washington journal, your calls and comments. then ryan of axios discusses the whe house's efforts to get ai to commit to a set of safety principles. later, newsmax white house correspondent john gizzi on the house hearing of the hunter biden probe that featured two irs wstblowers and former doll from- former president donald trump's indictment. then rhiannon hamam, peter shamshiri, and michroff talk about their "5-4" podcast. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning. saturday, july 22.

yesterday, 70 companies developing artificial intelligence, including google, meta, and apple, have given voluntary commitments ensuring their products are safe. in this first hour, we want to know your thoughts on government deletion of artificial intelligence. are there enough safeguards in place? the phone lines are original. eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. you can send a text at (202) 748-8003. be sure to send your first name and city and state. you can contact us on social yet at facebook.com/c-span and twitter and instagram @cspanwj. before we take your calls, i want to show the white house. this is yesterday. here is president biden talking

about voluntary principles tech companies agree to follow. [video clip] >> companies have an obligation to make sure there to elegy is safe of verrilli it -- to make sure their technology is safe before releasing it to the public. companies must prioritize the security of their systems by safeguarding their models against cyber threats and managing the risk to our national security, ensuring the best practices and industry standards that are necessary. companies have a duty to earn people's trust and empower users to make informed decisions, labeling content that has been altered or ai generated. rooting out bias and discrimination putting -- discrimination, and children children from harm. they have the responsibility to

use ai to solve greatest challenges like investing into climate change and health care. to help students and workers prosper from enormous opportunity of ai. host: that was the president yesterday with big tech leaders. here is a article from axios about that. the white house gives ai firms to take safe pledges. seven companies at the forefront of this year's ai wave have given voluntary commitment to make sure their products are safe and transparent. the white house says they hope this will help the governments get ahead of what key administration officials viewed as a welcome initial -- an unwelcome initial deployment of the technology. microsoft, openai, who, meta, anthropic -- google, meta, anthropic.

they will share information with each other and the federal government about risks and over abilities. they also commit to investing in cybersecurity and insider threat safeguards to protect unreleased model weights. weights are the numbers once distilled a laborious expensive training of ai models in which the white house considers to be the most sensitive part of these systems. let's take a look at for the republican marco rubio after a senate hearing on ai, talking about concerns around technology. [video clip] >> imagine for a moment if a machine is telling you these five things an adversary is doing me they want to go to war. -- doing, meaning they want to go to war. i imagine is ai advised during the been missile access. we may have had a different outcome. that is concerning.

but ai may give a smaller countries the authority to have searching capabilities that punch above their weight, in ways that can threaten. but i do not think you can stop this. technological advances are impossible to put into the bottle. even if we all the laws out, and we can regulate however government does this, -- how our government is using this, but we cannot put the genie back into the bottle. in some fields, this we will do what globalization did to workers in america and factors it will put some workers out of jobs. it will create new jobs. it will have an impact. host: senator rubio talking about how disruptive ai can be some people will lose their

jobs, being replaced by artificial intelligence. we are taking your calls about you think about this and the need for regulation. our phone lines are regional. if you are in the eastern or central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain or pacific, (202) 748-8001. take a look at this poll from reuters. the headline says, "ai threatens humanity's future guest: 61% of americans -- "ai threatens humanity's future." 61% of americans say ai can put humanity's future at risk. this was published in may. more than two thirds of americans are concerned about negative effects of ai and 61% think it could threaten

civilization. chatgpt became the largest growing technology of all time. chatgpt has kicked off an ai arms race with tech heavy companies like microsoft and google vowing to outdo each other's accomplishments. lawmakers are also concerned. openai's cio testify before congress, voicing concerns about potential miss use of technology and advocating for regulation. i wonder what you think about this. we will take your calls until 8:00 a.m. eastern time. the phone lines are on the screen. let's talk to logo in washington dc -- washington, d.c. caller: good morning.

i believe we need to do regulation now on the front end. host: what do you mean by that? caller: i agree that it has to be safe. we cannot troll of it. i agree with marco rubio that we cannot put the genie back into the bottle. you have to manage and minimize, manage whatever it is doing, minimize the risk to everybody. we cannot wait for a bad outcome to occur and then come up with regulation to address it. to be in front of it, especially when -- we need to be in front of it, especially when people working on it are telling us to be careful. we careful about how ai and chatgpt is managed. the thing that scares me the

most is when you have people messing with it and hacking it and creating havoc. host: have you tried chatgpt or played around with it or any other generative ai? caller: in my work, we use an ai -- type of thing influenced by ai, but i have not personally tried chatgpt. i have talked to people who have tried it and it does have been parts to it. i can see it as a useful tool. but even in those conversations, the person was saying, "if is use the right way." as a caveat. host: we have this on facebook from jim who says ai is out-of-the-box. much like cyber identity f, you can regulate all you want but

you can never stop it. this is a text message from collin in baltimore who says, as an ai scientist, i use ai every day. larry is calling us from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with the two previous text messages, or what you just read. it is an great investment -- is a great investment in science and technology, but our centers have very little understanding of these issues -- our senators have very little understanding of these issues. i asked everyone out with a regular phone or cell phone, how is your do not call list working for you? host: speaking of how much

lawmakers know about ai, take a look at house minority leader hakeem jeffries, who spoke earlier this week. they are trying to engage in learning about ai and the impact it could make. [video clip] >> the rise of artificial intelligence presents a unique challenge that should be addressed in a bipartisan way. leadership murder has taken important steps -- leader chuck schumer has taken important steps forward and we look forward to see where the senate goes forward on this. we have had many bipartisan briefings to try to establish a collective baseline of knowledge and information that would provide an opportunity for the house to move in an informed and enlightened way, to both allow

artificial intelligence to drive as a tech -- to thrive as a technology in areas where it can improve conditions of humankind. there is reason to believe, in certain areas like health care, innovation, and through, that this could be the case -- and breakthroughs, that this could be the case. but at the same time, making sure there are safeguards in pays -- in place. host: this was the minority leader of the house, hakeem jeffries. do you think more regulation of artificial intelligence is needed? what do you see as the benefits or risks of artificial intelligence technology? you can give us a call. the phone lines are on your screen by region.

eastern and central, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. you can always send a text or interact on social media. this is a political article. "intelligence nominee warned generative ai poses threat to 2024 election." the advent of technology like chatgpt poses new threats to technology and security. it says generative ai will likely pose a major threat in next year's election, according to joe biden's pick to leave the nsa and cyber command. this comes as lawmakers in congress scrambled to come up with ways to regulate and monitor the use of new ai to allergy amid heightened -- ai technology amid heightened fears after hackers try to interfere

in the last two u.s. elections. as we look at this election cycle, the area we have to consider the role of generative ai as part of this. our concern is for and use attempting to be a part of our electoral process. he currently serves as the deputy commander and testify during the nomination hearing. both cyber command and the nsa have played key roles in monitoring for and disrupting threats in recent years. they reportedly carry this out on the day of the 2018 elections . russian hackers were linked to efforts in 2016 to target voting infrastructure, and spread

misinformation designed to sway the outcome of the presidential election. i wonder what you think about this and other things related to artificial intelligence. michael in north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i am glad you are able to work to back warnings -- work back to back mornings. it is very concerning about ai. i have seen some reporting on 60 minutes and walks news, c-span and -- and fox news, c-span, and cnn. i have seen reporting about how beaches can be wrote by ai for congressman. the senates and u.s. house of representatives, man or woman, can simply type their name in

and right enemies on any -- right any speech that artificial intelligence wants to do. as concerning to me. host: why is this concerning? caller: we want to keep things as authentic as possible. it is a whole new situation where you want to be able to have a human touch on each legislation. i know artificial intelligence is very accurate in many fields. i am sure it is very accurate with speeches and information stored on hardware, as far as facts and the way the representative or senator may feel about certain topics or legislation. it is like the gentleman said

earlier, who is making these phone calls when you are on a do not call list? that is just the tip of the iceberg. the main iceberg is -- i guess you could say, someone perpetrating or pretending to be something or someone they are not. host: along those lines, michael mentioned artificial intelligence writing speeches for lawmakers. this was in the new york times that says, "google tests an ai to able to write news articles." it has been demonstrated for executives at the new york times, washington post, and news corp. which owns wall street journal. google tests ai that is able to write news articles for

organizations. tool is known internally by the title "genesis," and can generate news content. the people speaking on the condition of anonymity. one of the three people familiar with the product believed google things it can serve as a assistant josh as an assistant for journalists. the company saw it as responsible technology that can help steer the publishing industry away from pitfalls of generative ai. some executives at google describes it as unsettling. two people said it seemed to take for granted the effort that went into producing accurate news stories. john from lowell, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. happy saturday. you look awesome this morning, as always.

on ai, i used the chatgpt thing and it is a fantastic opportunity to rewrite letters for you. this ai has been around for a long time. these bots that pop-up on your computer and want to talk to you. it is just an computer -- a computer. the reason this is coming to a tidal wave event as it will take away television as we know it. if the government is going to do anything about it -- if you have an actor portraying the news that is not a real person, they should have a mark. host: you are talking about deepfakes. this can be used in lots of things like disinformation campaigns. caller: exactly. our biggest problem is we can

regulate all we want, but countries infiltrating networks like china and russia, will not regulate. this is an united nations issue as well. i think the president should go to the u.n. to have a conversation about this. god bless you. have a good weekend. host: speaking of the u.n., tick a look at what the you and secretary general said when he was -- take a look at what the secretary-general said when he called for a global reproach -- approach. [video clip] >> there is a capacity to monitor future risks. it should be flexible and can see the social and legal questions. it should be in the private sector, civil society, independent scientists and those driving innovation.

