of classified documents at joe biden's home and office,

republican investigations on the biden administration numbered half a dozen or so my becoming a top priority. that despite the fact that republican voters in 2022 said their priorities included the border, crime, inflation and domestic energy production. good morning and welcome to "washington journal." we will start the program asking you your view of republican investigations in the house into the biden administration. the lines to call her if you support the investigations, tell us why at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. we are on social media,

facebook.com/c-span. send us your thoughts on twitter. we are talking broadly about what the house republicans are looking into in the investigations announced so far including the creation of some selected special committees, those including the select subcommittee on th weaponization of government, fuher investigations will be held by the oversight committee on the biden administration -- the biden family businesses, the origins of the covid pandemic, on china competitiveness, the withdrawal from afghanistan in 2001, border enforcement and the treatment of january 6 defendants. the investigations announced this past week and more about the documents that were found at the presidents post vice

presidential office at the biden center and also at his home in new york. this is reporting from the associated press about further documents found in wilmington. more classified documents found that biden's home by lawyers. lawyers found more classified documents at his home in delaware than previously known. the white house acknowledged this saturday. white house lawyer said that six pages of classified documents were found during a search of biden's private library. they had previously said that only a single page was found. in addition to the discovery of documents found in december in biden's garage and in november at his former offices at the pin inviting center in washington from his time as vice president.

the current mishandling of classified documents and official records from the obama administration is under investigation by former u.s. attorney robert hur who was appointed as special counsel by attorney general merrick garland. the most recent will be about these classified documents discovered in the president's possession at his home and his former vice presidential office. if you support those investigations, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, that line is (202) 748-8002. house speaker kevin mccarthy held a briefing with reporters on thursday and was asked why congress has a top priority to investigate the biden classified papers but not the trump papers. here is the speaker. [video clip]

>> what is interesting about that question is they put a special prosecutor on that. they rated mar-a-lago when he was non-. even though they knew it was there. they could have just picked it up had they asked. but why would they do that? why would they go after a political opponent that way? why would they leak photos? why would they go through the former first lady clothing? why would they go through her sons clothing? why would they raid in the manner in which they did at the same time prior to the election they found a sitting president when he was vice president with top-secret documents? why would they handle that differently? why did they not even tell america that that transpired? how did he sit knowing what he had done? how did they find a second location and he is shocked by it? why aren't you asking him those

questions? why doesn't he come forward to the american public? host: that was the speaker on thursday then on friday this announcement from "the hill." "the house judiciary committee launches probe into biden's handling of classified documents. the committee is spearheading an investigation into finding classified documents less than two weeks after republicans took control of the lower chamber. merrick garland announced the probe on friday. to look into the potential handling of classified materials." we will go to larry in jamaica, new york who supports the investigations. good morning.

caller: good morning. i support it on many levels. finding these classified documents in biden's garage where biden had gone nuclear savage on trump regarding mar-a-lago. the last thing i want to say, in the end obama should be complicit by default for whatever happens with this investigation. host: you mean on the documents in particular? where is the former presidents responsibility? caller: did biden steal the documents from under obama's nose? how did they get out of the white house if it was obama's presidency? biden was not allowed to take them at all.

biden should eventually be prosecuted. host: california, bob is on the line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am definitely for the investigation. i want the investigation of hunter biden. how does a man who gets kicked out of the military for drug use wind up on the board of directors with burisma in ukraine getting $100,000 per month? he knows nothing about the board of directors. he knows nothing about anything having to do with the field that he got a job in and he is getting $1 million per year. talk about corruption. let me mention something about ukraine. it kills me to see ukrainian babies slaughtered by russia. what we need to do is give

ukraine long-range missiles so they can kill russian babies. that will end the war a lot sooner when there is a cost to russia because putin is the real carnation of hitler. host: we will talk about the investigations into the biden administration broadly. we have focused on classified documents but we welcome your calls and comments. carol is next in stafford, virginia. caller: hello. i think there is really -- it is too convenient that they found these documents after the fact. i don't believe it at all, that they keep finding them. that is all i have to say. host: carol brings up a point. it is helpful to know the timeline on this. we will look at it on the camera. this was an "the washington

post," how the investigation into biden's documents unfolded. i will go through the entire timeline but for a point of reference, the first date they have here in this story of the investigation, november 2, the first batch of classified documents, about 10 of them is found after one of biden's private attorneys opens a large closet at the center for diplomacy and global engagement in washington. it is a think tank that biden founded at his office is used after his time as vice president ended in 2017. garland describes it as a location not authorized for storage of classified documents. those documents were immediately turned over to the national archives according to the special counsel to president biden. the next eight they have is november 4 -- the next date they have is november 4.

contacts the prosecutor at the justice department to say the white house has disclosed finding classified documents. november 9, the fbi begins an assessment to determine whether any laws were broken. further details at washington post.com on their timeline of the classified documents discovery and investigation. anthony is next in florida. go ahead. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i think it is a great thing to have these investigations. you need to take heed on the recommendations after the investigations so that these matters can be corrected in the future. the blame game should stop and let the investigators takes control and do the investigation thoroughly and confidently and we shall see a better united states of america.

host: in watching some of these investigations that have happened under republican and democratic majority, as a former investigator does it frustrate you sometimes that it appears more political and that the actual investigation may not reveal or disclose the full truth? caller: i think it does not frustrate me at all because the kids to the root of the problem, -- it gets to the root of the problem and it will take care of that problem. the best thing that ever happened is they created the inspector general's office and i think they need to take hold of this matter. i have faith in my government and i think they will take care of the situation and correct the problem. if it is a slap on the hand or whatever it may be, it does not matter. the fact is someone has to be corrected about these documents

and they have to be kept in a safe place and they cannot be taken for granted. this is the people's documents. thank you. host: to oklahoma city. randall is calling on the unsure line. caller: thank you for putting an unsure. i was an internal auditor for 16 years. i don't have a problem with people looking at this. but i don't want people showing nudy pics and all that kind of junk. you will find out that these were not top-secret. these were stuff that is classified and no big deal. they need to look at the whole classification thing. i don't even know how you would get that. we are looking at dozens of documents. we are looking at a few pages,

tens of thousands of classified documents in his eight years as vice president. it will blow up on the republicans if they are trying to make a witch hunt out of this. it is a legitimate investigation, i don't care. host: as a former auditor, what do you think most people don't understand about the process, the financial auditing and the actual looking at the original source documents? what don't we understand about that process? caller: there are so many things that are classified that you would not believe. there is a guy named chalmers johnson who was a big time guy in china. he says they are classifying way too much to cover their own rear. that is what you will find out. classified is not a big deal. is there nuclear stuff? that is above top-secret. there is -- that is

compartmentalized. classified means maybe 100,000 people can see it and it is not anything. i think they will try to do some kind of weird thing. he was apparently a drug addict and he admits that on his laptop and he was involved with some shady things. he was not trying to overturn an election or storm the capital or anything like that. as 16 years as an internal auditor, i guarantee i never talked to the press. everything i did was confidential and i made sure -- you will find out they have pretty good control over top-secret. but classified? not really. keep up the great work. host: appreciate your

perspective and experience. we have been talking about the special counsel that the white house has made and some statements who said there is a point person on this. the press secretary to the white house, this was on thursday, reading a statement before the announcement of additional documents discovered on saturday. [video clip] >> i just want to say a couple of things and make sure that everyone saw this. it is a statement from richard. "as the president said, he takes classified material seriously and as we have said we have cooperated from the moment we informed the archives that a small number of documents were found and we will continue to cooperate. we have cooperated closely with the justice department throughout its review and we will continue that cooperation with the special counsel. we are confident that a thorough

review will show that these documents were inadvertently misplaced and the president and his lawyers acted promptly upon discovery of this mistake." host: we are talking this morning about investigations by the house republican majority in ones that have gotten underway or will go underway shortly, we will detail those. do you support or oppose? on the support line is gordon calling from wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. i support it. i think it is long overdue. without any facts or proof, there is a lot of evidence out there that the biden family has been having their hands in a lot of cookie jars that i don't think any president should be doing and i don't understand why

anybody trust that. item understand why the attorneys are allowed to search these locations instead of sending the fbi in. what kind of investigation is that when you trust the family attorney to go in and say, ok, i will search this place. where is the fbi? host: the fbi did search the biden home in wilmington. the other papers discovered at the provider -- the biden penn center were discovered by attorneys closing up that office. caller: i thought i heard that the attorney discovered other documents at the home in delaware. host: you are right as well. the fbi did the search of the presidents garage there in wilmington. caller: i don't have any problem

with the investigation. if there is nothing to be found, then fine. that is the way it will come out. i don't think there is equal justice under the law. look what they did to trump. things that were pointed out about them going through his wife's clothing, his 16-year-old son's dresser drawers. what is the purpose of that? how come they did not storm hunter biden's residency or his daughter's or his granddaughter's? if the family is involved, maybe he has to stored all over the place. host: we will go next to chesapeake, virginia and this is paul. caller: good morning. i am really unsure about all of the investigations. i agree with a lot of them but some of them i don't. one in particular, yes, everyone

is interested in where cult leader came from -- in where covid came from and how it got here. if they are going to find any evidence whatsoever three years after the fact do you not think that all of this has already been destroyed? that is one of the investigations that i am not so sure about. let the health agencies take care of that. as far as the other investigations, this is what congress ran on was to get back and the democrats keep calling for the regular order of the house and this is what the house is supposed to do. they are supposed to maintain

oversight over all of these things. and again, the border. that is a congressional problem. yes, the president does not have the ability or is not supposed to have the ability to throw out all of these executive orders. the immigration laws are handled by congress, the house and the senate. some of these things going back to the oversight, and especially with the finances. as i have been told all my life when there is any evidence of corruption or seeming corruption, you follow the money. some of these investigations i agree with and they are great for oversight and getting back to the regular order of business.

however, there are others to me that are just -- host: sorry, close to there. appreciate you calling in. you talked about a couple of points that the cbs news found in their poll of voters, a priority for the new congress. high priority, the top three answers, 76% said lowering inflation. 71% said protecting social security and medicare. 63% said reducing crime. in particular for democrats versus republicans, the top priority for republicans, lowering inflation, securing the border, increasing u.s. production and decreasing crime. democrats in congress, protecting social security and medicare i'm addressing climate change, protecting abortion access, and lowering inflation. some comments on social media, the text line is (202) 748-8003

and on twitter. mike says, the main thrust, the legislative actions that benefit americans come from the democratic congress. when you look at who obstructs, with the gop house majority, expect nothing but attempts to help the rich. thompson from new jersey said, "i support the investigation of the biden administration. let's get to the bottom of the allegations so the country can move on." gary in atlanta. "let me get this correct, the same republicans now have something to say. it would be important to find out if they are trying to keep documents and sell them to our adversary." john is on the opposed line in california. good morning. caller: good morning. i oppose it. watching kevin mccarthy talk

about the investigations is like watching a trailer for an action movie or something. 100 years from now when they hold up the january 6 investigation and the stuff that they are doing today with the new congress, it will be the true television -- the true tell of this. you get to the facts and the corruption, you will see that when we see people doing the interviews. you had two republicans on the january 6 committee. how many people on the democratic side will they allow? hunter biden was a drug addict. i am a democrat but he did everything in his power to get his drugs and his money. there is no defense for hunter biden. i have some experience with that.

