israel. ♪ host: good morning, it is some very -- it is sunday, november 5, 2020 three. as we look ahead to veterans day, the fight continues in the u.s. senate over the literary confirmations with republican senator tommy tuberville of alabama blocking hundreds of promotions. we want to hear your thoughts on senator tucker bills blockades

and we have lines set up for that. if you are active-duty military, call us at (202) 748-8000. four former military, (202) 748-8001. military families, (202) 748-8002. all others can call us at (202) 748-8003. you can text us on that line and please make sure to include your name and where you are writing in from. you can find us on facebook at facebook.com/c-span, on x and instagram. let's look at a couple of headlines this morning. first from the hill which says the senate confirms navy and air force heads overcoming some of those tuberville holds. on thursday, the senate approved three senior military nominations filling crucial positions to lead the navy, air force and marines that have been until now blocked by senator

tommy tuberville. the senate voted to confirm admiral franchitti, making her the first woman to officially lead the navy. let's look over at the wall street journal where they write tuberville to confirm marie number two after a comment on hospitalized. senator tommy tuberville of alabama held up hundreds of military promotions for months but moved tuesday to force a vote to confirm the u.s. marine corps second in command after its top officer fell ill and was taken to the hospital. lieutenant general christopher mahoney was nominated by the white house in july but had yet to be confirmed by the senate, along with hundreds of other senior officer promotions who remain frozen by tuberville in a political battle over the pentagon's abortion policy. senator tuberville was asked thursday by reporters on capitol hill if the anger that had built up on both sides over his

blockade on military confirmation has changed his mind on continuing that policy. here are his comments. [video clip] >> has any of this caused you to change -- >>. >> no. >> you are not going to drop no matter what? >> first of all, we do not know what the policy is. they will not give it to us. we got no definition what they changed. they are shooting from the hill. we need to sit down, talk about the policy, see if there is anything we can agree on and get on with life. >> you heard each of these senators say these military personnel have nothing to do with the politics. >> it is the only way i can get their attention. i told y'all, i hate i have to do this. but, somebody has got to listen to us, ok? i work for the people of this country. i do not work for another senator or president.

i work for the taxpayers of this country. we told everybody 60% of democrats and republicans do not want to pay for abortion. they do not want their money to go to it. this is not just a republican issue, this is a taxpayer issue. i am standing up for the people of this country. hopefully, we can get some help. host: let's look at more headlines on this topic. politico doing more reporting on the backlash from the pentagon itself after that hospitalization. this is outrageous, pentagon officials areas over tuberville holds after top marine hospitalized. i cannot help but think the vacancies have added to a level of complexity and danger to an already bad situation one dod official said. they are talking here about general eric smith, who had been filling both number one and number two marine corps posts from july until he was formally confirmed as, don in september.

he along with more than 300 other senior officers were swept up in the promotions blockade put in place by gop senator tuberville tommy in protests of the pentagon travel see. tuberville getting pushback on the hill itself. he contended that his hold on nominees is not affecting readiness. here is the senator from last week. [video clip] >> i respectfully disagree with my colleagues about the effect of my hold on readiness. my hold is not affecting readiness. the biden administration had been saying this for months, but nobody has an explanation. nobody. the fact is, no jobs, no jobs are going unfilled. every job -- every job is being done.

in fact, general mark milley said recently our readiness is the best it has been in years. time and again, generals and servicemembers have assured me that they are ready to go. i believe them. so, i am going to keep my holds in place. if senators want to vote on these number -- on these nominees, i am happy to do that. i will keep my hold in place until the pentagon follows the law or the democrats change the law. host: a reminder, our special lines this for active duty military. (202) 748-8000. former military, (202) 748-8001. military families at (202) 748-8002. everyone else on (202) 748-8003. which is also a number where you can text us, making sure to include your name and where you are from. social media,

facebook.com/c-span. on x,a -- charles green says on ceok senator tuberville objects to the current aintration's practice of dismissing laws they disagree with. this te,t is the hyde amendmen if this administration once an exception for servicemembers, they should submit legislation to change the law. the standing law. jeff on facebook also. my prediction is that senator tuberville will pay a political pre r his actions. jim, we need moreoliticians like senator tuberville who will stand for principl, t the washington establishment. do not believe the hype. military readiness is not being affected by delaying filling these positions. we heard this week from alaska gop senator dan sullivan, who maintained that senator