the need for global status makes the u.n. the ideal place for this to happen. this is to protect succeeding generations to give a clear mandate to bring all people together around the collective mitigation of long-term global risks. ai poses such a risk. i welcome calls from some member states for the creation of a new united nations entity to support efforts for diplomacy inspired by such models of the national atomic energy agency and the organization and the government on climate change. the overarching goal of this body will be to support countries to maximize the benefits of ai for good, to mitigate existing and potential risks, and to establish internationally agreed mechanism. there is a huge skills gap

around the ai in government which includes instructions that must be addressed at the national and global level. a newly made entity will gather expertise. it could support cooperation on the development of ai tools to accelerate sustainable development. host: that was the u.n. secretary-general. we are talking about artificial intelligence. take a look at what we got on twitter from michael. "i had an insurance broker on my local radio program who was discussing how major insurance companies are using ai to do nothing in order to deny fire insurance to entire zip codes without any inspection or data verification." joseph in north carolina. "ai is trained by copying information and has the

potential to ruin the patent system worldwide. the best use of ai is in health care and medical care." roberts in houston, texas. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: good. caller: you are talking about ai. ai is not artificial intelligence. i am the authority in charge of intelligence and i am the one that owns all the institutions and stuff like that. host: jd in delaware. caller: good morning. recently, i don't know if i can mention these names but td ameritrade has shifted all their accounts. i went ahead and played along,

but calling into schwab for the first time, they imposed a security measure that took a voiceprint and made me repeat a sentence three different times. before in what was happening, they had my -- i knew what was happening, they had my voiceprint. i think ai could take that voiceprint and say anything they wanted to say. host: in your voice. caller: it scares me. and the fact they imposed it, and did not ask the customer if it was ok to take this personal identification, and holds it in their "secure" files. host: exactly.

it is like a different way of doing a password or fingerprint. but i understand the concern. using those kind of deepfakes for world leaders to say things they did not say could be really concerning. caller: this is true. i am not a very important person so i am not a they will seal any from me, -- will still anything from me, but it is still out there. i don't have a mechanism to retract it. host: that is right. sylvia in virginia. caller: thank you for letting me call. when i was younger, i used two loves the jetsons. i always wanted a rosy to help me have my housework done and dishes. host: we could all use one of those. [laughter] caller: i have always wanted one

but i can see where our enemies could harm us with it. i think we need more regulation. they wait too long to have things regulated. we need it now. host: steve in san jose, california. hello. caller: hello. i believe the world is playing with a loaded gun. whatever we do in the united states to get a handle around the safety considerations is all good and well, but you think china is going to do anything? china is out for world domination. they will exploit it to the maximum without any regards to safety. i have not heard any talk on

this program about the military on this end, the u.s. military. we all remember the 1985 movie "terminator," and all remember how the movie described the destruction of the world through artificial intelligence with a computer system called "skynet." i think we are playing with a loaded gun. u.s. military is going to be pushed into using artificial intelligence without any safety controls. host: what kind of safety

controls are you looking for? caller: i don't know. i am not an expert in the realm of artificial intelligence. but because the chinese will be pushing it to the max, you can rest assured the u.s. literary is going to -- military is going to do the same thing. host: there are some experts saying china is already ahead of us on some ai to elegy -- ai technology. caller: i would not doubt that. they have to capability through stealing to get what they want. remember this. our president, joe biden, stopped investigation of the

ability of cspi to investigate espionage -- of the fbi to investigate espionage. because at university pnu, where he had his office, the professors wrote a letter to the administration and justice department, accusing the u.s. and administration of being -- what is the word? host: i have to move on. we are joined by every order from axios. ryan heath. welcome. guest: great to be here. good morning. host: before we talk about the

commitment of these seven companies, can you talk briefly about the safety concerns around artificial technologist -- unofficial technology? guest: the first thing to understand is technology can be used for good and bad. artificial intelligence is not different from any other technology. because these ai tools are so powerful, there are concerns in the white house and elsewhere that if you do not control who has access to them, and there is transparency about how they arrive and to the output they do, they can be used in a range of nefarious ways. this -- it does not mean these things are guaranteed to happen but you can use these cools to develop new chemical compounds -- these tools to develop new chemical compounds.

people who do not want to do this to discover new growth or cure cancer or deal with other elements, could be used to create the agents of bioterrorism. i need to stress this has not happened in any known sense, but because we do not have a regulation on how these tools can be developed and whether they can be used for commercial use, the possibility exists. that is why the white house has been concerned that these tools have been rushed out to the market. that is why they have come to reach these commitments with these companies as the regulatory discussion progresses. host: these companies have voluntarily agreed to these commitments but what did they actually agree to echo what is going to change? guest: there is good and bad news.

obviously, any commitment is a step forward form -- forward for the current situation but there are a lot of things we don't know. there is no clear metric or timeline about companies all report back and when independent audits will come in and say, they did not they said they would do. the most important commitment and what is most likely to generate some kind of change is companies have said they will not only do an increased range of internal security and safety testing before they develop new products and send them out onto the market, but they will go allow independent experts to come in and check for vulnerabilities and potential problems around the new ai models and products. the famous when everyone has heard of his chatgpt. the one that gives the beautiful

answers and sounds like it is is our human talking to you and doing the work quickly there are not the only product on the market but this gives you a sense of things that will have to be tested more regularly. host: then -- go ahead. guest: they will develop tools to allow you, as the citizen and user who is looking at these things, to know whether the answers are generated by ai or content that came from a human originally. there will be tools to let you have a clearer sense of when ai is our of your life. one of the other things people have been worried about there is not a lot of abilities for people in universities right now to be able to be a watchdog on these tools, and to develop and understand new ways these tools

could have safety built into them. it is important to develop these models, and not a lot of organizations have the computing power to perform the watchdog role. the companies said they will now invest more into forms of research that will allow independent researchers to play a more active role. host: why do you think they agreed voluntarily to be safeguards? guest: i cannot know with this answer is better than speculation. what we know from all history of technology regulation is self-regulation is either a step towards further regulation or a way you can delay that regulation. in congress, there are many members of congress in the house and senate that have been very worried by these developments. they have started to draft

bills, which in an objective sense, are tougher on the company's then voluntary commitments. it is clear that companies are signing up for this because they want to give themselves breathing space and think some bills go too far. by signing up, they have something to point to to say, do not rush to regulation, give us a chance to see if commitments are working or not. host: tell us more about the draft bills. what is in some of them and what can we be looking at in terms of regulation? guest: it says ai cannot be allowed to be of art of election advertising. think about all the billions of dollars that gets spent on election advertising. there is a lot of information that could manipulate them. so there is a bill that says

that is not allowed. or that it is very clearly marked. then they say, for example, robots are not allowed to make decisions about who does or does not get a job. then there are others that dive more specific the into initial risks i mentioned around people creating systemic viruses -- creating synthetic viruses or agents that have the ability to alter life and death. host: what about issues like privacy, transparency? you mentioned transparency a little bit, although companies will typically not be excited because that is proprietary information that gives their advantage. how do you deal with things like that and copyright issues? guest: this is another hot button issue and we have seen this in the debate and publicity

around actors and writers striking in hollywood. this gets to the hearts of intellectual property and copyright. one thing people do not realize right now is every time you asked a question into one of these systems, all were thinking there, or if you were using your company's internal information, that is being fed into the system to help it work better and give more accurate answers. the systems were trained on information out there in the internet. millions of us created this information, and some were in a professional area, but none of us were compensated. this is a really big issue at the moment. all people who create content for a living use publishers and other organizations, many feel they are -- feel they should be part of the monitoring systems that make these tools.

we all helped make the tools and it should not just go back to the companies smart enough to create the models in the first place. this will be a huge debate. we of already seen lawsuits from authors and others who say their information has been stolen to help these companies prosper. we don't have a ruling on whether the ai companies have broken the law, but it is a matter of debate. if you do not see some movement toward allowing compensation, you might use -- you might see congress enforcing that. host: what will they look at next, after this? guest: they said they are already drafting an executive order which is the step the president takes if he feels the issue is urgent and requires urgent action, but he or she is

not seeing anything out of congress. i am sure the white house will also be under pressure from civil society and journalists, like myself, to say it has been three months, expense, 12 months -- six months, 12 months, where is the report that? we have seen senator schumer work with a range of republicans and democrats for an education forum in the senate. that may sound like -- what is the point of all that? but he is quite worried our elected representatives do not know enough about the technology , but he knows they will have to regulate them. he wants them to be in a better area of knowledge before regulations come out the door. host: i am just curious. you are obviously an report -- a reporter.

are you worried artificial intelligence will start writing articles and he will not be as necessary anymore? guest: it already is. my answer is this has become such a prominent matter of debate because a loss of white-collar jobs are going to change, and some will be eliminated because of ai. the really creative jobs that rely on a lot of relationships and back stories and knowledge, and i count my job among them, i do not think are under threat from ai. some of our tasks are. if you are going to sports matches ingenuity down scores and writing them up for your local news a bird, -- sports matches, and writing down scores, and writing them up for your local newspaper, that is

the kind of thing that will go away. some of these jobs will change very soon. host: brian heath, global tech correspondent -- ryan heath, global tech correspondent from axios. we will go back to your calls for the next 20 minutes on artificial intelligence. what you just heard, what you think, and is the need for regulation too much? alex. caller: ai needs to be banned across the board. it is a super dangerous tool and humans are notoriously bad and bad things to each other. we cannot even create things that are not racists, and we think we can unleash the stuff on the general public. i don't appreciate it. host: roger in georgia. good morning.