a loving father will do anything. the corruption of the federal government, that really helps to use that kind of language, the weaponization of the federal government. that is a great way to start. we will just throw a blanket over the whole thing, that the entire government and they are the government. they are the legislators. this does not seem like a sober approach to getting to the facts. you had a caller talking about the archives and why did they let this stuff go. maybe they should investigate how these documents get out into the public this way. the only difference between donald trump and joe biden is that donald trump did not comply and there was a warrant for him by a judge and they had to go raid his place and that is what

happens when you get a warrant. people come in and turn the mattresses upside down. joe biden turned the stuff over. it does not make him innocent of having these documents. why did he have them? that will be part of the investigation. just to say that democrats hate america and they are anti-this and anti-that, it is a lousy way to approach it. that is why i oppose it. host: storms continue out in california. this is on l.a. times.com. new storms moving into southern california bringing a wet hazardous holiday weekend. so far all the storms this winter in california have caused 19 deaths, the greatest death toll on a national disaster since the fires of 2018 in that state. gary is in texas calling on a support line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the investigations should absolutely go on.

what scares me most about this entire thing is that kamala harris being president. that scares the devil out of me. thank you for listening. host: van moors, pennsylvania, joe. hi there. you are on the air. caller: hello. what i am calling about is don't we have anybody responsible for these documents? isn't there a librarian? somebody who would take them back at the end of the day? also if they will continue to fight, hello? host: are getting confused. turn down your volume. we are hearing you just fine. caller: the thing about it is

they don't have anybody responsible for these documents. nobody to say that you will return them at the end of the day. how can you actually say anything if you don't have anybody responsible? host: ultimately those documents go back to the national archives and some of them eventually wind up at the presidential library. the ultimate responsibility eventually is the arc of the united states -- they are convinced of the united states. caller: i oppose the investigations because nothing happened with durham because of corrupt juries in washington. the big difference between the two is that donald trump did not do what he was supposed to and biden did. did not hillary destroyed emails, record devices and not have any problem at all?

isn't that obstruction? not to mention raskin lying about everything since trump got in. they were investigating trump since the time he went down the escalator. it is absolutely ridiculous. this is just ridiculous. i don't know how you go on and on with this. trump tried to obstruct. ok, hillary did not try to obstruct. host: the house approved the creation of a committee that is going to look into what is being called the weaponization of the federal government. that committee will investigate e executive branch's authority to investigate iivuals including criminal probes. it would investigate u.s. government and private companies collecting and sharing information of individuals. it will have 15 members.

nine host: the house approved creation of a committee, what's being called the weaponnization of the federal government and that committee would investigate the federal branch's authority to investigate individuals including criminal probes and would investigate u.s. government and private companies collecting and sharing information of individuals and will have 15 members, nine republicans, six democrats, includeing the judiciary committee chair and ranking member of that committee. the floor debate adam schiff had this comment on the proposal. [video clip] >> they say they'll investigate the so-called weaponnization of

the federal government but what it's really intended to do is undermine the legitimate investigation of president trump's incitement of a violent attack on this building, on this capitol and on this citadel of democracy and investigation that implicates the very members of this body that want to sit on that committee. make no mistake, this investigation, let's investigate the investors committee will do deep damage to our national security and only breed distrust with our national security professionals who will be reluctant to share with congress the information policymakers need to protect our country. the committee will also seek to discredit law enforcement like the f.b.i. who are so important in the fight against domestic violent extremism. republicans in congress just don't care. the greatest threat, the greatest terrorist threat to our country comes from violent right wing militia groups and their

sympathizers and republicans in congress just don't care. last time republicans were in charge of the house, kevin mccarthy pushed to form another bogus select committee, that one one on benghazi and did so as he admitted to tear downhillry clinton's numbers, a patently political exercise. now mccarthy is at it again, pushed into forming this bogus subcommittee by the q-anon members of his own conference. he sacrificed a lot in his bid for speaker and that's his choice and now the american people are going to pay the price in the form of a body blow to our national security. host: listening to your view of the investigation into the biden administration. how do you feel? if you support those investigations by the house republican majority, 202-748-8000, if you oppose,

202-748-001 and if you have another view, 202-748-8002. on the support line. caller: we need to stay on what's important. the missing documents can go back to at least 2008 and disappeared during the obama administration and former president obama must be deposed. ok. i have concern about news reports that i'm amazed how many news reports come up about biden where within the first sentence the news reporters say trump, trump, trump. watch "washington week" for an example, as i watch the morning news shows this morning, i'm hoping that all news reporters stay focused. this is about biden, this isn't about trump. don't compare the two. if somebody steals something out of my house and six months later

somebody else steals something out of my house, i want them both going to jail. that's all i have to say. host: carol is up next in katie, texas. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: my problem with the investigation the republicans ran on reducing inflation. host: carol, you're on the air. you can go ahead. carol in texas. going once, going twice. sorry we lost you. we'll go to nole in florida, now you're on. caller: i have a question a and my question is where is the source for your statement that the f.b.i. searched the wilmington house? because i'm looking at six different reports, none of them say the f.b.i., they say the department of justice and they don't say the department of justice searched the house. host: it was my understanding they searched the garage.

i may be wrong but that was my understanding the f.b.i. searched the garage. if i misspoke, i apologize. you're saying the report says it's the department of justice, correct? caller: this is unacceptable. host: ok. we're going to joe in elijay, georgia. caller: good morning and love c-span and have been calling your network for 30 years. i'm really fired up what the republicans are doing with the investigation. they also will stop any more of these huge "sportscenter" barrel bills, omnibus bills, that's just fantastic but we have a guy just elected named rich mccormick from georgia who i think will be the next ronald reagan. he's a great conservative but we're really fired up down here in georgia about these investigations and so excited that we're going to stop tax increases and the "sportscenter" barrel bills but love c-span, you all do an incredible job and been watching you 30 years calling in and can't say enough good things about your great

network. host: all right, joe, we'll go to jenny in new kensington, pennsylvania, on the oppose line. jenny, go ahead. caller: yes. i don't understand this whole thing. trump was not president when he took those things. he had lost the election and he was going home to florida. he stole those and he is a private citizen. when a citizen does that, steals, he goes to jail. i never hear any reporters asking what his intent was, what is a private citizen doing with top secrets? nobody is asking him that and he's a private citizen. he did it when he was a citizen. and he should be in jail. i think the democrats are

dummycrats. why are they letting him go? the republicans are making a big stink about this, at least biden was in government when he did this but i don't understand how they're letting trump go. host: we showed you the comments earlier about the shift on the debate on the house floor and the creation of the the new select subcommittee on the weaponnization of the federal government and adam schiff opposing that legislation, jim jordan who will chair the judiciary committee in favor of that legislation. here he is. [video clip] >> a ploy? it's not a ploy when the department of justice treat moms and dads as terrorists at a school board meeting advocating for their son or daughter and it's not a ploy when the f.b.i. pays twitter $3 million to censor american citizens. it's not a ploy when the department of security tries to set up a disinformation

governance board because we all know the department of homeland security can tell what is good speech or bad speech. you've got to be kidding me. dozens of whistle blowers talked to the republican staff on the judiciary committee don't think it's a ploy and came to talk to us. they know how serious this is. the former democrat chair of the defense committee in the press saying we'll fight it tooth and nail, this is political. meanwhile the former democrat chair of the intelligence committee pressured twitter to censor a journalist. you've got to be kidding me. this is the most important -- this is about the first amendment, something you guys used to care about and i'd hope we'd get bipartisanship support supporting the five rights, the right to assemble and right to petition the government and freedom of press and freedom of speech. every single one has been attacked in the last two years. government was telling people they couldn't go to church a few years ago. your right to assemble and petition the government. the democrats kept the capitol closed and you as a citizen

couldn't come to your capitol you pay for to address your member of congress and redress grievances because nancy pelosi wouldn't let you in. freedom of the press, i told you what the intel committee tried to do to a journalist. the most important right is your right to talk because if you can't talk you can't practice your faith or share your faith or petition your government. the right to speak is the most important and that's what they're going after. and that's why we've had dozens of whistle blowers come talk to yous. we want to focus on that because we want it to stop. we want the double standard to stop. if you're a pro-life activist, you're going to get your door kicked in and arrested and handcuffed in front of your seven kids and spouse for simply praying in front of a abortion clinic and telling the guy harassing your son to knock it off. and the protest that went on at supreme court justices homes in the leak of the dons opinion, no problem there. the americans are sick and tired of it. we don't want to go after

anyone, we just want it to stop. host: one of the multiple investigations house republicans are beginning to develop on the biden administration. we're asking you about that this morning. this is dan balls, his sunday take in "the washington post" and writes that adam kinzinger, former republican house member put it best, the political system on cnn doesn't do nuance and talking about the revelations president biden like former president trump had possession of classified documents from his days in vice president in locations where they're not authorized to be. whatever the legal distinction between the two cases and there are many could be washed away in the political fallout. later in the piece he writes about further investigations the house has underway or will be developing and writes in the piece that the revelation about biden's possession of classified documents are a political gift to house republicans who spent the first week of the year arguing among themselves over

the selection of kevin mccarthy, a house speaker in a display of chaos unlike any speakership election in more than a century. house republicans were already planning investigations into the biden administration and biden's son hunter and now they have a new target, the republicans have a potential to overplay their hands but for now they have a pass to put biden on the defensive and shift attention away from their own disorderly conference. representative michael turner of ohio who chairs the intelligence committee asked for a classified briefing on the matter by the end of the month and so too did democrat mark warner and chair of the committee and james comber of kentucky who chairs the oversight and reform committee has gone further asking the white house for all relevant documents and communications related to the documents by january 24th. on friday representative jim jordan who chairs the house judiciary committee and representative mike johnson sent garland a letter asking for

executive branch documents and communications indicating their determination to investigate as well. let's go to ben in new jersey and lewis is on the line. caller: good morning. first of all, you put adam schiff on there, please. when the russian hoax was going on, every night he was on cnn, msnbc saying he had evidence. he didn't have evidence. the guy's a liar. as far as biden, i thought as president you could declassify anything you wanted. biden had stuff when he wasn't even in office. he sold out to the chinese. who gives a crackhead money to investigate. only a democrat would. thank you. host: next up is maryland, calling from st. petersburg, florida. go ahead. caller: this goes way further back than just the paperwork they found. you have to look at the character of the two men.

