a primary now, she is an independent. do you think she should keep her democratic -- her committee assignments in the democrat majority? caller: no. host: next caller, a republican,

jim. share your thoughts with us. caller: i think kyrsten sinema made a wise decision. as we have this president burden , just acting as a king, doing these executive orders every day , over 100 the first day in office, just has been a terrible two years. for her to make this wise decision to reject the national democratic-socialist workers party and move toward an independent affiliation, i think that is fantastic. polls do not mean a lot as you know. i think she is very popular with millions of americans and probably in her home state as well. host: we are waiting to hear from those voters. james in mississippi, independent. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: go ahead, james. caller: yes, i just want to say, miss cinema is not a hello?

host: we are listening, james. you have got to meet your television. caller: ok, it is muted. i would say that cinema has always been a republican in hearts. now she not only turned from being a republican, she has turned into being herself. she is for herself because if she wanted to, she could have helped the republican, particularly help the democratic party, and she could have been more open to the republican but she is more concerned about herself and politics. she is not a cheney, she is not a reagan, she is not truly but

for herself. that is the problem with her. i matter what party she run to, i think your time is up because she blamed everything -- they bloom everything on president biden but they talk about the economy. when he made the plan to bring this country back, the policies, they are still talking about the prices but they denied him the chance to put forth an effort to help the american people and the economy with bills and groceries and things of that and now, guess what? we are almost headed toward a recession along with the groceries are high and now she is running away from what she did and she's gotta protect yourself. host: from politico's reporting in her interview, they say provided cinema sticks to the vow to continue to caucus with democrats, democrats will still have a workable senate majority in the next congress.

though it will not exactly be the neat and tidy 51 seats they assumed. they are expected to have the votes to control senate committees and cinemas move means senator joe manchin, the democrat from west virginia, the pivotal swing vote in the 50-50 chamber the past few years will hold onto some but not all of his outside influence in the democratic caucus. cinema would not address whether she will run for reelection in 2024 in this interview and chuck schumer -- and inform chuck schumer of her decision on thursday. she said her closely held decision to leave the party reflects she is never fitting into a box of any political party, a description sea set also applies to her independence day and millions of unaffiliated voters across the country. robin in arizona, democratic caller, robin, did you vote for

senator sinema? caller: yes, ma'am, i did. host: your reaction? caller: i'm not surprised. i am almost 65 years old. my roommate is the same age and he has lived here for 35 to 40 years. i'm from texas and we are both -- i'm educated and he has grown up in the educated world, the whole bit, and we watched other hearings and everything and we are so disappointed in cinema. host: why? caller: the gentleman that called in on the presse line was correct. in arizona, the brexit -- the progressives believed in cinema when she ran, believed they would present the young people's views and such. he is correct, she has completely ignored them and ignore the people of arizona in the fact she would not communicate with us in terms of what she was doing.

she may be independent and may be the lone wolf but in order to get anything done politically you have to work with both sides and she has just remained stubborn in that view. she forgets the people that took her to the depths. there's an old saying in texas, don't forget who brought to you and that is what she has forgotten. host: all right, robin. we are talking about 46-year-old senator kyrsten sinema, her decision to no longer register as a democrat. she said this morning she is registered as an independent. sylvia in virginia, republican, what is your reaction? caller: yes, i am very glad. i am not surprised but i'm surprised they can change while they are still in -- they were voted in for the democratic party, i'm not sure that is fair to them, even though i really like her and hope she runs for president one day. thank you. host: kimberly in arizona, a

republican. hi, kimberly, what is your view? caller: hi, i am not surprised. i did not vote for her but i think she was smart to do it she did. she has seen the garbage biden has done and it is a smart move. i think she is not very republican obviously but she is starting to see the democrats are really just screwing things up and i'm glad she kind of made the move. host: do you think if she runs in 2024 would you now consider voting for her because she switched to an independent? caller: if she was running and to santos was in an trump was in i would probably vote for desantis or trump. host: not for president, i'm saying if she runs for another term in the senate. caller: yeah. maybe i would think about it, yeah i would. i really do think -- look i do not think her policies are