caller: good morning. i feel, now that the basic civilian community knows about this, there is a possibility it has already been out for 10 to years. my main concern is not what it can do in the civilian community, but what it can do and will be used for in the military community. some people could get access to this and use it in weapons systems and strategies. i think that is a major problem. host: dennis in san bernardino, california. good morning. caller: good morning. i think everyone's concerns about ai are warranted and understandable, but the one thing people tend to forget

about is these devices will be nothing without us. i don't mean this as far as building the goes, but as far as getting information and wants. they are not sent to you to and getting experiences or make -- not sentient and are not getting experiences. they get information from databases. i think unless things become like futurerama, the one thing ai will never be able to take from us -- say if i go to hawaii and i have a conversation with someone and there are no cameras or phones around. nothing is recorded or anything or written down. i have this in my head and i have the new ones in my head.

ai will not ever be able to take this from me. i am not saying ai is a bad thing or this is a bad. it is inherently a good thing and has printing press power and printing press possibility and can do wonders for the press and plausibility of information. host: it definitely has advantages in health care and things like that. caller: it certainly does. it is concentrated and in the hands of so little people and so little companies that i fear it will not be used with the power of the printing press. i feel like it will be used for bad things because i do not think these companies have our best interest in mind. host: a text from scott in

houston. "everything related to computer processing and information is being referred to as ai. this is a rehash of the panic from years ago when the king was first introduced." tracy. we can wait until it takes over every aspect of our systems or we can try to regulate it to the extent you can. john on facebook, "ai is probably inevitable and can provide good things for the society but it needs to stringent insight, regulation and accountability. the military is probably the greatest threat as they will no doubt minimize it." take a look at the armed services committee chair mike gallagher, who questions experts on america's understanding white analogy is important -- this technology is important.

[video clip] >> i want to imagine you are sitting across from my grandma. have an old-fashioned in hand. to explain what she needs to know about -- you need to explain what she needs to know about ai, why it matters. both in warfare and her children and grandchildren's lives. what do you say to virginia justice? >> if we look toward world war ii and the last arrow complex, new technology like the nuclear bomb were critical to a making sure -- two making sure we were able to prosper and set the tone for the end of the war. we are now embarking on a new era where artificial intelligence is likely to set the stage for the future of

ideologies, the balance of power, and the future of the relevant piece of our world. artificial intelligence is incredibly powerful technology that underpins nearly everything we do from an economic and military standpoint. it is critical that we as a nation about how we protect our citizens from the rest of artificial intelligence, but also protect from the risks of ai. >> there is a new technology that, under the right circumstances, can protect your grandchildren and this nation. that can make this nation economically and militarily strong enough to defend its people and interests. and in the wrong hands could imperil those same things. it is important that your government and industry work together to realize these promises and mitigate these threats. host: we are talking about

artificial intelligence. john in prairie village, kansas. good morning. caller: hello. how are you doing today? host: good. caller: i want to go back to the 90's -- cheaper labor or whatever. i was watching the program earlier about [indiscernible] host: i am having a hard time making out what you are saying. can you try to call me back? we will try to get on. kelly in texas. caller: good morning. i recently read an article about this. i am not that new to ai.

it has been out for seven years. but apparently the governor of minnesota in 2011 had a program, or wanted the government to make a program, to help stop unemployment fraud. they came up with an ai program. fortunately, this program selected over 40,000 unemployment recipients, saying they had committed fraud. the thing is that most of these people ended up with a grangers finds that they have -- with egr egious fines they had to pay and prevented them from getting unemployment. apparently, people were and assent. that is very scary.

when you are unemployed and were unemployment benefits are cut and now you have to pay fines, saying you committed unemployment fraud, which you did not. i am sitting here and thinking, what if you are -- you end up on death row? host: what happens when ai is wrong and gets it very wrong? caller: when ai is wrong and you end up on death row for a murder you had nothing to do with. this is very scary. host: it depends on the quality of the data being used as feed into and train the models. tom in new jersey. caller: we are going down a path.

artificial intelligence is in every town, every police department, every workforce place. it is going to replace humans because no one wants to work anymore. they started this and now don't know how to it. it is advancing itself and they are losing control. but the problem is now is it is already here, so how do you stop or control it? right now, it is kind of scary. elon musk says we should stop with it but now it is too late. i know china has it and they will use it for wrong things around the world. can they stop it? i am not a scientist and cannot tell you about that but it is scaring itself. because it is advancing itself. they are already doing robots. police department has dogged

robots. what is next? robots that can break into peoples's houses, arrest you, stop you on the road. what if they malfunction or hurt someone? we are in a situation when there is no stopping it, which is why they are all scared. can you stop it? i doubt it right now. host: take a look at what microsoft's brad smith said by endorsing a voltary an independently committing to several others that support these critical goals, microsoft is expanding safe ai practices, working alongside industr leaders. by moving quickly, the white house is commitments create safety to ensure -- the white house's commitments create safety to ensure there are looking at this.

we are working to tailor out concrete steps that will make ai more secure and more beneficial for the public. let's also take a look at other quotes from industry leaders. next is openai's vp of global affairs. policymakers around the world are considering new laws or highly capable systems. today's systems contribute specific and concrete practices to that discussion. this is part of our ongoing collaboration with governments, civil society organizations, and others around the world to advance ai governance. finally, from google's president of global affairs. we are proud to join o companies to jointly commit to read oslo practices in ai -- sor bowl practices in ai. we have been working on ai

more than a dozen years. in 2017,reornted to be a "ai first" company. but we also want to make these services safe and secure. we designed to make these safe in our approach to ai is no different. vicki from tennessee. caller: i agree with the last guy. ai is not something we need to be using. number one, the president has already used it in his beaches -- his speeches. host: how do you know that? caller: because of how his body was postured and his voice.

he is already using it. i don't even watch computer-generated movie. if it is artificial, what makes it important? host: rudy in daytona beach, florida. caller: i am 83 years old. in the early 50's, i went to a drive-in movie theater in new work with my mother. -- new york with my mother. i set i want to go to the concession stand. there was a beautiful milky way and a ufo hovering over the driving theater -- the drive-in movie theater. it hovered up there. i sent flying saucer and everyone got out of their cars.

over the years, i thought with artificial intelligence -- i thought, was it artificial intelligence lying that thing? it probably was because a living thing would probably die from all the radiation traveling in space. host: what year was this? caller: i think i nailed i -- i wish i nailed the date down more with my mother. 1952 or 1953. host: richard. caller:. good morning. a commentator in minneapolis was saying he was talking with president as usually impeding in china. he said he had 200,000 people he

did not know what to do with. you will have to have half the people on welfare because there will not be enough jobs because ai will replace them. i also want to ask about programming. do you have an id that says the caller called in a week ago? do you have a color --caller id? host: i think so. i think they do track that. they are telling me that do track that. were you trying to call in before your 30 days? caller: sometimes i forget how long ago i called in. host: we appreciate you calling.

john in california. caller: i had a thought about ai . i think it should be nationalized and there is a financial benefit from the technology that should be divided equally among people. host: how will that work? wouldn't that stifle innovation because he took away the profit motive of companies to develop new technology? caller: it should be developed by the government, absolutely. it should be controlled by the government, all development and use. any benefit should go to people. host: that is the time we have for this segment. thank you to everyone called and sent texts interacted on twitter and facebook. up next, newsmax's chief political correspondent john gizzi.

he joins us to review a very busy week in politics in washington and on the campaign trail. later, hours on podcast segment. the three cohosts of the "5-4 should ♪ american history tv exploring the people in the fence to tell the american story. author, political activist and chess champion discusses the

anniversary of the berlin airlift and looks at henry truman's leadership during the crisis and how it can be applied to today. untold power exam and if edith wilson wasn't acting president as woodrow wilson had a stroke. we look at her life as the second misses wilson in the white house. watch american history tv every weekend and find a full schedule on line. next week on the c-span network the house and senate return for their last week i had of the august recess. it's expected to work on expense bills as funding is set to expire.

the senate will work on the defense bill with the vote expected by the end of the week. homeland security will speak on immigration enforcement in the house oversight committee will hold a meeting on you aedes. -- uae> . what's next week live on the c-span network or on c-span now are free mobile video app. had to c-span.org to stream video live or on-demand any time. c-span your unfiltered view of government.

a healthy democracy doesn't look like this, it looks like this where americans can see democracy at work. get informed, stray from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. host: welcome back to washington journal and i am joined now by john gizzi he is of chief political columnist for newsmax. the news is that there could be a third indictment before we

talk about that i wanted to talk about the date for the mar-a-lago case for may 2024. talk about that date and how it could impact the presidential election. guest: that date will be when primary season is over inconceivably donald trump could be the nominee for president. it's just two months before the national convention. we would have a presidential nominee on trial and it would be unprecedented. if he were to win in the florida courtroom that would enhance his chances as a candidate. if he were to lose it could have another effect. the timing is something that has

a severe and powerful impact on presidential politics of 2024. host: if you would like to college and you can do so by party affiliation for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. talk about what the charges mean? guest: the charges would be encouraging a riot as well as obstruction of justice. with all the talk that president trump was reportedly ready to provide pardons for some of the defendants involved. it could be a wide range of accounts in the indictment. the important thing is the

timing of this clearly would come as the president is about to get into the iowa caucus in the early stage of the presidential nomination. this assists the narrative of his supporters that the system is gaming against president trump and is designed to move him aside, derail his candidacy when polls show him to be the republican for runner. -- front runner. host: yesterday we had a segment on the 14th amendment and that would disqualify trump from running in the first place. what are your thoughts about that? guest: there are two sides to that. again, people have been