biden has served and given his life for the people of the united states. trump has only stolen, given to the rich and had russians in the united states white house. why can't people with any sense see that trump has been stealing, he got a $3 million payroll when he was 3 years old from his father. president biden and president barack are the best president and vice president. as far as kamala harris taking over, if that should happen, i can't wait. that woman is a woman of justice. and because they couldn't find anything on biden, they want to go after hunter biden. hunter biden is not our president. our president is joe r. biden

who has done nothing but serve is and protect this country. and people want to wash that under the rug because they want somebody that's going to give to the rich and republicans haven't done anything for the people in over 51 years but give tax breaks to the rich. please look it up before you go on national television and make a fool out of yourself. host: let's go to charles in tennessee, supporting the investigations. good morning. caller: good morning. first thing i'd like to say is god bless america. we have political chaos in washington. we have agencies that attack citizens all over the country. it's time to rein washington in and joe biden, head of massive corruption after 40 years being in office is the leader in washington and must be disposed of. host: joe biden this morning heads to atlanta ahead of the

martin luther king day holiday tomorrow and will speak this morning and we'll have live coverage here on c-span at 11:00 a.m. eastern at the historic ebenezer baptist church, live here on c-span and stream live at c-span.org and follow it live as well or catch it later on our free mobile app, c-span now. here's how reuters is reporting what's ahead for the president, biden to deliver sermon on democracy. they write the u.s. president will be the first sitting president to deliver a sunday sermon at martin luther king jr.'s church in atlanta as he marks a national holiday celebrating the civil rights leader. bide's will speak at ebenezer baptist church at the invitation of the church's pastor democrat senator warnock. in what would have been king's 94th birthday and he was killed by a avowed segregationist. it was a point in history where

the president will speak about the way we can go forward together. the former atlanta mayor and director of the white house of public engagement told reporters, he will speak on a number of issues, kuo, including how important it is that we have access to our democracy, she said. we'll go to ron in missouri. ron's on the oppose line. good morning. caller: thank you. thank you, c-span. well, i tell you, it's pretty much a debacle for this man. i really have been in politics and hunter thompson was one of my mentors, carville right there, too. but i must say, the l.b.j. speech will be coming soon. host: when you mean the l.b.j. speech, ron, are you alluding to

an anticipated speech on your part that president biden will make on not running in 2024? caller: oh, that will be certain. nor will i accept the nomination. but this is pretty much grave. but that being said, it's just a diversion that you see in this political animal we created with millions and millions of dollars and k street just controlling everything. you know, we've seen it since reagan who gave $1.7 million mexican nationals freedom to come and take over low paying jobs. and then he created the prison

industry. and destroyed our education system. making higher education almost unaffordable. that's where we are. host: let's go to lake geneva, wisconsin, john, on the unsure line. go ahead. caller: good morning, bill, thanks for taking my call. host: sure. caller: as a recent retiree and only starting to watch c-span the last three years or so, i greatly appreciate what you guys do, letting us regular citizens to speak. i'm unsure right now and will let the investigation play out in its entirety and see what happens, if they'll continue to find more documents, a page here in this book and a page there in that book as they search through things. maybe they should bring the f.b.i. in or somebody rather than just letting president biden's lawyers and people go

through the -- his personal house and the penn center and wherever else there may be some documents. you don't really know at this point. they found them in three separate places. but like i say, i'm hoping in the end it's going to be equal treatment under the law. that's what we're supposed to have in the united states. and that's just what i'm hoping for and i'm unsure and we'll see how it will play out in the end. thanks for taking my call. host: on john's comments about the f.b.i. i thought i'd get back to the time line in "the washington post" on the f.b.i.'s involvement in the biden case in particular. beginning november 9 in a piece they published yesterday. the f.b.i. begins an assessment to determine whether any laws were broken according to the attorney general. documents found at the penn biden center. now later documents were discovered at the biden home in

wilmington and the president's attorney says more documents marked declassified were found in biden's garage at his residence according to the f.b.i. and "the washington post" said on december 20th the f.b.i. secured the documents. it doesn't say they secured them at that location but the f.b.i. is involved in the investigation so far. phillip is in ohio up next. go ahead. caller: yes. i thank you for taking my call. they should investigate, all these corrupt politicians they have has been bled over into our institutions in d.c. and look at the mess we've got. both sides are trying to score points on this and both sides are dirty. biden got caught with his hand in the cookie jar but they held it up until after the election. it's very convenient for this every time there's something going on, the deep state holds it up until after the election. you know they have their hand on the scale of justice out there. thank for you taking my call. host: on to staten island, joe

ann is up next. go ahead. caller: the more i think about it, i think it's a good idea for these investigations. what i don't understand is why would his lawyers throw him under the bus when they've been protecting biden for how long? the f.b.i. goes and raids trump's home but nothing over here. we cannot have two justices here. this country is going down the drain when you have a department of justice that only goes to one side, for six years they've been looking into trump. biden still doesn't have the laptop and five years investigation on hunter but when does it turn? and i just don't understand how the justice department works there. they've been protecting him for so long and the media, not even

to report he anything. what a shambles the country is in. it's a complete disgrace. we cannot live like this anymore, giving money to other countries when we have homeless here and doesn't make sense. more investigations put the -- somebody has to be accountable. we have no one ever accountable for anything and you have both sides but give me a break with trump. six years since he walked down that elevator they've been after him. and you know what, i think they're scared. they're scared they know he can win again. host: this from "the new york times" this morning about congressman george santos of new york of long island. santos' deceits weren't secret in g.o.p. circles is the headline, in late 2021 as he prepared to make a second run for a house seat there was permission for his campaign to do a routine back study on him and campaigns rely on this

research known as vulnerability studies to identify anything problematic that an opponent might seize on. but when the report came back on mr. santos, the findings by a washington research firm. >> far more startling, suggesting a pattern of deception that cut to the heart of the imic -- image he cultivated as a wealthy financier and some of the vendors were alarmed after seeing the study in 2021 they urged him to drop out of the race and told him he risked public humiliation continuing and mr. santos disputed key findings and vowed to continue running and members of his campaign team quit according to three or four people "the new york times" spoke with with knowledge of the study. the democratic leader of the house hakeem jeffries called on the congressman to resign, becoming one of the latest of the 118th congress to call for the resignation of george santos.

here's hakeem jeffries. [video clip] mr. jeffries: the spectacle of george santos speaks for itself. he's a complete and total fraud, lied to the voters of the third congressional district in new york, deceived and coni'ved his way into congress and it's now the responsibility of house republicans to do something about it. there are ongoing investigations the nassau county district attorney investigating george santos, the queens county district attorney investigating george santos, the state attorney general investigating george santos, apparently the u.s. attorney from the eastern district of new york investigating george santos. brazilian authorities investigating george santos, and

ethic complaints have been filed calling for an investigation of george santos. this is not a partisan issue. but it is an issue that republicans need to handle. clean up your house. and you can start with george santos. host: some comments on social media on this topic the first hour, the topic on house republican investigations of the biden administration. helen tweets this saying, just by going of classification of documents, one classified, the other had top secret, biden turned in once they saw it. trump went out of his way to take documents, keep documents and lie about having them. this is not the same. they didn't behave the same. this one says why is biden allowed to gopac to the place where several crimes have been committed. you don't think he and hunter are having a doc shredding party

today? cynthia tweets obviously these documents aren't very important since nobody knew they were missing. the president should apologize and announce new investigations into document security over the last few administrations. it appears loss is more common than previously known. julie says people need to understand the levels of classification, confidential, secret, top secret and tsscif. also known for decades. many things have been classified for inappropriate reasons. in my opinion, national archives should have a checkout procedure much like libraries. back to calls, debbie is in flint, michigan, good morning. host: good morning, bill. before i tell you why i oppose these, i'd like to make a statement. when i talk to the screener, i asked him why did it take me 40 minutes to get through on this line and we've only had a small handful of people that oppose? he says it's because people are calling in that they're not democrats and he also said

they're calling in when they've called within the last 30 days. so please, people, can you try to play fair. i know it's not your m.o. but try to play fair. ok. i oppose this hearing because look at durham, they found nothing. nobody even read the muller report, and every time they come on here and say russia hoax, russia hoax, i can tell you they did not read the muller report. in regard to the benghazi report, you brought that up earlier, i'd like to remind everybody hillary didn't need to be subpoenaed and showed up when requested and brought her whole team and they all answered questions without taking the fifth amendment one time, and to date nobody has asked for a pardon. so republicans, number one, stay off our line. number two, don't treat this like apples to apples, it's absolutely not.

trump went on television and he went to a hearing and said these are my documents and i'm keeping them. and the f.b.i. tried to work with him and work with him and work with him. come on, people, wake up. i can surely see why the republicans like low information voters because they're easier to snow on this line this morning. have a good day, i love me some c-span. host: thanks for the reminder for folks to call every 30 days, if you called within 30 days don't try calling because we will know who you are and appreciate your kindness and playing by the rules as debbie said and go to north carolina and hear from jason on the support line. go ahead. caller: good morning, to that moron, trump had the right to have the documents. second --

host: we'll hear from mary in long island. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: make sure you mute your volume. caller: that lady is absolutely correct. i do support, you know, some investigations. i don't think it should become a circus. there's so many important -- hello? host: i'm here, mary. we're listening. go ahead. caller: there's so many important things that joe biden needs to get done. i trust his integrity. and i honestly can see how documents could be left behind in everything else. and the guy who called in said there should be someone in charge of these archives, that they know where they are and they know that they should get back. i don't believe in anything nefarious with biden. he's trying to do the best for the american people. they want him to pull a rabbit out of a hat. and you know, patience and he'll get the ship going in the right

direction. which it already is. whatever he does is for the american people. to talk about trump and to be loyal to such a person, that guy has no value. i don't want to hear about him anymore. and i trust joe biden's judgment in leading america. and we really do need a team of people who are for america and americans. this division between republicans and democrats is absolutely heartbreaking. because we never get anywhere. we get two feet out, three feet back. we honestly do need to get on caller: i do not like to talk bad about anybody but he is too much. host: we appreciate your calls this segment. coming up next we will turn our attention to the continued debate over u.s. boater policy and see if anything was accomplished at this week's summit.

that conversation with muzaffar chishti. that is next. later on jessica will preview house republicans big tax agenda. an investigations into social media platforms. ♪ >> on august 24 195514-year-old emmett till visited grocery and meat market in mississippi. he was accused of flirting with a white store clerk. emmett till cousin was with him when the incident happened. four days later when emmett till was abducted. tonight on q&a revenue park co-author of a few days full of trouble recounts the events that led to his murder and efforts to

get justice for his late cousin. >> he was 14 years old and i was 16 years old. i came in with them and nothing happened while they were in the store. they came out of the store and a short time later, she comes out of the store, admit loves to make people laugh. he is a jokester. he whistles. when he did that -- you have to understand that miss in 1955. a black n whisper to a white woman, that in is health. >> reverend parker junior with this book a few days full of trouble. tonight on c-span q&a.

you listen to q&a and all of our podcast on our free c-span now at. >> there are a lot of places to get political information but only a c-span you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from a the end of 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: muzaffar chishti is with us next. he is here to talk with us about u.s. immigration and border policy. what is the area of your focus in terms of your affiliation

with the migration policy institute? what you look into? guest: thank you for having me. we are dc-based. and also in brussels where we follow european policies. look at policy development in u.s. on the border and the enforcement of how many people we let in and under what conditions. host: let me ask about the recent announcement by president biden with changes to order enforcement action by the administration. this is that executive action, not legislative change. the president said up to 30,000 migrants from venezuela, nicaragua, cuba, and haiti will be allowed to enter the u.s. on perot each month. they must have financial sponsors, pass background checks. migrants make schedu a appointment to seek asylum by a

nap -- via an app set of legal injury. a couple of questions there, how different our departures from current or previous u.s. policy? guest: the policy announced last week, what is about the special perot program -- special program and in that regard that program is a consideration of the program we put in place a couple of months ago for venezuela. if you are a national of these four countries and he want to come to the u.s., you cannot just show up at the border and let in. you supply and vents -- yet supply in advance.