tuberville is 100% wrong about the blockade, not impacting readiness. he received -- here are the comments he made last week. [video clip] >> my calling from alabama is 100% wrong. no kidding. the readiness is being impacted when you have -- i will give a couple of examples here. this is from one theater -- yukon -- the deputy chairman in nato, a pretty important job to fill, it is empty. the commanding general of europe, empty. like i said, one mess -- that is the big marine core combined force that fights anywhere in the world, 25,000 marines

commanded by three star is a two star. this is a problem. this is from you, -- yukon. european command, 72 officers are unable to assume their new positions. these include 52 who cannot move because they have been nominated for a position that require senate confirmation. 20 other officers projected to be assigned to a new positioned now held by the previous 52 officers. it is creating a giant blockage in the way in which the military operates. to say there is no readiness issues -- i am a ranking member of the readiness subcommittee. there is readiness issues. that is the whole point. we have a really dangerous world. host: another comment from yo calls.dia before we get to on x, jesahmer says former ar a i am not worried about the readiness of the u.s. litary.

senator deborah bill -- senator turvle is doing the right thing. let's go to richard in louisville, kentucky on the others line. go ahead, richard. caller: yes. to all the democrats out there, i am a republican by the way. a maga republican. to all the democrats out there, all these republican senators who agree to let the taxpayer dollars go for portions, they are on your side. they agree with abortion. lindsey graham, mitch mcconnell, that clown from arkansas talks about how high and mighty he is. he is an abortionist. the military readiness, the president of the united states can call -- once you are military, you're military for the rest of your life. the president of the united states can call back millie, any

general he needs to, if there seems to be a problem. but the problem is you have got chuck schumer who back in february new that this was coming. all he had to do was have these senators sit in the well and vote all these different 300 military personnel yea ornate. all they had to do. instead, he is using it as a political tool so that if anybody is actually hurting the military, it is chuck schumer. host: thanks, richard. richard was talking about the program that tuberville is protesting in his blockade. there is a article from september saying troops actually avoid abortion travel policy that is fueling this blockade and that -- here, it says few people actually use the program, only a small number of servicemembers have taken advantage of the year old rule

that offers paid leave and travel reimbursement to troops seeking abortions and other reproductive care, according to the pentagon. a dozen dod officials and others said in interviews troops are nervous about seeking the benefits because it they say it could compromise their privacy and open them up to retaliations. the widespread reluctance has fueled opponents of the policy who asked why the administration is holding fast to a program that only a handful of troops have used. carl is in chicago, illinois and his former military. . good morning caller: good morning. senator tuberville is delaying promotions. some of the people are ready to retire because the motion has been delayed too long. a friend of mine has a son whose promotion cannot happen.

it is hurting, to some extent, our military effectiveness. in this current thing, the current situation in which the congress is slowing down our effectiveness in democracy, i fear. host: carl, your friend who had their promotions delayed or their retirements delayed, how has that affected them? caller: well, the one that i know personally -- it is a waiting game. i do here in the news recently that some higher-level people are going to retire instead of wait for the promotion. they have got to move. they made plans. these plans have to be postponed. it is costing them. these are probably older people. i served in the start of the vietnam war in the philippines,

taiwan and saigon. host: ok. jim in pompano beach, florida, also former military. caller: yes, this is something that is of great concern to the military organization. that is, we have brought politics into the military. the last bastion of our government from which politics should not be significant part. now, with regard to these promotions, i am a retired colonel having served 30 years in the air force. i served in many positions that required higher grade or authorized higher grade service. in other words, as a lieutenant colonel, i served in positions that were designated for kernels. it does not mean that because these promotions are being held up, if those positions cannot be