. it's up to congress to decide whether they could be seated. i would say that would have to be court cases and rulings on this because we are going into political netherworld energy gesture -- judicial netherworld. host: how could the election be impacted given that trump would have to be away from the campaign to be at the hearing. guest: that is a two-edged sword. any politician who is facing trial for corruption or any

charge knows the time that he needs on the campaign trail is devoted to his legal defense. the late senator ed kearney decided in 1974 that he would not seek reelection because he said i can devote my time to a legal case but i won't when my senate seat. i can devote my time to a campaign but i would lose in court. he stepped down and one in court. in this case, i have seen that story many other times with members of the house under indictment. the late mayor marion barry. there are so many hours in the day. he would get unprecedented political -- publicity.

and we don't even know if the trial would be allowed to be filmed. the rules are up to the judge but the coverage of it in the international media and help his base rally. host: what are you seeing as far as the fundraising bump after the first indictment. do you think there will be another fundraising bump after a third indictment? guest: there will be a fundraising bump. whenever president trump is under fire his supporters rallied to him and he doesn't even have to do mailings or solicitations of any kind. they find a way to put it on the credit card and give up money.

on the other hand, there comes a time when supporters start to question and say enough is enough. a third indictment would be hard for some of his backers to follow. i think this is a two-edged sword. host: does anything stand out as far as his rivals this week? guest: it continues with the same pattern that we have seen as this race develops. most of them are deferential and ron desantis, an attorney would say he is not going to comment until the final case is decided. that's usually a good cover. host: but that is after the nominee will be decided.

guest: we find others like governor kristi noem who have never change their tone which is no trump at all. i think it will continue the same way up to the end. host: a bunch of people want to talk to you. let's talk to carla. caller: how are you guys doing today? i've a couple of questions. one would be on these indictments. do you think that would be double jeopardy because they tried to impeach him over that? guest: no i don't because the impeachment is a constitutional process that applies not just to presidents but to others who are in the executive branch of

government or the judiciary. the other would be a criminal indictment and that's very different. the indictment can go forward without regards to the impeachments. host: you said you had another question? caller: the second question, do you have any information when something will come about joe biden's impeachment or indictment for his documents? guest: i have no idea. i was following the hearings on the irs and hunter biden and that has yet to truly develop. i would not speculate about the impeachment of president biden or how far it would go. host: she did mention the

documents. he is under indictment for the mar-a-lago documents and joe biden also how to classify documents in his position. talk about the difference. guest: in the case of joe biden he would say he received permission for the documents. donald trump is charged with not getting permission and not going through the normal channels. his attorneys will argue that this is not the case. based on the information we have now, that's the difference between the two. host: richard is an independent in iowa. caller: this is interesting. the lady who just called mention when will they do bidens.

it is weird that they are waiting to do bided because they have already done pence. they have already done trump. host: on what? caller: the documents. why are they waiting? it seems like they are waiting for the election. it seems to me that they are using this as a tool for election. guest: i would just simply say that articles of impeachment have their genesis and i would

probably say that republican leadership and individual members know that they are preaching an election year prefer to let the people have the word on whether joe biden should remain president and whether the political year with impeachment proceedings as the election is going on. host: al is on the line for democrats in detroit. caller: i have a quick question. i have been a firefighter for 28 years and there was a moral cause to be a firefighter. if we have a guy he was convicted in the past that is questionable. how can he run as president for the united states with the past that he has and they require so much for me just to be a firefighter.

what do you think a trump white house with a book with the addition of a i? guest: let me start at the beginning. the constitution says anyone who seeks president much be a natural born citizen and 35 years of age. those are the requirements. there are no moral or ethics clauses such as civil servants police officers or fire fighters have. host: should there be? guest: i'm not the morality pass. -- police. as i said earlier the history of the united states congress is

replete with people who have served prison. there was james haley who went to prison for fire when he was a ringmaster at the circus in hartford, connecticut. he later had the conviction overturned. he served in congress many years. i could give a lot of other examples going back to connecticut, a former mayor went to prison and came back and was reelected mayor. that's the way the american system is. everyone gets a second chance. host: dena on the republican line. caller: hi everybody.

the january 6 indictment is not correct. the statement that trump's go down and make your statements no. they never aired the whole statement. the indictments are all stamps, all of them. biden met with the tech companies and said he could not be online with any of those tech executives but he met privately and what did he ask them?

i think congress should bring all of those people in the room and asked them what did president biden ask for, did he ask them to help with the election. the media has been against trump forever. they have never stopped. the fbi, the doj they have never been held accountable for what they did. no one went to jail. the handling of the trump documents. that was all a sham. guest: you have every right to your opinion. that is an opinion you are voicing. as a reporter, i simply report the news and trying to get

to the facts. i can't really respond to what you say because that is an opinion is something you were entitled to. host: sophia is in manhattan, and independent. caller: good morning. it is so good to see you again. you were here a couple of months ago. i always remember you. please, do not be offended. i am sick and tired of newsmax.

they had a chance to beat themselves. what is happening. the only thing we have now, [inaudible] host: can you give me an example of reporting by newsmax that you find problematic? caller: excuse me? host: can you give me an example? caller: last night, calling the president a dictator. we don't have a dictator in the

united states. a dictator? host: let's get a response. guest: it seems as if there is no way that any network can please every viewer when you report things and tried to watch this great and narrow -- walk the straight and narrow. you run the risk of being dull and uninteresting or upset someone who is more progressive. if you want that. there are editorials and commentators. if you want straight news come to newsmax. i think you will find it. host: is it true that one of your reporters called biden a dictator?

guest: we are very careful about pejorative terms. i can't speak for people who discuss things on a spectrum. host: ray is from florida. caller: my question is, we keep hearing about president trump. clinton was impeached. but when they got to the senate they didn't say he was impeached. it's like when you go to court they say they are not guilty. so why do we keep saying these presidents have been impeached? guest: this is the constitutional syntax. impeachment is an act taken by the house of representatives the

equivalent of an indictment. removal which is two thirds of the senate, that is what should be the proper term. on -- andrew johnson, clinton and trump were impeached but survived removal. 11 federal judges in the past 200 years were impeached and removed from office. host: a prosecutor in michigan announce criminal charges against electors. you wrote an article about it called what did the michigan

electors do wrong? what did you learn about that case? guest: i spent an entire day on this. this is a serious prosecution which could carry 14 years of imprisonment for the republican electors on charges of forgery. what this means electors who would've voted had they been certified on the advice of trump lawyers signed a form saying they believed he had carried michigan. this is while investigations were going on into the voting in november. they were met at the headquarters signed an unofficial form. one lawyer told me it did not

have the state seal of michigan or the michigan governor signature. it's like claiming to be a millionaire on a piece of paper. more significantly, the attorney general along with the agf for other states asked the justice department to look into this matter and. it's a federal issue in the justice department department would not touch it. it was then that the attorney general decided to go into state court in lansing and pursue the charges against the elector. when the attorney general made her announcement. it was without an audience or questions in all of the defendants, the electors learned

of it as the rest of the state did. based on my experience covering michigan politics for many years as well as the opinion of lawyers i spoke to i would be inclined to say that these charges will be dismissed. host: elizabeth from san diego. caller: the january 6 investigation as it is unfolding and trump has been declared to target its because it was a conspiracy. they were going around the country collecting states that would falsely declare trumpet one but he lost by 8 million votes.

that's the crux of the crime on january 6. there was a conspiracy to steal the election. and trumpeted it unless they -- and trump did it. trumpism unsuitable candidate for president. july 4 showing presidential images. trump tweeted out an image of the white house burning and him

dressed up as george washington. trump had bone stirs and does not have the character of a president. why the republicans have gone down this rabbit hole is a crime. host: let's get a response. guest: even if it is not true it sounds good. you have every right to your opinion and you can even state history as you see it. the fact is that for all the talk of false electors are trying to steal the election the electors were certified in the

votes were counted and joseph beau biden was declared the winner. the last time i checked. donald trump went back to mar-a-lago and jill biden's president right now. we can look back at what happened or what might've happened and that is why we have a judicial system and people can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. meanwhile determining what is a crime and what should be punished i will leave that up to the system. host: stephanie and virginia and independent. caller: i just wanted to respond to a caller calling about the

documents found with guided. my next comment if i think biden is doing great i think this is just trump distraction. host: what do we know about the hearings from the irs whistleblowers. did anything come out of that that surprise you. guest: the big news is that joe ziegler the supervisory agent of the irs cooperated what his immediate supervisor had said earlier that they were told to slow down and investigation and that he felt there were grounds

to pursue felony charges against the president's son. that is a pretty serious claim and the fact that two irs agents are saying it is very significant. if a third whistleblower were to emerge that would be a huge story at this point. i am not can you make any judgment because david weiss was charged with going slow on the aydin investigation -- the biden investigation. host: what do we know about the president's involvement in any illegal behavior? guest: we really don't know much now. what you're referring to is the

burisma investigator he felt he had to pay 10 million, 5 million to joe and hunter biden in 2020 in order to get an investigation halted. i would caution anyone who hears this just wait. a bombshell comes out people are inclined to believe it. i read this deal dossier so many people embraced it as fact and of course it was not. somebody said this is coming from a james bond figure. we are looking as someone who was under pursuit of criminal

investigations. and i would be very careful until more facts come out before believing him. but it is serious now and will focus more attention from the media with the ties between hunter biden and burisma. host: we have susan from fairfax, virginia. caller: i have a question about the documents case. you mentioned joe biden would say that he had permission to have those documents. i don't have any information that he had permission to have those classified documents. he was surprised that he had them. he was a senator at the time and had to actively take documents out of the secure skiff.