terrible. i think she is for the people but i do not agree with her democratic views on some things but then again i don't agree with a lot of republican views either. i don't know. i'm looking for who is most for america and that is why i am a trump fan but i think she did the right thing. host: kimberly there come a in arizona. from politico.com, the story on this news, they write it has been a decade since the last senate party switch when former pennsylvania senator arlen specter left the gop to become a democrat and even longer the former senator joe lieberman switched to independent. senator manchin backed away rumors he is leaving the democratic party. tom and florida, democratic caller, good morning. what do you make of the news? caller: good morning. i do not think much is going to

change. she is caucusing with the democrats still, she will probably hold onto her assignments. i think it was a way for her just to stay away from the far left of the democratic party and take more of a -- he has been ignoring them anyway so why should she have to try to appease them if she does run for reelection because she will never get on the road anyway, i think it is more you govern from the middle and that is where i believe she is moved. some people say that has nothing to do with biden terrible policies. it is if the majority of the state is independent, move in that direction. the guy from new hampshire is

independent, the guy from new york became independent so i don't think it changes anything. host: more from politico's reporting, they say cinema, who served three terms in the house and as a state legislature -- legislator says raphael warnock's election victory delighted her, his when will probably take some sting out of her decision for democrats. not that she wants any part in figuring out exactly how many seats they control now that she is out of the democratic party. and it notes she does not attend the democratic caucus meetings that happen every week unlike independent senators bernie sanders and angus king of maine and politico reports she is not sure whether her desk will remain on the democratic side of the senate floor. hi, robert. did you vote for senator sinema? caller: yes i did.

host: your reaction this morning ? caller: yeah, the phoenix mesa, by the way, area is equal to three northeastern states in area with a population that grew like 1.6 million over the last 10 years. i do not think most of these people are independent. i have been here since 1985. i do not think the republicans here will vote for her because she is a homosexual and i don't think the democrats will vote for her because she lies and flipped. she misrepresented being a democrat. i son is an independent and he sure were not -- would not vote for her and he cannot stand her. from what i understand, more people are more liberal, we got more jobs, and we are growing big and i think she does not really want to be a senator. so i think it is good she is

going to change to independent and we will rid of her. that is what i think. host: danny south carolina, independent. what do you think? caller: i think it's wrong she did that. she won the georgia runoff to do that. thank you. host: rob in arizona, good morning. how about you? did you vote for senator sinema? caller: i did not vote percent pneuma -- vote for senator sinema but i liked that she, with mansion, on the bills and some of the bills that they through against some of biden things -- bidens things, so i'm glad she saw things she did not like in the democratic party. as an independent, i'm hoping maybe she will have a little more backbone to stand against

what the democrats have been doing and everything. host: on what topics? caller: as far as spending, you know all of the bills on spending has increased and to get our oil production backup so we help reduce this inflation we have. as far as if i would vote for her, which have she ran again it would depend on what she does in the next two years as an independent. host: juan in texas, democratic caller, hi, juan. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i am disappointed with cinema. she has always been sticking out there for her own special interests and she could've stayed with the democratic party

giving the seven -- senate the democrat majority. do they just do a recall on her or something? she is not doing the democrats any good and her switching to independent kind of betrays hit, the dnc helping her get elected, so i really think if it is possible, they ought to recall her and get her completely out of there because she, much like senator manchin, is obstructing everything the president is trying to get done for helping every citizen in america. it does not matter if they are republican or democrat, if they will help the citizen tree -- citizenry of the united states, that is what they are supposed to do, not just go out there and

get rich. host: ok. juan, you mentioned has the arizona democratic party in january 2020 two, the arizona democrats censured send this -- censured senator sinema over her vote. i want to show you another headline from the past year, from market watch, mitch mcconnell praises kyrsten sinema as the most effective first-term senator he has seen in his career, a quote from cinema, despite our differences, senator mcconnell and i have forged a friendship she was quoted saying. the kentucky republican would serve in the senate since 1985 went on to commend her views that their chamber should not eliminate its filibuster will which requires 60 votes to end a debate on most items. mcconnell said former president donald trump would come to me on

a weekly basis on lowering the threshold and now the democrats are doing it. david in indiana, republican. hi, david. caller: how are you doing? host: your reaction to this news by senator sinema? caller: i think it is awesome. host: why? caller: the two-party has become too much that it is so partisan that we need more people to become independent. host: you want more senators to become independent? caller: i definitely do. the far right and far left are so crazy that we need a center party. host: ok. let's hear from alan in colorado, independent. hi, alan.