filled, it only means that the individual that is holding deposition could hold it at a higher rank. with regard to the politics, i go back to the old saying we had in the air force. that is, if it does not make sense, it is political. that is exactly where we are with this. thank you. host: chris in howard, ohio, all others line. caller: good morning. i am really distressed by tuberville's behavior. at this point, it borders on treason. he is a football coach and should know it is not fair. the battle over abortion is at the heart of religious issue -- is at the heart, a religious issue. i do not have a position on that. i think you should be able to do what your religion directs you to do. that is what you believe your

the first amendment prohibits you from forcing others to accept her religious beliefs. the abortion issue is a complex and troubling issue. it is very contentious, but has got nothing to do with national defense. it is a dishonor to the people that serve our nation and our military forces. i just do not understand where tuberville's coming from. if he wants to make the abortion fight, let him make it on reasonable arguments and debate it. the other big problem is senate rules that will allow a single person to create is kind of a hold. a hold is reasonable, but there has to be a relatively short time limit on a single person's hold. this is disgraceful. host: john in billings, missouri on the former military line. caller: yeah, i am former first sergeant. ever since the stress card came

out, the military has become politicized. host: what do you mean, the stress card? caller: ok. drill sergeants now have to put up with the stress card. this means, hey, i am having a bad day. leave me alone. give me 24 hours and i will survive. it is a timeout. military used to be green. we used to gather everybody from all around the country and work as one team. now, it is all political. you have to use this for them. you have to be correct with abortion. you have to be correct with exchanges. we do not do that in the military. that is not the place to do it. our enemies finds that as a weakness. what is going on right now is a weakness in our government,

because we defend the constitution. we do not get paid by outside sources to push an issue. this needs to be dropped from the military and get back to standards that we used to have. host: john, what do you think of senator tuberville's hold? caller: i disagree with it, because a lot of good people, especially officers -- they have a time limit to get you their promotions. if they do not get that time limit, you might be forcing out some of the best people we have. because, a point of view. that needs to be dropped. host: stanley in middletown, pennsylvania on our others line. go ahead, stanley. caller: yeah. i understand, it is not right what he is doing to the military personnel because they are

people that defend our constitution. the previous caller, he is exactly right. our military is politicized. i am going to tell you, i am a bible believing christian. i believe in god and i believe life begins at the moment of conception. what tuberville is doing, he is protecting that unborn child. the most vulnerable people in our society are inside the womb of a woman. once a woman becomes pregnant, -- a woman's right to health care, that is wrong. that is a soul inside your body. you have a duty to that person inside of you to bring them to for wishon. get them out of your belly and give them up for adoption. there is exceptions. in my world, there would not be. we are in a different society. you can't expect a young girl to carry that baby, her uncle raped her or something like that. that is ok.

15 weeks, something like that, let's all come to terms on something to agree with. in the eyes of the lord, tuberville is doing what he should do. it is bad for our military personnel. them are unborn children inside of that belly. people say, that is women's health care. that is not correct. if i go out and kill you in a car accident and you have a baby, i get charged with two murders. you can go and get that baby taken out of your belly, i am sorry. it is wrong. we the people, that is why we are suffering. host: nevada on our others line. caller: yeah, you get charged for two if it is a viable baby at 24 weeks. i wanted to talk about this tuberville fellow for a bit. this guy is abusing his power. i really feel like schumer is

trying to dropped the ball. i will tell you why. there was a couple of years ago where they were running up to get stuff done and they were going on their summer break. schumer said, that is it, we are staying here until we get this done. magically in about two days, it all got done and everybody got to go on their vacation. i am saying this right here. if schumer and the democrats give a tinkle's fart about this country, they will stay in session and say, you know what, you want to miss thanksgiving, wanker? we love this country, we are willing to stay here and you either pass these one by one until we do. if they do that, we do not have a chance to win the election.