there is the presidential records act. it said a president can take the records he wants and keep them. i don't understand any of the localities regarding the documents case. biden if i was and i was being accused there are text messages whatsapp messages that implicate the president would come out full force and defend my name when you are accused of taking bribes against her own country while you are president i would be front and center defending my name. this looks very dangerous to me. i have noticed he has been decompensated and having some struggles and i think it's

because of all of the stress. he is worried about all of this. host: let's get a response on those two points. guest: if chargers were made like that about me my inclination would be to defend my honor. on the other hand i am not being advised by a battery of lawyers like he is about what to say that could come back and be used in court or in an investigation somehow against him. that is only my hunch about why joe biden has been quiet. the other thing is, he is a smart politician. he does not want to fuel the flame that will come out on the campaign trail.

regarding the presidential records act and whether former vice president biden had permission to take documents. that will probably come out in the courtroom. host: in fort lauderdale, florida, a democrat. caller: i have a question. guest: i'm sorry what? caller: newsmax leans to the right. guest: but let me say, the other side of the v. get representation in newsmax. i go out of my way to seek democrats offer stories. caller: the whole time i have

been watching newsmax i have never heard anything about donald trump receiving a payout from china. never heard about the 2 billion that the saudi's dave jared kushner. why haven't they covered those stories? guest: i can't answer you point by point on each of these cases the fact is your details on this like a ivanka trump being indicted, need to be fact checked as's people tell me when i write stories. one thing newsmax does is be very careful about what it reports regarding individuals

and this is a very important practice. when i started to read the new york times i noticed on page two they always listed mistakes from a previous issue and that is something is the necessity i have had to do us a print journalist and online. when you admit mistakes and correct the record it's better for the first in general. host: what do you say about jared kushner and's the saudi's? guest: this was a deal he made as a private citizen and again, it was not when his father-in-law was president.

in the case of hunter biden there are allegations that have come out that he profited while his father was vice president and that his father was directly involved in his dealings overseas. that is a little different from the trump case. no one has alleged that donald trump has profited from jared kushner's dealing with the saudi's. all of this will come out in the coming investigations and we will be able to see the analogies between the two families. host: tommy is in georgia, and independent. caller: yes, how are you doing. a couple of questions to ask you. when hunter biden weren't donald

trump a bill burr in office and they appointed a special prosecutor. i don't think bill barr let hunter biden off the hook for doing something wrong. host: are you talking about the prosecutor in delaware? guest: you are talking about david weiss, the attorney in delaware and all of the newspaper and media accounts point out that he is the trump appointed federal prosecutor. he is a career federal prosecutor who has served presidents of both parties for many years going back to ronald reagan and bill clinton and others. that who is overseeing the

hunter biden investigation. he will testify before the oversight committee this week on the charges that he did not pursue a robust investigation. host: john is a republican in california. caller: there is so much to cover. this money that has changed hands with the biden with all of their shell companies and corporations. the count was 17 million to foreign countries. they have no business if they can't say we were constructing or manufacturing or consulting or whatnot. they have given no reason for any of those money to flow to the bidens from china.

i am suspicious he was taking money from china and then on the first day in office canceled the china initiative to make sure we were spying on us. if we find out that biden was taking money and doing things like that which is pretty obvious. i think newsmax is doing a great job. i think fox's doing a decent job. the rest of the news media, it is shameful, they just don't talk about it. the other thing that is shameful is the way robert kennedy junior was treated it was absolutely shameful it's obvious the

democrats will do anything to stay in power. a lot of this information comes across the phone lines into c-span i tried not to do that. someone said the trump been convicted. no he has not. he has not been convicted of anything. host: let's unpack some of that. guest: thank you for the nice words on newsmax. earlier caller mentioned how donald trump made more money for his campaign after his indictment. robert kennedy got 5 million for his campaign. it's interesting to see the way the businesses of the campaign respond with their campaign is

under fire. robert kennedy was going into a hearing on censorship and found himself limited in expressing his opinions as controversial as they may be. host: you mentioned money from china to joe biden. are there facts around that? guest: not that i am aware of. i do find it interesting that the chinese have had frosty receptions to secretary blinken. if you read the china daily they are not fans of this president. on the other hand, who did president xi welcome with full arms to beijing. henry kissinger out 100 -- at 100. i think he was letting people

know that he holds some americans in high regard. host: donna and west virginia. caller: good morning to both of you. i love watching both of you. trump will never be indicted simply because there would be such an uprising that january 6 with the minor. i think it's a set up. the democrats are so scared that he will be reelected and they know what would be coming at them. i am afraid of what they will try to pull on the 2024 election. do you have any ideas? guest: the election this coming up and i am anxious to put on the hat that i wear and covered

the presidential candidates. what is exciting about that as there is always something unexpected. nominations are not stocked but we have a caucus system that makes it exciting, i will be a shorter time span than years past. i look forward to that. host: john gizzi from newsmax. guest: thank you mimi. thank you all and come again. host: at 9:15 we will feature the three cohosts of the "5-4" podcast. but first, it is open for him.

your chance to call in with any political or public policy issue. you can call now, the numbers are unusual screen. we will be right back. -- the numbers are on your screen. we will be right back. felix cmn talks about the long-term social and economic impact of the covid-19 pandemic. >> the pandemic gave us this yolo feeling and people really embracing their dreams. a lot of those dreams are creative. i think that's one of the great reasons that i am optimistic.

i can see opportunities distributed more widely than ever. people can change the planet and ways they could not before. we are only beginning to see huge opportunities that were engendered by us being forced to look at ourives and saying how do i actually want to live? >> felix salmon on q&a. you can listen to all of our podcasts are and are free c-span now at. book tv every sunday. investigative journist shares his book code named be, red.

a book about a spy for cuba for 50 years. pulitzer prize winning journalist with his book american whitelash. watch book tv every sunday or watch online any time at book tv.org. a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this where americans can see democracy at work. where citizens are informed society thrives. unfiltered, unbiased, word for

word from the nation's capital to wherever you are. the opinion that matters the most is your own. c-span powered by cable. host: welcome back to washington journal. it is open forum. the numbers for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. we will start with danny a republican. caller: thank you for having that guy from newsmax on. the way that robert kennedy junior was treated at the capital was despicable and when

the democrats are eating their own, trying to censor him like that. what is going down here at the border. the border crossings are down. it is 120° down here. people are dying in the desert. the border control are picking up bodies because there are only given one bottle of water to walk through a desert. is that humane? i don't think so. that is all i have to say right now. host: denny, this is an article in the wall street journal. it says texas spent billions on border security and it is not working. operation lone star with 4.5 billion spent has had little

impact on migration is charged with human rights abuses. from green bay wisconsin, and independent. caller: this is a comment on the media. we have cbc, cnn, news nation, then you have your social media, facebook, tiktok, twitter. the new york times, the washington post. you have the nba, the nfl. host: i get it, what is your point? caller: in washington dc they

voted 92% for biden , my point is this. they always talk about democracy. it is 90% media against the 10%. is that good for democracy. host: you said 90% media 10% what? caller: you have fox against the world. is that good for democracy? if you are on the 90% side that's ok. but how assad ok for the republican side? -- but how is that okay for the

republican side? host: have you decided who you will vote for president? caller: no i have not. host: beverly is in casper, wyoming, a democrat. caller: it was really hard for me to wake up in the first thing i see is 45 say we are going to get you, remember that. the republicans, i feel so bad for them. they have to listen to lies and i tried to be republican but i cannot. i can't handle the lies this man

is way over my head. he is destroying good people. i feel for you republicans. four years ago he pulled the wool over your eyes and now is based is trying to boost him up. it is all rhetoric and i wish it would stop. host: from albuquerque, new mexico, a republican. caller: thank you so much. i really enjoyed the interview with john gizzi. i was raised believing that it was against the american law to fly the flag

at the same level at the same level. i was told it was flown at the same level with the gay flag. a pride flag. i have seen pictures, i don't know if they are ai produced or what. whoever made that decision if it is a true picture. that is against flag procedure. i am from a very pro-american family. i really enjoy your show. thank you very much. host: this is from the almanac.

etiquette, rules and guidelines. about honoring the u.s. flag, you can look about how to display the flag, went to display it, not to touch the ground and things like that. jerry is from connecticut, and independent. caller: i wanted to ask mr. gizzi. any similarity between the fake collector cases being pursued and nobody seems to recall the postelection attempts back in 2016 to get trump electors to switch their votes. something that has fallen down the memory hole.

perhaps somebody out there has knowledge of it and can weigh in. thank you very much, thank you for taking my call. host: let's talk to melvin on the line for democrats in south carolina. caller: i just want to talk about how trump keeps manipulating those poor republican people. he says if he goes to jail there will be trouble. he doesn't say what he wants but he knows how to push these people how to react. he also said that joe biden would go to jail. that's how he can manipulate his crowd and with all the stations they keep debating.