in the background check and if you pass that, you will be allowed entry to come on april 42 years. -- for two years. the administration believes is a huge reduction in venezuela arrivals at the border. the expectation is this will have similar results for the other nationalities. host: is it expected that much of the paroles, duration of three years, the folks emigrating from venezuela, nicaragua, cuba, and haiti, by the end of the three years, is it expected most of those people will apply for citizenship or asylum? guest: it is two years instead of three. it allows them to come in and

they can use our existing policies to apply for asylum if they have a u.s. relative who will sponsor them. there is u.s. employer who wants to sponsor them or a green card they will be sponsored. or congress could say were going to grant people permanent residence. that has been expected of ukrainians and congress has not done that but it could. host: headline from politico analysis and new program for venezuela aimed at easing pressure on u.s. mexico border. that was a program you mentioned earlier. the announcement also said it would only be eligible as

specific border crossings in an attempt to reduce illegal injury . this recognition by the biden administration that they have a problem with illegal border crossings the other spots? guest: i think it is recognition. one of the products of our polarization is it is not a bipartisan consensus acknowledging it is a crisis. we have a crisis in border crossings. the level of arrivals over the border are no longer sustainable. we had 2.3 one million encounters last year at the border. 2.3 one million people intercepted at the border. that is noainae number. it was recog the is a problem. s tostablish some semblance of control.

if you are from these nationalities, you apply in advance and he show upe border, you will be expelled under the new policy. host: we are talking about u.s. immigration and border policies. the lines for you to call in democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. what you make of this app that migrants are expected to use or can use, the headline here, border officials allow asylum-seekers to request u.s. injury through a mobile app -- -- injury through a mobile app. will it facilitate their application process? guest: this is the second part of the announcement last week.

everyone else who is seeking asylum will no longer be able to show up at the border, raise their hand and say i seek asylum and get a hearing. going forward, we ask people to apply on the app. you are scheduled for a screening by an official, you can make a claim for an asylum and he will get a credible determination by an officer. the attempt here is to move away from this order. people have a place they should get an appointment for you on whether this is a hardship, all of your delays, social media -- journalist, social media is active with my grades. they know where the crossings are, what the conditions are. they're adept at technology. there are nonprofit

organizations who will help them get an appointment. i do not think it is a huge impediment for people to seek appointments for the border. host: shortly after the president made the announcement of the crackdown on the border crossings, the president also toured for the first time in his administration the border at el paso. with as you make of the visit? guest: it was long overdue. it's at the administration a little long to embrace -- took the administration a little long to embrace the situation at the border. he followed that visit to the border by a visit to mexico. that is important. if reckless expelled people, -- if we are going to expelled

people mexico has to be a willing partner in this. getting them on board to the policy is critical and so for the president to make that stop is a healthy sign. host: we have because waiting for our guest. john on our democrat line in virginia. caller: good morning. i like to ask, he is not touching on most important issues. we as americans are engaging in politics with those countries. venezuela we put sanctions. and now we are complaining the people are leaving the country. we are creating a problem in the first place. it is because of our policies. people do not come here unless they see opportunity. when they come here we provide them jobs.

we give them everything free and then they come. immigrants are smarter than american people. they know exactly when they come here how to do things. where to start and where to go. it is inconceivable your guess is saying we have to send them back. we do not engage people in countries we would not have this problem. immigration is weaponized by both parties. democrats and republicans. i am an immigrant myself. i waited my family for almost four years to bring them here. i had an opportunity to come to the border. every time we applied, immigration is not working. we waited. here we have people crossing the border, breaking the law, and they got everything they want. it is not fair for people like us from africa.

they have no opportunity to come to mexico we follow the rules. host: we will hear a response. guest: john is right and he answered his own question. i am an immigrant too and i think we are a nation of immigrants. that is our history. we remain a nation of immigrants. talk about xenophobia, people who get in we still let in a one million people a year. from all parts of the world, asia, latin america, and africa. the point he is making is others have been making. that is precisely the problem the administration is trying to address. we welcome people but we like orderly immigration. when it becomes disorderly when we do not have an idea of how many people are coming and at what rate and that as two oasis of chaos at the border. -- adds

to chaos at the border. this is an attempt to have order at the border to remain a generous country on immigration. host: what do you think of his view he thinks u.s. sanctions to countries like el salvador and venezuela are at the root of migration crisis? guest: he is right on that. there are certain u.s. policies that are responsible for the outflows. the four countries we talked about we have icy diplomatic relations. there are a lot of factors. their national security concerns. there are pros policy issues. there are economic -- government issues and it is hard to say one single factor is responsible.

the most important factor in the last two years is the economic impact of the pandemic. there are so deep in the countries especially countries that on tourism. even middle-class people from these countries are coming to the u.s. who would normally not come. we have to confront it. host: rick in virginia. caller: good morning. i've have asked this question three times per year no one has had the courage to answer it. we have a deficit with the countries and i believe everybody who comes from a country they are they are the child of that country. that child comes into at whatever age interrupt country and an amount of money should be tagged to that money. this is the amount of money i am

going to have to spend the see this person through to come in and assimilate. or not assimilate. you do not need to really assimilate anymore. why don't we, we have incredible deficits with these countries, say this is the amount are going to deduct, this is the amount of money we owe you and then that way you have some part in paying for our graciousness of allowing your child, the child to come into our country? please answer that question. guest: the cost-benefit analysis of immigration is press enter. -- it is front and center. we do not let anyone come in who was the come the united states. we have laws and categories which we let people let in.

we have allowed -- obligation under international law to protect people who fear persecution in their country. recite the u.s. commission for this application. on the cost issue, every study that has been done will tell you over the course of time. immigrants contribute more than they take in the benefit. largely because most immigrants who come in come in active working age of their life. the young people. they get jobs quickly and start paying taxes. they pay taxes because employers the dog from the payroll. -- deduct from the payroll. immigrants are a net benefit to the united states. that is not mean in the short run there is not a cause. new york city has been receiving

immigrants from the border towns of texas has a cause. it is why for the short term federal government should reimburse these states for the cost of absolving the immigrants. for that we need national policy. host: janice on the independent line from colorado. caller: i have a question about this immigration. how come they're all going to new york and what i saw on the news, was disgusting. they give them a hotel room to live in and then all the bags of food, covering the fields of football players, it is unreal. we are giving them housing. we are giving them food. this is how they respect -- they also said something about drugs. i was so upset. this is disgraceful for

americans to put up with that. i would like to know why this goes on. why are we sending money to three other countries below us besides mexico. we are sending all of this money to help them. barbie sending money when they let -- why are we sending money when they let all of the people come in the country? how about them send money to us? guest: on the people coming to new york, this has been a recent phenomenon the last six months. people will always come to new york. it is one of the most traditional receptacle of immigration. actually colorado we heard reports the governor and the mayor of denver sending immigrants from colorado to new york city.

the reason for that is new york has a history of being welcoming to immigrants. it has some of the most well-run nonprofit organizations to provide support for people for the needs to get them legal services. it is not surprising many immigrants choose to come to the united states. it has a large labor market. they find jobs that are easily. that is the historic truth. on the recent arrivals who are bustier -- were bussed here and then put it shelters, new york has a shelter for everyone. we cannot send people away from a shelter. we have a shelter in place guarantee. it creates an overwhelming situation for shelters. it is why the government is trying his best to move people away from shelters into housing

with friends, networks and see that they get jobs. that is the traditional form of people integrating into our society. the mayors in places like new york, chicago, d.c. it is a short-term cost for us. it is a good suggestion. on sending money to the countries, we are sitting money to these countries not so they can keep their people away from coming to the u.s. we send the money because it is in our interest to have a sense of order and some sense of economic stability for those countries. if we did not do that, we will probably have more immigrants leaving the company. it is to address the root causes which have to do with economic, issues of government. for me, spending money on those

issues is money well spent. it will have good benefit over time which we hope it's going to reduce migration. host: on twitter, how many persons alleged to be present in u.s. quote illegally our visa over stays as a number and percentage? guest: we have about 11 billion in country and in the past general perception, these are people who cross the mexican border and mostly all of them is mexico. it is no longer true. about half of the people who are not in the country today and served with a valid visa and then overstated. the variety of countries is huge, we have a spectrum of people beyond mexico. central and south america, all

parts of europe, africa, asia. they may not be in the same number of mexico but the numbers are very diverse in the u.s. host: does the number of over stays indicate is resources -- is resources on the government? guest: we all know we do not have political, the resources to go out after every unauthorized person in u.s. would like the soviet union did to track those over stays. most of it is done on an honor system. we are trying to get better because of someone over stays because we have the record and if they seek to reenter the country at some point, they will not be allowed to come for at

least 10 years. that is some disincentive. host: in alabama, democratic caller. caller: what can you help from the people coming from mexico, cuba, can you give them political asylum for a little while? can you help? guest: i am a lawyer by do not offer advice on television for individual cases. it is a matter of policy. and who arrives at the border to seek asylum. that is one of the points the new policy is trying to address. if you want to seek asylum you cannot randomly show up at the border you have to apply for an appointment on the app and then you will be screened by border patrol official at the border.

at that time, you could tell the of issue, i fear persecution of the gutter you are talking about and then they have to be given a credible hearing by an asylum officer. it has some basis to believe truths to the asylum claim. if they pass the test, they are said to new york, los angeles, whatever they want to go and at that time they will have a full asylum hearing and make the case as to why they should not be turned to the country. within one year of asylum, they can apply for comment. host: you pointed out three or the four nations that have this expanded parole program,

nicaragua, cuba, venezuela, the u.s. has no diplomatic relations. individuals in that country have an opportunity to apply for asylum the u.s. embassy because there is none, correct? guest: exactly. we could establish a transition by applying -- allowing people to apply for most countries. we left people to apply in cuba but that was suspended. we hope there is reopening of that process to reduce the pressure. if you are fleeing persecution from a country to apply for my sound in that country is almost impossible. host: deborah on the republican line. caller: the morning and thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of ideas. birthright citizenship, 14th

amendment, i think we would all benefit if we would reconsider citizenship rather than just a baby. 20% of our children in the u.s. are born to noncitizens. if you look at our safety net programs, as soon as an individual has a child, that child is a u.s. citizen and title to all of that. the other thing is representation. the other concern i have -- and i look at the cost, $60 billion a year we add to our safety net programs. the other concern i have regarding representation. florida has 90% noncitizens. -- 19 percent noncitizens.

it is important for our country. but i think that money when we do assesses, money has to be appropriated. representation in congress should be based on citizenship. that needs to be on the senses. guest: both of these are good questions and require constitutional amendment and you know what that means in our country. on birthright citizenship, we inherited this from the british crown. it is part of our history that everyone born in the land of the sovereign is subject of the ground. we have a very contested history of our birthright citizenship. to the civil war. even nativeborn black people in the country were not considered citizens.