host: in terms of alternatives and different options being presented in the senate, there is an exchange last week between senator tuberville and senator mitt romney of utah. senator romney called tuberville 's actions and abuse of power and added while he agrees the department of defense abortion policy is wrong, it should be resolved in the court. romney offered tuberville a nonfederal alternative as the source of abortion funding. [video clip] >> we each have things we might disagree with with the military. some come with deep, personal convictions about their morality. if each senator felt empowered to uphold promotions in our military unless we got our way on one visit is, our -- on our issues, our military would grind to a halt. it is incumbent upon us to use it in a reasonable way and not abuse it in such a way we end up putting in harm's way the

capabilities of our military and the well-being of our men and women in uniform. senator tuberville correctly pointed out, i believe he is right, that what secretary austin did was in contravention of the hyde amendment, against the law. we have a process for pursuing things that are done by administration that are against the law. it is the court process. i am happy to join with an amicus brief or even file a legal action to reverse the pentagon's policy. that is the process we should follow in a circumstance like this, not one that is being exacted upon 350 men and women who we need to have in the service and whose lives are being so badly disrupted. i would also offer this. senator tuberville, if the department of defense secretary

austin were to say, ok, we will no longer pay for the travel of their individuals and independence but instead allow a private charity to do so, would that be acceptable to you and allow this to go away? yeah. yeah. for instance, if secretary austin agrees we will eliminate this policy, but allow a private charity to provide for the travel for someone who wants to receive an abortion in a state where that procedure is legal, would that satisfy you and allow this impasse to be resolved? >> that was the type of negotiation i have been looking for for the last nine months. nobody, zero, has come to me with any alternatives to bypass to get this done. >> would that be an acceptable -- >> that would be a good starting point. we can't do it without negotiation. there has been zero negotiation.

there has been no give. it has all been take. three one minute calls with the secretary of defense, i have not talked to him since june. how do you work out a problem without communication? >> well, i have ways of doing that. i will pick up a phone and have that conversation. but, we have to make sure that we do not continue to hold up 350 plus people from being able to get promoted. that is essential to our military. host: let's hear from tom in tucson, arizona on our line for former military members. go ahead, tom. caller: i got this to say. it seems to me the republican party should turn around [indiscernible] what happens between a woman and her health is no business but

hers. a claim like this to hold up the promotion of all these military people is an absolute -- word i am looking for is, they are grabbing for power. we need to turn around and support our military and do the things that is right. look at what has happened to the republican party. we need to good parties and the republican party is going to hell in a hand basket. we have got a clown like this holding up the military. it is ridiculous what he is doing. the republican party ought to take him and sit him down and

get this thing moving forward. but, they have got no guts. that is about all i have got to say, thank you very much. host: brenda in marietta, ohio on our line for all others. caller: yes. i am in my 60's. i am a female. i believe -- i have my own beliefs. i personally would never make this decision to get an abortion. that is an individual right. the way this man tuberville is holding up our military to defend our country. i have so much respect and gratitude for these men and women. to hold this up for his own, personal opinion is not right. i agree with the previous callers. the republican party -- i do not

recognize them anymore. there is tuberville. who is he? one man. one man in washington is holding up the military and causing so much grievance for our military families. please keep politics out of our service. our country and our democracy and our freedom depends on these people. he is giving them grief. i pray to god that someone steps up and does something, does the right thing. host: let's go to kelvin in maryland who is former military. which service were you in? caller: i was in the united states navy. i did 10 years in the navy. it was probably the best time of my life. in reference to the question,

senator tuberville, i think he is using acts to grind against -- i think he has personal agendas going with the military. the abortion thing is when he has an issue with -- is one he has an issue with. diversity, he does not like that. this is his way of holding up everything, because he blocking promotions based on the abortion. he still gets the guy that went to be promoted, the women, they are all being held up. in a way, he is knocking out two issues with one stone, the abortion issue. i think it is a deeper issue that he has. this is a former university of auburn coach who had a lot of people coming in, different nationalities and stuff.

now, he has an issue with diversity in the military. it is very puzzling for me to see how far this guy has gone, from coaching at auburn to where he is today. so, that is all i have to add. host: fort wayne, indiana on our line for others, roger, go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. i agree with that last caller. i do believe also that his motive is something different than what he is claiming. my reason for saying that is, he is claiming his actions is because he is concerned about the child in the womb. getting killed. a radicalized, conservative, right-wing person goes into a shopping mall or something right now and shoot a pregnant woman -- say, four or five of them --

tuberville will come out and defend the gun and will say nothing about those children in those wombs. i believe it is hypocrisy. he should not be doing it. he is saying -- the conservatives say, tell us we should not be mixing politics and our military. well, we should not be mixing religion in it also. i agree with the one color. it is fine to have your religion. if you conservatives went to make trump your lord and savior and you want to clone and do your little religion thing, you go ahead and do that. stop trying to force the rest of the country to accept what you believe. let us live our lives. you know? let us do our thing. that is all i wanted to say. thank you. host: lenora in dayton, ohio, former military. which branch were you in? caller: u.s. army.