cnn, msnbc, date over debate. by the time the trial comes here they will have answered the same questions. host: perry is in california, a republican. caller: good morning. i would like to test a theory. i realize you don't advertise , you have cable support. they are subject to cancel culture. i think it would be nice on a weekend we have someone come in. let's say on saturdays for the rest of the year, but put someone from oan, i would be

curious if someone like that would just get destroyed by cancel culture. and then c-span would get hammered by cancel culture. these left wing zealots and the media. they are crazy. if you were to throw someone like that he was very smart. i don't think they can handle it. i would love to see that they retested. stan is in greer, south caroline a. independent. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm doing great. caller: back in the 1970's, time magazine had an article about a new phenomenon called political correctness. at the time, i remember thinking and telling my friends, if this

trend continues, it is going to be the ruin of our country. and, it has gotten worse. i've been manifested by so many different things were you have to use specific pronouns, for example, where you have certain words you can or cannot say, that used to be perfectly acceptable. host: like what? what is a word that you would want to say, that you cannot say anymore? caller: well, there is a book called cast. the lady in there is a black woman. she uses the term colored people. i write a book column, and i

wrote down in there something about colored people him -- and my editor wrote back and said you can't say that, you've see people of color. what is the difference? it just really is something that i don't understand. and then, other things, such as the white house now. we have a man dressed in dresses who are having high-level offices, and it seems like everything is catered to the 100 -- 100th of 1% who end up running this country, according to their whims. the lady mentioned a little bit earlier about the flag did being

displayed on the white house. that was an abomination. i could go on and on and on. host: all right. we got your point. betty is in zion, illinois. democrat. caller: i have just two points to make. the first point is if bill barr hadn't set the truth about the mueller report, trump couldn't have gotten as far as he has. now, bill barr wants to tell the truth about trump. but, sometime ago, a woman called c-span and she was almost in tears about the state of the country, mainly for her grandkids, and her great grandkids. i feel the same way. a lady just called earlier and said that if trump lost, you

think january 6 was bad, if he lost, it would be worse than that. can you imagine? they must not have great grand kids and grandkids to want country to be like it is. that's all i have to say. thank you for listening. have a great day. host: robert is in silver spring, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i would say i am a former democrat. i have converted to the republican side. i still have some democrat views on things like the economy and migration. but, i am a minority, i am bilingual, i am under 35, but i don't thing that could support the democrats again because of their inaction on big-city crime. it is completely lawless in the cities, such as washington, d.c., new york, philadelphia.

people get away with whatever violent acts they want, everyone gets a two dollar bond in their charges or dropped. i want to say thanks to all of the pro-life legislatures. let us save the children. host: andy is in silver spring, maryland. good morning. caller: c-span is truly america's champion. my question is, america does not have an official language. can you speak to the historical significance of why it is not english, if you know? thank you. have a good day. host: and margaret in lakewood, new mexico. , cut. good morning. caller: i have been listening, and i have watched the whole hunter biden train the other

day, and that was fantastic to watch, but listening to the newsmax guy, and listening to people talk on c-span, i'm surprised i watched the same show. first of all, one of the things, one of the differences between biden and donald trump is that doubt -- joe biden [indiscernible] what did joe biden do? what did trump do? [indiscernible] host: we have to watch the mark -- language, margaret. good morning. caller: i was just calling because i've been watching foxbusiness news, listening to all kinds of people talk about different things. the thing that has come away from me, and i'm a most 72, is

that this country is losing its soul. i mean, we are prioritizing too many things. they are outside the mainstream, like trans rights. what are trans rights? what does that mean? there aren't that many trans people in this country. i am seeing more and more people on the news that were -- that went through the transformation from let's say men to women and women to men. they are very unhappy with what happened to them because it happened at a very young age. why are we allowing medical professionals to mutilate children. i don't understand that, and it makes me sick. this country has lost its soul. it is losing its mind. we need to get read -- rid of the leftist bs.

starting with fighting, they'll have to go. they are disgraceful. thank you. goodbye. host: jerry in connors vail, indiana, independent. caller: i am the voice of the common man and i am here to take a stand. i will make two quick points if you will let me. number 1 -- the government and corporations have a mantra in three simple words. money over people. what is the main point that shows what i'm talking about? health care. how expensive it is. let me tell you something. human frailty should not be a cold mind -- goldmine. some people say it is not right for us to have health care. but it is a right. it's going to keeping a right so long as we have something to say about it. that is something that needs to be done. number two, i just want to say something to all of you.

you would be former senators and representatives and things. before you run for office, i want you to stop and think about one thing. are you going to do the right thing? are you going to be responsible? if you are going to get into scandals like these other people that don't get into politics, please. we don't have enough -- i mean washington is scandal hell. we've had enough of it. with all of the media and the reports of everything. that's all i want to say. host: gary, are you still there? have you ever thought about running for office? caller: me? yes. they're not going to listen to a two bit peon like me. what kind of luck to you expect me to have? come on. i appreciate your confidence in me, don't get me wrong, but it is going to take not just one of us but all of us. i have news for you. host: i hear you. john is in johnstown,

pennsylvania. democrat. caller: good morning prude i was going to call about a question the other day. governor abbott, and putting barrels in the river and also the wire, here in johnstown, we have three rivers. anything that has to be done by the rivers has to be done by the core of army engineers. i am wondering whether maybe someone can correct me if i'm wrong, but i think what governor abbott did was absolutely illegal. putting barrels in the river, that is -- all rivers and waterways in the united states are controlled rid even small streams, are controlled by the army of engineers. i think the federal government -- i think they're going to have to prosecute him or do something. they filed a lawsuit against the governor, and they should have. first of all, what he did was illegal. putting barrels in the river.

that's all i've got to say. thank you. host: here is, john, about that. from the texas tribune, the justice department threatened texas with legal action over floating barrier in the rio grande. governor greg abbott ordered in 1000 foot barrier to be deployed in the river near eagles pass earlier this month. the justice department texas until monday to commit to removing it. lisa is next. shreveport, louisiana, republican. hello. caller: i just want to say that most of this is all lies. there are bad people on both sides of the republican and democrat side. we have been censored. could you please play the rest of the january 6 tapes where there is over 40,000 tapes that have not been played for

everyone. will you tell everyone about the so-called rape that donald trump did, which he did not do? tell us who reid hoffman is, that obama affiliated person, and tell everyone about the book cold rising star of obama. who he really is. why don't you play that? why haven't we seen that book displayed? why? host: ok. hector in port st. lucie, florida. independent. hector? caller: oh, yes. host: go ahead. caller: i am calling because when i listen to these republicans calling in, if they would just look at the fact that we have had 46 presidents. donald trump is the only one that has had so many members with -- which -- which c-span

can verify have and convicted and gone to prison. why is that? what is wrong with him? cap they look at him and realized the right -- writing is on the wall. i cannot tally, but i would love receive been to bring that up. i'm sure they can show how many members have been gone to prison by just following him and protecting him. that is what the republican members are doing now. also, is that joe biden? one of the best presidents we have had. he doesn't need to be forceful and braggadocio's. host: why do you call him one of the best presidents? what do you feel he has accomplished? caller: look at what he has accomplished. they have been talking about infrastructure for how many years? he is the man that got it done.

bipartisan. he doesn't need to force his way. he gets everyone around him to do it and he sixpacks -- and he sits back and gets things done. he is one of the most effective presidents we have had, and you can just listen to marjorie taylor greene assessing what biden's. listen to her and one other thing. when republicans come on, i would love for you guys to playback trump in helsinki bowing down to boudin. please play that back for me. every time a republican comes on, bragging about how good he is. host: got it. monty is a democrat in kentucky. good morning. caller: i think they should leave travis king over there in north korea. he should never have run over there. i am a black man.

and you do something crazy, i don't think you should do it. so, on top of that, we got all that is going on, this racial stuff going on, when they drop those bombs from north korea and russia and all of that, we are all going to be dead. black, white, green, yellow, brown. we need to be together, we to quit these racial things between small towns in tennessee and new york and california. all of this racial stuff -- we are all going to die in the next couple of years. you watch. they're going to drop bombs on us. thank you, washington journal. host: let's hope not. here's cbs news about what monty just mentioned. this is why travis king, the u.s. soldier crossed into north korea may prove to be a nuisance for the kim jong-un ridge epa you can look at that as cbs news.com. paul is in wilson north carolina, independent. good morning.

caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i want to say that isla got the catch may be the newsmax gentleman that was on, but i don't know if anyone was reminded as he came on that newsmax is still facing a lawsuit regarding the lies that undermined the election, attacking dominion voting systems, and remind people that fox news did settle their case so they didn't have to publicly, more than in what was taken in depositions from their leader, admitting that they had purposely allowed their viewers to be deceived. i am really disappointed in the information, and a few democratic caller that have called in to say, but thank you for c-span and that is all i have to say. thank you. host: let's talk to tammy in

youngsville indiana, republican. caller: i want to talk about the hearing with robert junior. the democrats. it was unbelievable. despicable. if you didn't see the animosity, the demonization. they will eat their own. it was proven. my question is, the democrats and ask question. everything was about race. i want to ask these democrats, could you please make me a list of what is not racist? i am scared to open my mouth. every day of the week, it is african-american day. i'm not racist, believe me, i love everybody the same rate you know what i mean? but i would like to know, please

so we can get this straight, could you please make a list. host: what do you mean when you see every other days african-american day? caller: they keep talking about oppression. what can a black person can do that a white person can't do? tell me. what is it? what is it? if it wasn't for the race card, the democrats would have nothing. nothing. they have no policy. they have nothing. all they have are accusations. you are racist. host: let me hear from prim in south carolina, democrat. caller: how are you? i just want to say this. i wish the people of the united states, point-blank blank, the people of the world, could realize that state and federal is nothing but a business. they don't care about human life. daily care about financial gain. we need to stop buying high-end

products and pay the people what they are worth. you police officers out there, so frustrated, killing people because they make minimum wage. you have doctors and nurses and teachers who really are doing a good job, but the state takes the money and puts it in a system. we all know that the government is nothing but a scam. people have been stealing money for years. they have been quitting before they go to jail, or get sued. i don't blame them for hiring trump. they knew they were hiring a hustler. they knew trump would pour in more people to cause more destruction, more violence, more everything. they did exactly what they wanted to do. mess up america. host: we are out of time on this statement of open forum. thank you for calling in. after the break, it's our weekly spotlight on podcast statements. -- segment. we will talk about the following public confidence in the supreme

court and key decisions that passed. we will be right back. ♪

>> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. it is our spotlight on podcast segment. my guests are the cohosts of the five to four podcast. welcome to all of you. guest: thank you for having us. guest: good to be here. host: i'm going to start with you, rhiannon did debts. --. can you explain what the podcast is about and why you started it? guest: our podcast is about how much the supreme court sucks and how much law school sucks and how much uninsurance to legal media sucks right now. our podcast, i think roughly, we track the conservative legal movement to shape the supreme court to reach those policy

goals of the conservative movement that elected officials in the pluggable branches of government can't achieve on their own. we talk about how the sub ream court is a highly undemocratic, highly, at this moment, unaccountable institution that adjudication of the law that ruling on all of these pieces is not objective, like we were taught from the time we were in elementary school and certainly through law school. it is not an objective process. we talked about how legal interpretation, the interpretation of the constitution, is actually a political process. that when we talk about the supreme court, we should be realistic in talking about how these justices, unelected life tenured, are not doing pot -- politics, but the conservative movement launders that process by telling us justices are doing

something objective, and by a formalistic role. host: can you tell me more about the mechanics of the podcast, michael? how many episodes you put out, and how you are funded? guest: sure. we have done hundreds of episodes. one pretty much every week, usually around 45 a year on tuesday mornings. typically, our episodes focus on one case, and we will try to get into the details of the case, discuss the legal reasoning a little bit, but we want to do the legal reasoning justice. we want to do it in a way that is honest, and about how they are shaping the justices. whether it is there political background or their social context or the historical

context. put these cases in a sort of big picture perspective so people can understand this force that is shaping so much of our country. and -- did i? host: the funding. guest: that's right. our funding is mainly through listeners. we do place some ads on our free feed, but not a lot. our main funding is through subscribers by a patriarch. they get bonus episodes where we do big picture, more conceptual cases or issues, focus on a single justice, and do special events for them, they pay a monthly fee. host: i will remind viewers that if you want to call in, make a comment for our guest, you can do so on our line by party affiliation.

the number is on your screen. you can text us to the number on your screen. we are also watching our facebook and twitter feeds. i want to show you, peter, a quote from senator mitch mcconnell who says this, and i will ask y to ond to this. attack from the lt portrays a ndamtal misunderstanding of the court stru and purpose. it is an ideologid unpredictable body that takes cases as they come, and produce diverse outcomes. receings put that reality in selie onut 9% of this terms prode the 23 decision comntators warned of hyper polarization on the court. en fewer cases, only about 5%,

have five republican appointed justices make up a five r majority. on the other hand, about 16% of cases were decided by a majority coalition of the courts three liberal justices joined by republican appointed justices. some maggots supreme court. the defining characteristic is not polarization, but is instead a political unpredictable center. guest: i think mitch is having fun. he very famously held up the replacement of antonin scalia on the possibility that he could be replaced by a republican rather than barack obama. my general response to him would be that if the court was a nonpolitical and nonideological body, he would not abet any

problem with a democrat appointing a replacement. he is being cheeky, of course. the court is fundamentally conservative. it is a super majority on the court. you are getting decisions that are vastly to the right of prior courts. when he points to these statistics, they are primarily the result of a fact that the median case that is being brought to the court is well to the right of where it was five years ago. there are cases brought about about fringe theories of voting rights, for example, where the conservatives did not ultimately, the french conservatives, the far right of the court did not ultimately win, but on the other hand, five years ago, the case would not have been brought at all. i think he is being coy here. i think it is dishonest. host: i think earlier the week, the senate judiciary committee

voted to advance legislation on the supreme court's ethics, and this is the first time this has happened in recent history. the republicans on the committee are calling it partisan politics. i want to show you a clip really quick of republican senator john kenneth talking about that you can respond. -- john kennedy talking about that, and you can respond. >> this bill is dead as fried chicken. it is going to get out of committee. it doesn't have 60 votes. and it sure can't past -- past the house. why do it? why do it? why beat the crab out of the united states supreme court? i just don't get it. i understand politics, but i just don't get it. my democratic colleagues tried to expand supreme court.

they tried to packet. they never had the votes. i still don't believe that if they had the votes they wouldn't have done it. maybe i am naive did now, there is another way to diminish the value of the integrity of the united states supreme court. that is to racket. -- wreck it. one of the provisions in this bill is so outrageous, imagine. you want to shut the senate down, allow anyone who wants to file a complaint against a senator, if the complainant thinks that senator has a conflict of interest, and require that the complaint be resolved before you go. that is what this bill does the united states supreme court. it that special? how many complaints do you think they are going to have?

every single day, and the whole point is that they can't expand the court. they will shrink it. this bill. it, i just am really disappointed in some of my colleagues for even bringing this thing. host: what do you think? how do you respond to his remarks? >> it sounds like he is genuinely disappointed. i would be disappointed if the court that i -- that my party had packed in the way i wanted, in the way that a conservative legal movement has worked for decades, with extremely wealthy money interests, had worked to take -- pick and choose the supreme court that is exactly what it wants. i would be disappointed, too. but if the disappointment is

also quite hyperbolic, in that he is right. the proposed bill probably doesn't have the votes to pass. this is the bare minimum kind of accountability that is badly needed on the supreme court right now. the supreme court is asking and on imaginable, unleashed untethered branch of government where it is supposed to be co-equal to the other branches. you know, something like adopting thick -- ethics rules for supreme court justices, just like congressmen and senators have for themselves. this is the bare minimum. and in fact, senator kennedy can complain and stop -- stomp his feet and have a baby brain tantrum over the frankly milquetoast proposed accountability measures when it

is clear that justice clarence thomas likely already violated the law. there has been no accountability. there has been no enforcement of the existing rules that are already in place to prevent justices acting like this. host: there are several people that want to talk to you guys. let's start with michael in huntington, indiana, on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i want to ask that lady if the roe v. wade thing -- they had in the 60's when they passed that, my wife thought there would be three months or four at the most on the thing, and the

dinks are doing it up to birth, some of them. that is against the law. host: you are saying abortion is done up to birth? caller: right. california. they shouldn't abide by roe v. wade. host: i'm not sure the question is. do you want to have a reaction? guest: yes. as that lady, the question is directed to me. roe v. wade did not set a strict limit on when abortions could be performed. roe v. wade did put in what we can call the trimester framework did a subsequent case in the early 90's, planned parenthood versus casey did away with

trimester framework and said instead that the point of viability for a fetus is the determinant timeline for having an abortion. but that said, it is exceedingly rare, i believe the caller is referring to late-term abortion procedures, those are extremely where -- rare. they are done legally, they are done when the health and wellness of the pregnant person is at risk. or the viability of the fetus is highly in question. i would advise the caller to let pregnant people decide, them and their doctors, when they need to get an abortion and leave it at that. host: taylor is in brooklyn, new

york. democrat. caller: hello. i am in the mental health sector. i had to call in as a democrat, but i am more leftist, and my question is for rhiannon, michael and peter. i am curious about having to read these court cases every week, how do you take care of your own mental health, even listening to that last caller. i was feeling a lot of feelings, so how do you yourself take care of your own mental health when you have to see all these kinds of questions and read these cases week after week? host: will let michael take care of how you guys don't go crazy. guest: i wouldn't say we don't go crazy. it is difficult. it does wear on you. i think there is a fair amount of anger management that we have to do. i am lucky. i am blessed. i have a wonderful wife who is working in mental health as well, and she helps me.

but, i think everyone has to deal with the realities of our modern political climate in a way that works for them. it is a very toxic and poisonous climate, and being immersed in it, is hard. without a doubt. it does wear on you, and you take breaks mainly because we mentally need them. it is not a physically towing job that we have. but, it's amazing how much just a week or two off from the podcast and twitter and cable news will rejuvenate your mental health and it is something that i strongly encourage everyone watching to do on occasion. just take a few days off from

all of this and connect with the world around you and the people around you. they care about you. host: eva in mississippi. republican. caller: good morning. is the iq of people for the supreme court taken into consideration? are they given polygraphs before they get on the court? i think that should apply to every elected official and reporter, and then, has anyone ever done an eeg on the elected officials? there are two things that can never be legislated. that is morality for everybody and common sense for everybody. thank you. have a good day. host: peter, why don't you take that? guest: i met troy understood the third question, but for the first two, no. there are no iq requirements are

polygraphs to get on the supreme court. host: all right. pat is next in wisconsin, independent. good morning. caller: hello. the thing i am concerned about is the anger in this country. up until i would say eight or nine years ago, we use to disagree vehemently with each other, but we could end up shaking hands and realize that we are still good citizens. even though we disagree on things. then fox news came about. they taught us to hate each other. don't just disagree with the person that you disagree with, but hate them. i think until we can control ourselves, we are going to spiral downwards. anyways. host: do you think that there is a supreme court involved in that in any way? what is the connection. caller: i think the supreme

court is not a supreme court anymore. they are a group of people with you know, political leanings. it's just that i don't understand why they can't make decisions based on the facts rather than based on how they, you know, what their political leanings are, and i think that is the start of where we could get our country back together. host: any response to that? guest: my only response would be on the last point that the court has to some degree always been ideological. always been a group of political actors. you are just seeing it more now because it is pronounced. there is a super majority of conservatives. when the court was a little bore -- more moderate a few years

ago, a lot of people viewed as more institutionally legitimate because of that moderation, but those justices were still acting on their ideological beliefs, their political priors, all of those things. it is just that they were a little more moderate as individual justices, so it didn't manifest as clearly. as for the point about hatred, i wouldn't say that i entirely agree. it is a political moment that calls for anger at times. i think we channel some of that anger. i like to think that i can have conversations with republicans and shake their hand at the end of it if the moment calls for it. but people have lives and well-being's on the line, and i think a lot of people take that seriously. guest: i would like to add that the caller makes a good point that i emphasize with witches about what the media controls in the tone of our conversations.