that was what went to the supreme court. then in the 14th amendment in lincoln's time we try to undo that saying everyone born in the u.s. has the same rights as everyone else. i have my strong feelings about the 14th amendment. at birth everyone in this country is equal. let's not hit you with this ability -- is the ability. that provides the ability for everyone in country to be assimilated. the question of cause. the question of cost israel -- is real. the same point the caller made about the initial cost we have to pay for taking care of the

children of the country, the same children grow up to be professionals, workers in all spectrums of occupations. then they contribute to our economy. social security is the most important component of this. our social security system is an issue. we play today into it so it pays our parents and grandparents. for a lot of immigrants their parents and grand parents are not here. our social security system is kept in tact by immigrants coming and attributing to it. it is important for our country for baby boomers retiring at a huge pace. it is for the retiring baby boomers. we need fresh supply of workers who contribute to social security system. a lot of people argue that social security system today sustained on the basis of

contributions made by unauthorized people. they would never see the benefits of that but they are contributing paying for the money given to our parents and grandparents. it is a bit -- net benefit of immigration. it is clearly well documented by studies and that is only in one direction. host: question for you, he says, are you familiar with australia's undocumented immigration policy that focuses on requiring e-verify for employment and arresting those who hire undocumented workers? guest: yes, i am deeply aware of the program. i have no problem with e-verify. it is a method we should follow.

we have e-verify programs in our country. it is not apply to the whole universe of employers. it is a subset of employer, federal employees, contractors, they all have to verify status. i think text extended to all employers will be fine. the issue is what about those people -- were not on the payroll. to screen those people i think is more difficult. to move towards a better accountability of employers hiring unauthorized people and do it electronically is a good idea. host: ron in maryland. caller: good morning. our guest is seeing firsthand how the topic of illegal immigration guess most americans boiling.

regardless if you are democratic or republican or independent we know there is a problem with our immigration system. i'm a health care leader and one of the problems i see every single day's how illegal immigrants of our health care system. could our guest elaborate on that? guest: i don't believe illegal immigration is a good thing. immigration in general is good for our country. it will keep america addressing this country in the world. most economists agree we thrive and coming out of the pandemic better than other countries because of our immigration. it keeps our economy going sustained by new blood coming into it all of the time.

the issue is illegal immigration should not be the norm. we should have many people come through legal channels. for that, congress should expand legal opportunities for coming to the united states. many of us believe develop immigration because we have not changed legal immigration structure for 35 years. we have not changed the legal numbers of people who can come since 1990. we change interest rates every quarter but we do not change immigration for so many. it is not make sense. we should open up our front door so that the back door has less pressure. the point that your caller makes about health care. be clear, undocumented workers are not entitled to health care in our country.

i document it workers in our country are entitled to only two things, established by supreme court decisions, they are entitled to education kindergarten through grade and basic care in the emergency medical context. if someone shows up at the emergency room, they have to be treated. the other alternative would be come up we would not like people with infections in our cities. that is the extent to which we are providing benefits to the unauthorized. it calls but those calls -- it will cost but those cost will go to the city or the state levels. it is not a good thing. those hospitals have additional cost should be reimbursed by the

federal government so they do not feel under siege. host: jerry in nebraska. caller: isn't it a bad -- fact you're supposed to seek asylum in the first quarter you come to? you cannot go to through poor countries and to seek asylum in u.s.? isn't it supposed to be the first country you come to? guest: yes. under international law, you must seek protections in the first country you come through. in this new role -- rule, the department of homeland security is trying to introduce the concept in rlogin.

we cannot deny anyone the right to seek asylum to the united states. whether we grant them asylum or not is a different story. we cannot send people to a country where they are facing persecution or real danger. that does not mean we have to grade them asylum. we have another protection case. the point you have an salt asylum from it you came is now going to be a factor in deciding whether you can get asylum or no. that is an issue of discretion. the -- administration is intending to use that discretion in screening asylum in the future. host: on a democrats line. caller: i think immigrant is a

misnomer because majority of the people coming here are from the western hemisphere and they have been traveling these lands for thousands of years before the united states was even a country. the only true immigrants are those coming across the o they came here as human beings looking for a better life. it is naral phenomenon. what is happened because it was rsuswe he come up with all of these racist things top rtain people to come here. my point was that there is a program which allows 19

countries that come here without a visa. can you talk a little bit about that? guest: sure. your point this is where people who deal in semantics context this a lot -- contest this a lot. people use alien in which people find more problematic than the word immigrant. we can contest the northern and southern parts of america are entitled to come here. i do not happen to be in that group of people because we think of we are universe of nations and in that regard people have a right to go under our

sovereignty to establish lawless of who can come here because without that would have a completely disorderly phenomenon. about should visa waiver program, you are right. beginning in 1990's we started introducing the concept the visa waiver program which allows certain countries to come here without a visa. they do not have to have visa stamped. they go on an online portal and they get plea clearance -- preclearance to arrive in the u.s. in those countries, based it on race because they are mostly european but they are based on numbers of the history of people from those countries who overstated.

countries were nationals have not overstayed in the past we think it is a good risk to let nationals of those countries come under the visa waiver program. it is selectively applied but it comes from history of overstaying in the country. host: headline from fox news, supreme court to hear title 42 oral argument on march 1. what is the importance of this supreme court case? what are they considering? guest: it is an important case. everyone should read minority opinion in this were they granted the right to hear that case. they are split 5-4 on this. the last sentence in the opinion

said we are a court of law. we are not policymakers of last resort. which is what happened to immigration in the last few years. every important public policy issue since congress does not want to deal with it a sense of the courts. -- it is sent of the courts to decide and they become the litigator and policymakers of last resort. president trump put in title 42 to expel people at the border. and not even give them a screening. president biden tried to end it. 19 republican states ought challenge the president on that. instead of deciding this on a policy basis, you cannot use that as a grouse correct spelling people. it has gone to the supreme court

and that is what the court is going to decide accident arguments as to whether the by the administration has the right to end title 42. host: simon in virginia. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe in having an honest conversation immigration. i want to ask and make a comment , i'm hearing a utopian perception about immigration from your guests. i want to know from him, what is a criticism you have about people coming to this country illegally? why the things of concerns of people coming here illegally? not what congress is doing or american perceptions but your self. i do think some states have not been backed by experts or

scholars in -- because there is no -- absolutely a danger associated with the influx of people coming into the country whether asylum-seekers or refugees because here in virginia, we have an uptick in monkeypox cases and covid cases when we help evacuate afghan refugees. host: right. guest: i'm a big proponent of immigration but not illegal immigration. immigration works well and helps if it is orderly and well-managed. anytime it is not well-managed it proves to be problematic. that is why i do not support illegal immigration. we should make our best effort to get people to enter through legal channels. we should expand legal channels the more people can come legally

which is what congress has refused to do for a number of years. that's what we need to address. on the issue of cost, those cost at the local and state level. in the short run, those states and localities should be reimbursed by the federal government. host: we appreciate your time this morning. thank you so my. guest: thank you for having me. host: i had, later on we are joined by jessica who will preview the house republicans investigation into various social media platforms. of next we will open up the lines for open forum and the chance to call in on anything we have talked about this morning.

democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. will be right back with your comments. >> of a days c-span's camera had unprecedented access to the floor of the u.s. house and california public and kevin mccarthy became the speaker of the house. it was history in the making it with unscripted political moments from the house floor. like we always have for the past 43 years with complete uninterrupted, unbiased coverage of congress. here is a people are saying about c-span. c-span is america's hottest tv drama in 2023. the house speaker drama has one winner, c-span.

c-span has become must watch tv. they may never know what might happen in the walls of congress, you could be sure c-span will be there. thank you to the support of these companies. c-span your unfiltered view of government. powered by cable. >> back in the period of june to november of 1962, fall gregory newly lee oswald better than anybody else. mr. gregory a student at the university of oklahoma was watching television as all members of the dallas police escorted a suspect into police headquarters. mr. gregory said out loud, i know that man many lee oswald. he has written for the first time his account of his friendship with lee oswald and

his wife marina. fall gregory on this episode of book notes plus. book notes plus is available on the c-span note at whatever you get -- app or whatever you get your podcast. >> washington journal continues. host: a chance for you to call in of topics we may have discussed this morning. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. this is from politico this morning and their story on the attacks in ukraine continuing, missile strikes on a parking blog leaves 18 dead. russia lost another wave of missile attacks on ukraine on saturday killing at least 18 people in a high-rise apartment block. damaging energy infrastructures

in six reaches. rescue operations continued sunday morning. i missile strike devastated a nine story building. open forum will go first to patty in brooklyn. caller: i want to make a comment about these people calling, i do not know why they are not getting the full information and comparing by the situation to trump situation. trump went 18 months when the archives are asking for those papers. when biden behind them, he turned them over right away. this is why they went to mar-a-lago because he refused to return the papers. and he said they were his and he was not giving them back. host: tyrone on the republican

line in illinois. caller: good morning. it is good to hear from you. i would like to talk about our inflation. i'm a small retailer in illinois. we are seeing that prices coming down quite a bit which is good to see. we are paying $25 for a container coming out of china where he a $15 which is going to help a lot. we should be seeing good services across united states coming down in price. we are seeing it in our business. i think our federal government needs to be more proactive looking at -- we know 30 states had increases in the cost of

labor that is coming up in january. they know it is going to cost more -- cause more inflation. in our industry people have cut back on labor over the christmas time because they hire more to help a bit. that is to be more proactive. the 2% inflation they are trying to achieve i do not think it is achievable. we're looking at 4% or 5%. that is all i had to say. thank you. host: what is the business environment in general in illinois these days, regulatory and tax environment? caller: illinois is a tough state. we are seeing a lot of increases across-the-board. whether it be for electricity, gas, taxes have gone up quite a

bit. as for a retailer, it is a struggle because we went from -- were in illinois we go up to $15 an hour for minimum wage. this year we went to $13 and next year $14 and then following $15. our governor is trying to pass for every 40 hours an employee works that would give them one hour vacation pay. if your small business, is going to be hard on us to pay the extra money. last year for a lot of retailers , the companies that are hurting across-the-board, you are seeing a lot of companies over stock. your seen distributors way of her stock because the goods are flowing faster now. they were concerned about the covid.

you are seeing companies in dire straits. you're going to see a lot of diversity and changes in retail market. host: don in new orleans on the independent line. caller: happy king day we can. the issue of the military spending and a report from brown university, the issue of military spending reports that for every billion dollars invested create 11,000 jobs. but if you invest per billion dollars it will create over

20,000 jobs in education, health care, clean energy, infrastructure. but the budget is 850 billion for the military. 45 billion more than the president asked for. they are talking about these silly -- debt ceiling on the budget and spending. the number of military bases abroad. the u.s. has at least 750 military bases in 80 countries, even countries with authoritarian governments. the next country with the next bases -- most bases abroad is united kingdom. after that russia with about 36.