caller: good morning. i kind of agree with the previous caller, i think it is wonderful too and basically for the same reason of his call, i do not think the voters know anything about candidates. i think they either vote republican or democrat. i think the two party system, i think the parties need to be abolished. i think all candidates need to be independents. look at the democratic party. i'm am independent, look at the democratic already, they take pride in voting however nancy pelosi tells them to? or how schumer tells them to. i think it is great to have independents who will represent their people and not just party lines. host: and then in arkansas, democratic caller, what do you say? good morning to you. caller: thank you. good to talk to you. i am a retired college professor and i think what she has done is

absolutely awful. i believe our president is doing as great a job as he could under this divided, partisan attitude that they have in congress. i think had she been an independent, she should have waited through the term and now as an independent she betrayed her country and her party and i think that with the previous callers, recalling her if possible, they ought to recall her. anybody that is taking praise from mcconnell needs to be looking at it with a degree of suspicion because i certainly would not trust him. host: this is a tweet from david drucker, longtime capitol hill roof or, they question he writes, what does schumer and the dnc see do an arizona senate race in 2024? do they back cinema who remains

functioning member of the democratic majority despite this affiliating, or back eventual dem nominees, presuming there is one. this could use handling of lisa murkowski as a model, granted she did not exit the party. what you think? what should senate majority leader chuck schumer do in the democratic senatorial campaign committee? caller: i think that will depend entirely upon what she does in the remaining months of her term. if she handles herself in such a way that it looks like she is coming across for america rather than herself, i think they can support her but that will hinge on the records he establishes as a voter and how -- she establishes with voters and that will have to be figured out.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i love the democrats are calling for her to be removed from office. if you do not like somebody, get rid of them. i admire what she did. i'm surprised she did not do it a long time ago. even though i am a republican and don't always agree with what she says, i admire the fact she stood in the way of the democrats abusing their power a few times over the past couple years. i think i am a republican and i'm as sick of republicans as i am of democrats. i think the government is broken, broken badly. people will not work across the aisle with each other. both democrats and some republicans put the democrats -- but the democrats are the worst. i do not know where this is going with the country but may god have mercy on our souls. i wish she would have done it a long time ago and the two-party system -- only because they are so opposing to each other they should be one bill, one vote on behalf of the merit -- we do not

have government representation anymore, we do not have taxation without representation, we do not have government by the people, for the people anymore. host: national review, the conservative publication, they write this move is not purely symbolic. cinema voted with the biden administration 93% of the time but that does not reflect the fact on the really big issues she was the one that required concession from the rest of her party and dragged out the negotiations. by the time the legislation came to the senate floor, they forced the rest of the party to make some adjustments to make it acceptable to her. thousand last call. thank you all for calling in this morning. we appreciate it and we will end the journal now and be back tomorrow morning 7:00 a.m. eastern time. enjoy your weekend. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> here's what's coming up live today on c-span. at 11:45 eastern white house covid-19 response coordinator and dr. anthony fauci discuss the importance of being vaccinated from covid-19 during the holiday season, and then at 5:30 eastern anthony blinken talks about the rule of law around the world. he's appearing at the international anti-corruption conference here in washington, d.c. again, you can see both events live on c-span and also watch on our free mobile video app c-span now or online at c-span.org.

♪ >> friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, c-span brings you "afterwards" from book tv where nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalists, legislato and more on their latest books. tonight, entrepreneur and ao l-ko founder shares his book and talks about how to generate jobs and spur innovation. he's interviewed by "the atlantic" magazine c.e.o. and watch tonight on c-span. >> sunday on "q&a" journalist rick wartsman "still broke" talks about wal-mart known for its aggressive business practices and low wages to a more socially conscious forum of