just before we came on the air, i was listening to calls. many of them about questioning trans people's lives. trans people living in public. living is who they are. the caller makes a good point. if you are in a room of 400 people that represent the united states. people who live in america right now, two of those people are trans. how many are literate? how many do not have access to health care? how many are -- have student loans? how many have untreated mental illness? i would stop and ask myself, if you are a person who is mad about the two trans people who don't do anything to you, who have nothing to do with your life, who have not affected you materially in any way, but you might also be a member of one of

those other groups i just mentioned, i would ask why it the media you consume tells you to be mad at those two trans people and not mad at the government that doesn't provide any of those other things for us. guest: i want to respond to the caller to connect two points. part of the problem is that there are six justices on the supreme court who watch fox news. a lot. absolutely. it comes through in their oral argument. it comes through in their opinions. they are led around by the nose by the same conservative media that the rank and file are on. they are not above that in any way. host: kathy is next in albuquerque. good morning. caller: i wanted to say thank you to the person who called out the myth or dispel the myth that people have abortions at the last moment.

that doesn't happen. it is rare. i'm glad that was called out. but i want to ask about expanding the court. i know i didn't doesn't agree with this, but i think we need to have a balance. right now, it seems like the right ring -- wing is trying to restructure the court. they are not following precedent, and it would make a difference if they were to expand it, and i am not -- maybe there are 13 justices, but i would want to know what they thought about that. host: michael, would you take that? guest: actually. we are all in favor of expanding the supreme court. it is our favorite of many different possible reforms. i think you are hitting on something important, which is if you think about an institution that is acting out, there need to be consequences if you want that behavior to change. we are unhappy as the american

people with the supreme court. we need them to feel consequences if we want them to change what they are doing. the way we do that in this country is through legislation. not through violence. peaceful protest and legislation. that is on the democratic party. the republicans are going to propose real reforms to change the court. i like court packing and court expansion and whatever you want to call it. it is the cleanest and easiest, but there are no and a possible reforms. president biden commissioned a whole report. to hundred 50 pages. i fretted. they're a bunch of things in there. term limits. there are so many different things you can do to limit the court's jurisdiction. i would love to see democratic

leadership be serious about this. i don't think they are. i think the fact that after all of this, all we are seeing is some pretty mild ethics reforms is a testament to leadership being very much behind the american people here. this is something where we need to be dragging the party with us. they are fighting kicking and screaming. hakeem jeffries is not leading us to a promised land of a better and fair supreme court. host: next is the republican line. patrick and south killing it. -- south carolina. caller: i have a question. how about the supreme court decisions in the past that didn't go the way you all like? i didn't like when they said that corporations were citizens. but i didn't go protest door try to kill one of the supreme court justices.

there have been a bunch of decisions that didn't go my way. i just let it go. it is not any -- and also, that gentleman said that six supreme court justices sit around and watch fox news. how do you know that? there's no way you can know it. he sit up there and tell a bald-faced lie. host: michael? on that comment. guest: i will happily defend that. i know that because they repeat the same talking points. if you listen to oral arguments, you will hear them repeat things that you hear on fox news. it is not hard to catch. in fact, it is hard to miss. a lot of people watch fox news. if the caller watches fox news,

maybe he shouldn't be too upset that the justices do as well. i do want to say that i agree with him on citizens united. i grew thin that the proper response to decisions you don't like is not threatening the justices lives. that being said, he identified a case that we disagree with as well, so they're obviously rooms for agreement between him and us. the question is, what do you do when the court is out of step with the american public? we think it should be easier for the people to sort of pushback when the court is out of step. right now, it is difficult. it is partly very difficult because democrats are afraid of the court.

elected democrats are afraid of the court and they are afraid of challenging it. we just want more responses to the people. >> lori in youngstown, ohio. go ahead. caller: good morning. just a couple comments in a question. i know that i probably agree with the podcasters there. probably 90% of everything on pro-choice and i believe every woman -- pregnant person, whatever, has a right to bodily autonomy. i do not support the supreme court at all. i think it needs to be abolished. it is just -- it never has been on the up and up. host: how would it work for the supreme court, which is one of the three branches of government to be abolished? caller: i am in favor of the whole thing to be abolished

because i just don't feel it is working for the people. the democrats -- i voted for democrats year after year, nothing changed and it never will. the republicans i've never voted for in my life, and i never would. but the whole system is so corrupt, it is so -- the roots are so deep, and none of the branches of government work. they never have and they never will. they do for the wealthy. host: let's get a response. rhiannon? guest: i think you and i agree on a lot here. i think i am personally a prison abolitionist. i believe in the abolition of prisons pretty i believe in the abolition of -- i believe in the abolition of many of the systems that reify the hierarchy of the debris that includes the supreme court. realistically, something we talk about the podcast is how do you

abolish the supreme court? it is the same with thinking about the prison industrial complex. what you want to do is shrink its power, make it a less powerful institution. those are the kinds of reforms that are actually possible. so when we talk about that, we talked about how we should have a congress, we should have an executive branch that is much more robust in its response to the supreme court. that is in an intense conversation with the judicial branch of government at all times. when you are asked, how do you abolish the supreme court, how do you decreases power, we are asking people to have creativity and not just throw up their hands like the democratic party does, currently. we are asking people to have a little creativity, but you can look to history.

congress has had historically a much more intense back-and-forth relationship with the supreme court. congress is the one that sets the rules for the supreme court. they can set rules for what case the supreme court is in. they can review. they can set rules for the prime -- the work the supreme court justices have to do. the justices at the supreme court, those nine, they can be made were cases in the appellate circuit. right now, over the country, there are -- i mentioned this as an example there are tons of ways that the supreme court as an institution right now -- it's power can be decreased at its power can be shrunk area i think a caller alluded to this earlier. or, excuse me. it might've been senator kennedy. they said that the supreme court, they are also trying to shrink the supreme court.

that is true. that would be a good thing. the supreme court having disproportionate amounts of power right now, nine unelected, unaccountable, life tenured, incredibly corrupt justices have an absolutely disproportionate amount of power and control over each and every one of our lives. that power should be shrunk. host: let's talk to josh in chicago, democrat. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question for rhiannon and mike and peter is as a patriot subscriber and avid listener. given that there are only so many psaki supreme court decisions to review, what will you do as you plan to continue their vibrant podcast? host: that's yours, peter. guest: the pool of supreme court decisions is finite, but not as finite as you might think it the

initial thought we had with this podcast was that we would do 50 episodes and then struggle to find more bad cases, but we are running on something like hundred 50 cases now, and there are more in the wings. the supreme court has a long history of overstepping its boundaries, a long history of stepping on civil rights. from the founding to the present. i would not be concerned about running out of cases. that said, we frequently discuss things like the legal media, things like the modern ethics scandals, and it feels to us like the court is going to keep giving us fodder for the foreseeable future. all of that is to say that i am not very worried. host: joseph and stewartstown, pennsylvania. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. the first point i want to make

is that i believe that the supreme court as it is currently comprised is completely illegitimate. i will explain why in a minute. one of the things i want to say before i forget, point out, the supreme court wouldn't -- they wanted them to redistrict in alabama to get more black elected people. host: yes. briefly, michael, could you respond to that? we running low on time. guest: i'm glad the caller brought that up because i was thinking about that when senator kennedy, we'll seem to senator kennedy's little rant and he was talking about the disrespect for the court. and, i think, in the real world, it here in the real world, the most consistent disrespect for the supreme court comes from the right. it has for a long time.

when they don't get what they want, they just push back. they were passing restrictive abortion laws that they knew by leigh roe v. wade, and immediately afterwards, for decades, until the court finally overturned roe v. wade. this was as an example. they were told to increase black representation in alabama in alabama said we don't care. even this court, even this conservative super majority court, the right wing still tells them to get lost if they don't rule the way they want. so, yes. it is a little rich to hear those complaints from republicans. host: i will give rhiannon the last word. guest: the supreme court sucks.

no. thank you so much. host: sounds good. joining us, rhiannon, michael and peter. they are the cohost of the five to four podcast. you can find that at five to four on doc,. you can find that, all three of you. thank you. >> thank you. host: that's it for today's washington journal. if you like spot -- podcast, we have those on our website. c-span.org. we have several podcast free to check out. will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00. life here on c-span. thank you. have a great day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

podcast. washington journal is next. ♪