china has about 5-8 bases abroad. wesley return on investment for -- what is the return on investment for the issues with ukraine, nato? are we overspending our military and overextending these opportunities because when military veterans become separated from the military there was a higher military. i'm a veteran. but the military is not creating the jobs for the better is to come home and get a civilian job. how does that work economically for the benefit of our country and national security when the military is not creating the jobs they want for the better as they come home and take it? host: on ukraine we talked about the attacks overnight. this is a story military aid to

ukraine, the headline in the new york times says u.k. aims to send -- after years of resisting providing ukraine with some of the weapons come britton indicated saturday it will give battle tanks the ukrainian forces so prepare them for and participated russian assaults the spring. he told the president of ukraine about his ambition to provide battle tanks in additional artillery systems according to a statement from downing street. i will go to bill as he celebration massachusetts -- in massachusetts. caller: hello. i think mexicans along the border from texas to california feel it is a part of their

country. i think they have a righto move into california or texas or arizona. that is it. host: virginia -- jean on the republican line. caller: good morning. retired military and i have to say our newscast are trying to make news in regards to security documents. they do not have anything to report on now. they trying to make news. enough of biden and the documents. you cannot come out and talk about documents and their taken accountability is what i see. i see them going on now doing

accountability. biden has a team of people, classify custodians, that head of documents. that chain that gave them to bidens when they come in, there is a chain of custody. that is what we need to find. how did the documents get there? why did not want our house of representatives to do -- i do not want our house of representatives to get sidetracked. they are not sure what happened in the case of him transporting young girl 17 years and under. and their involvement with the january 6 is direction on the capital -- insurrection on the capital. do not lose focus. we want you to get things done. do not deflect other things. back to the classified

documents, biden is different. they are trying to take accountability. you cannot speak on something until you have accountability first. let's find out the chain of custody. how did they get there and how did they not get a thousand for? -- i counted for? host: host: onto the independent line from florida. caller: all of the stuff they are talking about, how trump did not turn over the documents and had them for a certain amount of time in 18 months, think about it. biden has had these documents for six years. they are not talking about that. why aren't they rating every property -- raiding every property biden has? this is ridiculous. they should be looking into this and raiding it like they did

mar-a-lago. the media is not fair at all, they are taking biden side. there should be a newscast or some type of network that is going to be completely honest and truthful about this whole thing and both sides of the aisle. host: it is open forum, your chance to call in and talk biden's in the news you are following. (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 four republicans and for independents (202) 748-8002. u.s. chamber pushes immigration overhaul trade deals, u.s. chamber of commerce the nations biggest lobbying group unveiled its yearly legislative agenda thursday, calling for overhauls of immigration law and federal permitting procedures as well as new trade deals. amid friction with house republican leaders over endorsement of democratic candidates, the group urged the

divided congress and haydn administration to work across the political aisle -- biden administration to work across the political aisle. tony is up next in connecticut, democrats line. caller: good morning, what a day today. thank you for c-span and everything you do. i was in between guests, i was channel surfing getting my news tidbit. my favorite station is cnn. i saw tia there, that was great. i think it is fantastic c-span hires people that are on cnn, msnbc, this is where the true stories come from. do not ever take a republican or

conservative talk show host, only take the ones from cnn. i appreciate that, have a great day. host: to cj in minnesota, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning to you and good morning to america. we as americans, some of us he america one way and others see america another way. that does not mean it is right or wrong, that is the way america comes across to some people is not the same as others. some people have a tendency to push their idea onto you, regardless of whether you want to believe it or not. you have your own experience in this country. when that lady was talking about the archives being transferred, i understand that because you sign off on it, then you release it back. the bad part about it is they are trying to take it and make it seem like it is the same thing, it is not the same thing.

one guy, they asked for the papers back. he refused to give them back. the other guy did not know he had them. that is the big difference. you have the people who see america this way, they want you to think it is the same. it is not the same. that is the reason why they are coming up with this. when kevin mccarthy got his finalization for being speaker, he said thank you president donald trump. wait a minute, you are supposed to have said former president, not president. that is disrespectful to the president and power right now. nobody is picking up on that. host: to panama city to hear from jack on the independent line -- republican line, go ahead. caller: my opinion is on the ukraine situation is that nato

troops and u.s. troops ought to be stationed in finland on the border of russia and therefore open up a second front for putin and take his interest and eyes off of that. it would benefit ukraine immensely, thank you. host: this is from the hill this morning, biden approves california disaster declaration after massive storms. president biden on saturday declared a major disaster in california after the state was hit with a massive winter storm with more rainfall, flooding and damage expected this week. he directed federal aid to support state, tribal and local recovery efforts and help individuals in affected areas, including sacramento, santa cruz and merced with grants for temporary housing and loans to offset property losses and other programs.

maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for picking up my call and thank you to america. i am so proud of biden and i also think the people are helping to make this country great more and more. i am looking forward for the next hundred years in prosperity in america, thank you. host: to rhode island, thomas on the republican line. caller: yes, good morning. my pleasure to be able to get through and talk with you. there were so many subjects, but to begin with, i think we are at a point in time where we have

got to stop the democrats from bashing the republicans or the republicans from bashing the democrats, or the independents from bashing both. we live in a free society, one of the number one things we should have his respect -- have is respect for each other and the open mind to listen to each other and, by doing so, we would learn a great deal. i believe that america today is where it is because people do not want to listen to each other

, that is the basic comment on nominator -- common denominator for success. host: what do you think is causing people to not want to listen to each other? caller: i believe that we accentuate this divide between the democrats and republicans. we are supposed to work together as a nation, and it seems even after the recent elections, republicans took control of congress, the bashing just continues.

to me, that is not the way to run a government. we have got to run this government in harmony with each other. host: to kathy calling from denver on the democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i am continually amazed that not one republican is responsible for anything that they do, it is the media's fault. it is beyond -- it does not make any sense to me. host: give us a prominent example of that, what do you think is a prominent example of what you are talking about? caller: well, you know, there was the gentleman that just called a little while ago from florida. this is a real popular opinion of those folks down south.

you know, hey, the media, all they are doing is reporting the facts. that is it. they are reporting the facts. the lower education level of the republican party, i think that is a big part of it. we really need to focus on educating our population. if i could point out, i have a backyard and i am trying to keep my dogs in. if i put a fence on one border of my yard, the dog is going to go around the fence. let us talk about what is really possible and what is not. thanks for taking my call and letting the air my grievances. host: to texas, tony, good morning. independent line. caller: good morning. i am a right-leaning independent , i've been trying to call in

sin september 18. september 18, i feel we had a steve scully 2.0 situation on washington journal. what happened was, your moderator was interviewing someone" that was said -- someone and the quote that was said was that we know the media spreads this information and misinformation. host: from the moderator of this program? caller: yes, you can go back into your archives. that is exactly what was said. i've never heard any other moderator say something like that about conservative media or liberal media. for that person to say that, i think it is like what they call a wolf in sheep's clothing. number two, you are the only one

that mentioned the cisa report. in all these months that have gone by, i am asking washington journal to do a segment on the cisa report on dominion voting machines. if you read the report, it said there were numerous vulnerabilities in these machines. google that, cisa report on dominion voting machines. there is an article by cbs, ok, the same thing they said in their article says that you can print an arbitrary number of ballots. host: a couple of things for us to consider, this is an update on the ukraine story with the attack. washington post with this update this morning.

ukraine briefing death toll rises to 25 in the apartment building protect. kyiv renews calls for defense system live video, we are looking here at the attack saturday here, six other regions had energy infrastructure in particular destroyed by russian attacks. a caller mentioned finland earlier in regards to the ukraine war, this is the opinion piece this morning from the washington post that says nato's internal standoff is a gift to putin. it is lengthy, i will not read it all much too short bit. the opinion writers say short of russia's defeat on the battlefield produces new leadership is imbued of imperialist fantasy. the worn ukraine offers little immediate prospect in term of long-term strategic game for the west. a critical exception is nato's

expansion to include sweden and finland, a prospect analyzing close at hand but blocked for now by one key member of the 30 member alliance, turkey. you can read all of it on the washington post website. a couple of more calls and open forum. democratic line. caller: good morning. just calling in regards to the united states board of governors . his term expired in december last year, he is in a one year holdover. the president of the national association who recently retired , he wrote a letter to president biden asking him to renominate him. i was going to encourage people to renominate him for the board of governors, he was in the

marine corps. a lot of the issues that were caused -- the board was completely vacant a few years ago. i just wanted to say that, thank you. host: this story from the hill, 2023 stamp increase. stamp price increases are about to kick in, reporting the cost is about to go up as of next sunday. prices going up 4.2%. tom on the line from tennessee, independent line. caller: hello. host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: yes. my mother receives benefits for

help with food stamps and stuff like that. they told her since it is overloaded, they only give my mother like $50 for the whole month to help her. she makes like 800 a month. host: why are they saying it is overloaded? caller: because the migrants are taking from americans and giving all that helped to them, it is draining us. we cannot afford this. there is no way we can let this continue to happen. host: mike from missouri, you are on the air. independent line, are you there? caller: good morning, yes i am. i tried to get in yesterday, but

could not. my grade for the house of representatives is f- because they want to investigate the weaponization of the government and they should be weaponizing the investigation of the government when donald trump was in office. the irs audited james comey. he fought handing over donald trump's taxes even though he knew it was the right thing to do. bill barr cleared so that donald trump could have a photo upholding the bible upside down. what else is happened? his daughter got chinese -- i

cannot think of the word. host: we will let you go. thanks for the call. still ahead on washington journal, talking about the committee mike just mentioned, the weaponization of the federal government subcommittee, our guest next is jessica melugin, who will preview the house big tech agenda, including investigations into various social media platforms, next. ♪

>> fridays at 8:00 p.m. eastern, c-span brings you afterwords from book tv, a programmer nonfiction authors are interviewed by jonasts, legislators and more on their latest books. tonit, a talkshow host and civil rights attorney, co-authors of crisis in the classroom, share their concerns about the education system in america. watch afterwords tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118th congress. it is your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member, important information on congressional committees, the president's

cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. scan the code on the right to preorder your copy foy spring delivery. it is $29 $.95 plus shipping and handling and every purchase supports nonprofit operations. ♪ >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern, important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day. weekdays at 5:00 and 9:00 eastern, catch washington today for a fast-paced report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span any time, tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> start the year off shopping our new year's sale going on now at cpan shop.org, c-span's

online store. shop now through monday and save up to 20% on our collection of c-span sweatshirts, hoodies, blankets and more. there is something for every c-span fan and eurche supports nonprofit operations. shop new year's deals now through monday. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: we are joined by jessica melugin, the director for the center of technology and innovation at the competitive enterprise institute. we are going to talk about the upcoming subcommittee to investigate tech company practices. the house committee on weaponization of the federal government formed this past week and legislation passed by the house, the headline from cnbc, the house to investigate whether the white house pressured tech companies to suppress conservatives. was that the underlying reason for the house creating this committee? guest: i think that is the main

threat, we also have the twitter files and elon musk. i think what they are going to find is going to be considerably less partisan than may be some people are hoping for. you will see that pressure being applied by both democrats and republicans while they were in office. host: it does seem like big tech executives have at times not made real friends with both republicans and democrats. guest: they have a difficult job. moderating content at that scale , billions of posts, and deciding what is potentially dangerous, what is going to get them in trouble, what other viewers on the site want to be exposed to, those are difficult decisions. the most controversial ones kind of rise up to the surface and the human beings at these companies have to make those decisions. it seems obvious, that is not true, you do not want that. when it comes down to what is

true or what is harmful or what is informative or controverted by needs to be challenging and said, these are difficult decisions. it does not surprise me that at some point they have angered both political parties. host: is it your sense that in the long run we will see changes in the way social media platforms monitor content, allow content on their sites? guest: i think that will be improvement on the technology side. the more control you can put your users into, the very least that keeps the heat off your company from making decisions. i do not think when mark zuckerberg got into this he was thinking about being the arbiter of truth and free speech in america. they do not enjoy making these decisions. but they have a platform, they want to cultivate that experience, they have a brand to protect. they want what they want on there, they do not want what they do not want. that is different twitter to facebook to youtube. i think the more they can put the end-user in charge of what they see with filters and other technology coming along, that

will probably help take some of the heat off of that. host: you mentioned the twitter files, they were released after elon musk took over twitter, in terms of the engagement of the federal government with twitter on issues of content. in particular, the reporting detailing some of these. what do you think will come out of that, in terms of what the house committee in particular may do? guest: what they will specifically do, we do not know. i think it is an important distinction we are starting to make. up until we sell the twitter files come out, we've been basing most of the anger at companies themselves for moderation. now, we are getting an interesting look into where's the pressure coming from? easy enough to understand the motivation of most of these big tech companies, they want to keep their advertisers happy. that is how these companies make money. they do not want anything on there that upsets that. they want plenty of eyeballs on their platform, we understand

those decisions even if we do not agree with them. when you see official government action pressuring these companies to make decisions that perhaps they would not have otherwise, that is a very different thing. then, you get into a real conversation about where is the line where free speech is being abridged? where is the line in social media? we do not have answers for that yet, because this is a relatively new phenomenon in technology. i think the most optimistic thing i can say about that committee is maybe we can find some of those answers in how we are going to deal with keeping private decisions about content moderation separate from government. guest: our guest is with the competitive enterprise -- host: our guest is with the competitive enterprise institute. (202) 748-8000 is the line to call for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans and for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. what do you do in particular at competitive enterprise institute in regards of the area of social

media content, big tech in particular? guest: we are sort of a regulatory watchdog. i work on that in terms of tech issues, so that would be digital privacy, net neutrality legislation, content moderation issues and the big push for antitrust against these companies. host: have you testified on capitol hill before, do you anticipate testifying under the of hundred 18th -- under the hundred 18th? guest: i am always available, i think they will be more interested in the people running the companies at first. elon musk might get called in, we will see. host: the house passed a resolution creating the committee on the weaponization of subcommittees come on the weaponization of the federal government. that committee would investigate executive branchutrity to investigate individuals, including criminal probes, would investigate u.s. government and

private companies collecting and sharing information of individuals. that sounds like the one most closely resonates with the recently released twitter files. guest: i think that is right. the big picture is the government asked private companies to do things all the time. it is ubiquitous and has been happening for decades. it is nothing new. as long as the ask is and ask, not accompanied by a specific threat of retaliation if they refuse, they are ok and staying on the right side of things. if you get specific about what might happen if you do not agree , now you have crossed into something that might be a first amendment violation. the government is not allowed to ask private companies to do things for them under penalty of retaliation that government itself would not be able to do constitutionally. host: in the area of free speech and freedom of the press, describe the differences between how a platform like twitter or facebook operates and

organizations such as a newspaper which may have an active online presence. the wall street journal, new york times. what is the difference editorial in between those two organizations? guest: a news organization has legal liability for what it publishes. if i write in a letter to the editor and the wall street journal or new york times decides to publish it, they assume responsibility for what they print area that is not true -- print. that is not true for the comment section on their website. they enjoy the same 230 liability protections everybody does. they are not responsible for third-party comments when hosting third-party comments. different than what is published in the newspaper proper. so that section 230 liability is what platforms use every day. facebook is not responsible for what you or i post on facebook, we are responsible for that content. that is the basis of what

section 230 says. it is not facebook or twitter or youtube who is responsible for third-party content posts, it is the people who wrote those. host: the people have argued those organizations such -- should be responsible, they should not have the section 230 immunity, correct? guest: yes, very controversial. republicans hate it because it lets these companies take too much stuff down. democrats hated because they leave stuff up that otherwise we might be able to sue them for. they are angry about it for diametrically opposed reasons. if you did not have section 230, the difference -- the internet would look very different. what you would not have his third-party content the way you do now. social media is all of us talking, everyone has a microphone. those platforms would not want to carry legal liability for everyone speaking that they do now. it would certainly be different. host: you are obviously a very active and engaged observer of

social media. twitter in particular. how do you think it has changed under the new leadership of elon musk? what have you seen? guest: i think everyone has more of an individual experience on these platforms then maybe they realize. they are getting things tailored to who they follow, but they engage with, what they look at. for me, i am a very conservative using twitter, i follow people who i mitch did and what they have to say about tech. i am not an aggressive poster of my own content, so i have not seen much change. i follow who i follow, i stay in my lane. i am a pretty boring user. people say it is a million times better, some people say it has gone down the toilet. they do not want anything to do with it. i think it depends on what your priorities are on twitter and what you are looking for. you probably have a very different experience than elon musk has owned the company. host: we have calls waiting,

first we will get to jim in massachusetts on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking michael. what i wanted to tell you -- my call. what i wanted to tell you is i have a solution for the immigration problem. this is what it is, in short. it is to move the border from mexico down to the panama canal. host: we have kind of moved on to another topic, we are talking more broadly about social media and the house efforts to investigate big tech companies. the subcommittee was formed this past week. when do you think we will start seeing these investigations getting underway? guest: i think in the next couple weeks, everyone will take their committee assignments. it makes a huge difference what happens in the committee, depending who sits on the committee. there is the potential for a lot of news coverage and flashy

people testifying and all of that is fine. there is also pretty serious legislative work to be done and i hope that they do not take debate too much to be too partisan. i think every american in both political parties and beyond should be concerned about when the government pressures private companies to do things they host: would not otherwise do. host:the purpose of this committee is not just oversight, it is to potentially develop legislation, correct? guest: there was some legislation introduced in the last house led by representative comber -- comer. when you are on the clock as an official in the administration, you are not allowed from that position to ask social media companies to take down or promote or anything else. so, we will see. this is how it always is in washington. it seems like there should be a simple answer, there rarely is a simple answer for how you are going to manage the state today in real time.

as a society, we need to start having conversations about where the line is. guest: what is your views on entities including the government saying you can no longer have, in this case, tiktok? some universities or schools of said students cannot use this on school provided equipment. what is your view? guest: it makes some sense from a national security perspective to be cautious about this sort of thing. tiktok assures us that none of that data is being kept in mainland china, no one can access it. but there have been news reports that push back on that. a lot of this is difficult to navigate as users because it is a national security issue, so we do not know everything that people with security clearance are concerned about. if you think about tiktok on everyone's phone has that many cameras running around, recording data and keeping track of things, that is a lot of information. with the chinese government can

do with the information we might not know the specifics of where the threat is, but that is something to consider. host: we are likely to hear more concerns about china with another select subcommittee the house created on competition with china. i read yesterday that the governor of virginia turned down an application to create a battery factory in that state because of their concerns over potential security risks and having a ford battery plant affiliated with china -- in conjunction with a chinese entity in that state. guest: i think that you can be a pretty good free-trade or -- free trader and still have concerns about intellectual property rights. when dealing with an aggressive crime in his country, they're not exactly playing by what we would consider the rules. on a case-by-case basis, it probably makes sense to scrutinize. host: that seems like an issue

that would have bipartisan support. guest: i think one of the few bipartisan issues in washington is a shared concern by republicans and democrats. guest: -- host: from new hampshire, hello. caller: first, i want to congratulate jessica and the host for excellent presentation of the issues of section 230. my one question or concern is that jessica has said or perhaps implied that social media should feel perhaps -- i am referring specifically to twitter -- exempt or we should not be particularly concerned whether there has been violation of

first amendment by the federal government, because we do not have explicit threats of what the federal government, and this case the fbi, would do if their wishes were not complied with. i wonder whether, in the case where we have 80 fbi agents, which is what has been documented by twitter, constantly bombarding twitter with demands, whether or not that would constitute a threat under removing section 230 exemptions for twitter. there might be many who would say, including in a court case, that sounds like a threat from the federal government when 80 fbi agents are full time directing very specifically which tweets to take down and which accounts to close.

so, i would like -- i think there is a difference of opinion in the commentary. host: we will hear from our guest. guest: i take your point. the good news for you is jim jordan, who is running the new select subcommittee, will put plenty of emphasis on looking at the fbi's role in all of this. you cannot ask for someone who would take a closer look, that is for sure. i think that is warranted. that seems threatening, that seems menacing. the letter of the law or precedent in terms of sorting through legally, what does this mean, is the more specific the request in the more specific the threat, the greater chance you have of that being called out of bounds, over the line of a first amendment violation on the part of the government through proxy, in this case twitter. certainly, the attention the fbi has given twitter, as you were saying, makes a pretty good case that perhaps there is over step

on the government's part. i do not think we disagree as much as you think. host: let us go to florida, republican caller. caller: hello. host: go ahead with your comment or question. caller: it is kind of a question. i do not know much about section 230, but mentioned tech companies are not publishers. i did not personally use any of these platforms, i do not have a smart phone, just a landline. i have seen people have things called followers and likes and i am not sure whether that holds a company liable for that particular purpose. i think on youtube, if you post things, somebody pays you. you get so many watches or something like that. aren't they really controlling publishing at that point? thanks. guest: the publisher distinction

is an important one. section 230 -- congratulations on not knowing too much of it and making some very healthy choices in terms of your phone and social media platform use. i commend you for all of that. way back in 1996, when they were trying to figure out how this liability was going to work for these brand-new things online, they decided to say we are not going to treat these platforms -- at that time, they were billboards more than platforms. he would not recognize them today. the same way we treat publishers of news. that was to encourage third-party content, right? for the same reason the new york times and wall street journal -- one is a practical matter, that secondly is not going to publish every letter to the editor. this is something different. twitter, facebook, youtube, for the most part, publish everything people put up. that does not mean sometimes it does not get taken down because

it is in violation of rules. my example is to illustrate what social media is is more of a mirror back to us. it is us. there is a teacher on duty on the playground in terms of owners of the platform to make sure things do not get too out of control, but that is different than what you find when you open up the pages of the new york times or wall street journal. that is a much more curated -- they decide what goes. these platforms, it all goes up and they decide later if something needs to come down. you are not wrong to say there are similarities. but in terms of how legal liability is treated on these, there is differences. host: this may be too simple a stick of an example. if i'm a reporter and publisher story, i'm tweeting for the organization i am working for, the newspaper, television, media organization, i publish a story on twitter via a tweet and turns out that story is false.

who is responsible? the media organization have a responsibility enters the social organization have a responsibility? -- and thus the social organization have a responsibility? guest: it is your responsibility. twitter can do whatever they want with that per their own rules and decisions. but as far as legal liability, you are the speaker. if twitter writes a whole bunch of stuff over your post and explains all of that, that is twitter speech and that is something different they are responsible for. but all section 230 says is you are the talker, you have got it. that works differently in the news business, where the publisher takes on some of that. host: we keep talking about big names. facebook and twitter, tiktok. but these sorts of decisions affect things like reddit or

areas where content is being published. guest: exactly. the big when people miss when they say get rid of section 230, you'd be getting rid of a lot of useful things you do not necessarily think happened because section 230 allows it. the best example i have is the online reviews. when people post their review on airbnb or amazon or anything else, those platforms can keep those up because they are not responsible for whether you are lying about the cheeseburger having been delicious or cold. that is for you to decide. part of what is great about social media being all of us is that we benefit from that collective knowledge and people's experiences. you see that most clearly with reviews. because it is just us, that is why it is messy and problematic and terrible. when you walk out your door, you encounter all sorts of facets of human nature and it is no different online. there is great stuff happening and really offensive upsetting

stuff that is not your happening, too. we have made a decision the government is not a charge of sorting through that for us and hopefully this committee makes that clear that we do not want the government doing too much sorting through that online. host: let us go to nevada on the democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i think we just missed the big picture. big tech is about something else. i am living here in nevada, i lived in california. they do policy governance. if you get caught up in the policy, they do not seem to work. no matter how much you upgrade. it is not a big tech issue, because i was banned on facebook for more than three months because they went into my archives and i had posted a post that was about black bodies swinging from the trees and we should never forget, we as a people should never forget.

but i was banned on facebook and i was the only one to know. i was wondering who was doing that. when my printer won't print, i paid $500 for that printer, it is a problem. it has to do with network managers. so yes, there is time to investigate. because america has truly changed, we are not educating the children, we are not holding accountable states for the number of people -- and we are just in a big mess we have to understand that people can run for office and lie and sit there and say what they are not going to do. is the america we grew up in? i am 64, hell no it is not. guest: it is a big messy country.

in congress, we got a front row seat. congratulations to c-span on coming out as the star of the show. it is a messy world online as you are living your life, that is what you see. you see the greatest dogs and dances and cool cooking tips, and you also see a lot of things you wish you didn't. it is messy. i think that has probably always been true. host: there was a piece in friday's wall street journal by the president himself, an editorial piece on big tech. republicans and democrats unite against big tech. particularly on secon 230, he said we need big tech companies to take responsibility for the content they spread, the algorithms they use. that is why i've long said we must fundamentally perform section 230 tect tech companies from legal we also need far more

transparency the thms big tech is using to stop them from discriminating, keeping opportunities away from equally qualified women and minorities and pushing content to children that transmit the health and safety. we talked a lot about section 230 that focus more on what the other party is talking about in terms of privacy and data, as the president is getting too. guest: congress has not been able to pass federal privacy legislation for many, many years now. many sessions come and go. there are some real hardline differences between what the republicans say has to be in that kind of legislation for them to support it and what the democrats will not tolerate. there is some real, reasonable policy differences that are preventing that from happening. they will make another run at it this year, but those issues have not budged. the issue is, republicans say we

are on board but need -- no trial lawyer is making money off of this and we want federal legislation to preempt all of the state legislation. democrats are not so sure about those issues. there is a little bit of a divide. the urgency in the federal government acting in some way is that they have not been, i think five states right now -- introduced in more -- have moved to fill in the gaffe. whether you like the specific -- in terms of digital privacy, yes. the specifics vary. the problem with potentially 50 different regulatory frameworks everywhere is the internet is global. obviously, also interstate commerce. for these companies, the big ones can probably handle it. smaller tech firms having to comply with 50 different sets of rules is incredibly inefficient and eventually, all those expenses get pushed onto

consumers. the federal government might consider doing something to say, here is the one set of rules we are going by. host: how about tech companies that encounter regulation in the european union? how are those companies faring that regulation? guest: it is not going very well for eu consumers, it is proving expensive for these companies to do business there. a lot of their business models have been almost unknowingly illegal, targeted advertising is a great example. when you go online and see ads and think, is it listening to me, how did know i wanted this, it is because those algorithms are really good at figuring out what you might buy. that kind of targeted advertising is something the eu is trying to get rid of completely for kids and limit seriously for everyone. that goes to the heart of the business models of these platforms. if you want all the free stuff,

your eyeballs need to spend a little time looking at an ad. the eu is much less comfortable with that then we are here in the u.s. host: dave from new york on the independent line, go ahead. caller: just click, when we talk about social media -- just quick , when we talk about social media and the context of all the information, and want to compare it to china where you have a chat -- the chinese use it for everything. these it to buy food, their banking. it is a whole thing. in this context, when you talk about machine learning and the amount of data artificial intelligence -- the algorithms -- china has that. for whatever reason, their

culture is fixated on that. for china, it is a huge advantage for machine learning especially when you look at military applications and ai technology. i find it curious that is what elon musk referenced. guest: that is a great question, you are right to look to elon musk and people in the industry more focused on what is really happening. there is a lag in washington, the things we are worried about are probably not the things happening at the front of the tech industry. you are right to take notice. i think the data is obviously incredibly valuable and always has been, that is not new. i always use the supermarket example. supermarkets know exactly what you buy and they are good at using that data to get you coupons and specials.

but the great thing about data is that it is not like oil. when one person has that barrel of oil, the next person does not. data comes from everywhere, you cannot get so far ahead in data no one can catch you because we are all online. whether it is an advantage for china in the short-term, they have a very different model of how they treat their citizens and private information. whatever advantage they get from that, i would argue we are much better off with our protections here. host: following up on our conversation of concerns over china, there was a story yesterday in the wall street journal about chip manufacturing in the united states. they write that the government and companies are spending billions on an effort to build up domestic manufacturing and safeguard the supply of chips. since 2020, semiconductor companies proposed more than 40

projects across the country worth nearly $200 billion. where the oil reserves are located has defined geopolitics in the last five decades, the chief executive officer of intel says where the chip factories are for the next five decades is more important. why is this an important issue? guest: i do not want to throw oil over, sources of energy is what powers everything, so that will remain important. as we move and evolve and progress, different things become things we cannot live or do without. chips are one of them, they are in your car, and everything you use. this is one of those external things to what may be the market would normally do, where we have concerns about where those plans are and we learned a lot about that with the supply chain issues. same in pharmaceuticals and other things, we are rethinking, what are the other priorities in terms of shoring up supply

chains to be sturdy when anything can happen? host: gary from georgia, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i think you are fighting a losing battle, trying to convince people. they do not believe your facts, i do not believe there facts. we are butting heads and not getting anywhere. i believe i've got the question for you that i believe you can answer. the famous -- i hope this do not get you in any kind of trouble. the famous bill melugin, what is your relationship to him? guest: we are definitely related, there were not that many melugins. we have spread out. i do not know him.

i would love to have a better story that we grip together. we are both from southern california, by all accounts he is a lovely human person. i do not know him personally, we are related. my mother has checked the family book and can confirm. so yes. host: florida next up, good morning. you are on the air. caller: can you hear me now? host: yes. caller: i have a question, i am a longtime watcher. since 79, radio to tv. the program has changed so much. i am wondering, what is the difference in what you are doing with respect to information you are putting out to people on-air and you are worried about what other companies are dealing with. the differences, they give people an opportunity to printer

on their own, you invite people to come on with commentary. a lot of times -- every day, a lot of them sit up there and make statements and innuendos that are false. for, you used to come at the end of the program or somewhere saying you need to look at some of the facts, some of these people are stating things and you should be able to go look them up. host: if you are talking about this program, this program has always brought on area experts from washington and around the country. we are having jessica melugin with the competitive enterprise institute, variable skilled and knowledgeable in the field of high-tech. we do that all the time, seven days a week of this program, to have area experts from all sorts of organizations. some of which may have skin in the game in terms of

legislation, you are absolutely right. everything is out front, you can go to her website and any of our guests come on. thanks for the question. miriam on the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. i just tuned into the show, i do not know if you covered the first amendment very much on how big tech is basically been a tool of the federal government to censor free speech. i do not know if she has covered the fact that the fbi had 90 dedicated agents hired just to censorship speech just on twitter. that does not even count other social media platforms. they pay twitter $3.5 million for staff to coordinate with the fbi, which is the federal government to do so. i am very disturbed that this is not a bigger scandal, that we

have the federal government censoring free speech. host: we touched on a little bit, if you would like to say anything. guest: good news, it is about to be a big new story if jim jordan has anything to say about it. we will hold hearings, do a lot of oversight. he is very savvy in the media about getting his issues plenty of attention. i think it will be a bigger and bigger story, the twitter files are just the first chapter. now, we have to get to the hard part. what are we going to do about it? what safeguards can be put in place of this is not happen again? no matter what happens there, we are all getting a nice tutorial in how this works, which is important for us to be informed users on social media, it is important to be a skeptic later as you would be if you taken lots of information from other sources. there will be more to come. host: next is donald in california, democrats line. caller: yes, the house

republicans are doing an investigation, i would like for them to be up-to-date on their logic truth tables. thank you. host: i did not ask you earlier, we talked a bit about china. china, in terms of technology, high-tech technology, they are leading the world in the area of facial recognition across the country. how much of that is a concern among lawmakers here? guest: it should be, this is why the select committee might lead to other important issues. not just where the government guardrails are. on things like facial recognition, lots of other issues where we need to have some saying maybe it does not worry me if the company i work for has a facial recognition that gets me into my building and saves me time and keeps me safe, maybe i am ok with that. how was the information being stored and protected and who else has access to it?

when it starts to bleed over into the fbi being involved, that is a very different question. host: we touched on this a little bit, the role we play as consumers of social media. you brought up the grocery store example. we expect those coupons, we are ok with a certain amount of recognition of passwords, for example, making transactions were interactions with social media easier. do we, as consumers, need to get to a comfort level with how and the amount of data high-tech, big tech companies have? guest: we need to decide for ourselves. everyone's comfort level is different. you have to be well-informed about what is happening so you can decide. for me, i love coupons, i love a discount. i love when amazon shows me something i did not know i wanted but now i do. some people do not.

for me, the line is health information, banking information , that occupies a different set of safeguards and privacy. as far as my commercial life, i am comfortable. i am boring, i am not buying controversial things. that might be different for someone with a more interesting life than i do. if you understand how things work, you can make better decisions about who you share your information with. host: one more question from michelle in illinois, should we worry about social media platforms data collection when there are agencies like the nso group who sells life and surveillance spyware such as pegasus to government agencies? guest: i am certainly more worried about those kinds of issues, the government gathering data. as frustrating as it is -- i understand, no one like to be in facebook jail. some of the calls these companies have made seem crazy to half the country, the next one is crazy to the other half of the country.

that is all very sincere, i really do understand. at the end of the day, facebook and twitter cannot put you in jail and freeze your bank account. the u.s. government will not make you that deal. having that bright line distinction between facebook knowing what kind of coffee i like and sending a coupon is very different for me than having federal agents without warrants asking for information about what citizens of the united states -- host: as a house committee gets underway, we would like to have you back to get your take the jessica melugin's director of the center for technology and innovation at the enterprise institute. thanks for being with us. guest: it was a pleasure. host: that will do it for us, we are back monday at 7:00 eastern, tomorrow morning 7:00 a.m. enjoy your weekend. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]