i am just taken aback and livid by the absence -- the consideration for the female soldier. this policy affects female soldiers. we are subjected to a high level of sexual harassment and rapes that result in pregnancies that will ruin our careers, and also subject us to disciplinary action. most females who are raped by superiors, they are not heard, first of all. then, they are the ones subjected to disciplinary action. so, i find that no one is speaking for the female soldier out there. i have not heard one call, one senator, anyone out there considering what happens to women in the military. that policy is the result of

some of that activity that they like to bury and keep secret. i do not understand why people are not considering what happens to women on those ships and to females that are in combat positions that are surrounded by nothing but men who do not want them there. i do not find that this is anybody's business, first of all. then, they have to keep politics out of the military. when you are serving, you do not ask your fellow soldiers whether you are democrat or republican. a bullet does not have a political party. i am just not understanding why the country as a whole is not taking into consideration the experiences of the female soldier. host: david in bloomsburg, pennsylvania on our active-duty military line. which branch are you in?

caller: good morning. air force. everyone is air force. my son was air force, my dad was army, but my son in law was air force, a colonel. abortion is not a reproductive right. i am tired of people saying we have to protect reproductive rights of females and female military personnel. this does not ban abortions for female military personnel. what it does ban is the funding of it for out-of-state. we have a system right now with this president who screams diversity and has punish people because they disavow his opinion. all right. all of the articles that are out there say we have to -- it does not say we have to have the best and brightest in our military. when you go to enlist right now, there is a diversity statement. it does not ask for the most

qualified. that is why recruiting are down in so many branches of service. the women of our military have to be protected just like the men do. within each report when they are sexually harassed or sexually -- especially if they are sexually assaulted. my son just got done spending 10 years, four active and six reserve. they were quite adamant that you will not harass people, whether male or female, and you will definitely -- and will definitely not be tolerating sexual harassment. the higher-ups made sure that was understood. they had a briefing and every now and then when they have their reviews, to reaffirm that. some of these generals and admirals, they are made by the president, not by the senate, have questionable diversity actions. they have an ideological agenda. they do not have a military

agenda. the job of the military is to defend the constitution of the united states of america. and to protect this country -- host: what do you think of senator tuberville's hold? caller: he is trying to bring out the fact that these policies that joseph biden are not in line with military. they are in line with the ideological views that he holds. nothing says a pregnant military female cannot have an abortion. it is, they will not pay for the funding for it if they went to another state. if you want an abortion as a fema, you put out for leave, have the procedure done and come back to work five days later. you are allowed to do that. that has never been a question. host: let's move to maria in massachusetts on our line for others. caller: yes, good morning. i do not agree with what the

senator is doing. he said on your news clip there when you put the news clip up, he would do the nominations one by one. i thought that meant he would vote, because i saw the hearings, c-span2 i think it was. they were doing the nominations one by one. these were qualified individuals with most of them over 30 years of experience. he still voted them down. so, why did he say he would take a vote if it was one by one, not as a group? that is one thing. i am going to say the word lie, he did say it in your news clip. one by one. i agree with mitt romney when he said you can do it a different way. he would help him try and change the law in the pentagon about the abortions. by the way, i believe a woman has a right to choose.

i agree with that woman who called and that was military. i agree with what she said. if he wants to change it, that is the way to do it, not hold up these nominations of qualified people. i would like to add one more thing. do not -- don't those nominations come with pay raises? pay raises for them to help with the families and stuff like that? the military people go in there, now you are holding up their pay raises. i think if you are one branch of -- i have never been in the military, excuse me. if you are a lt. col. and go to a colonel or whatever, there has got to be a pay raise. you are holding a pay raises for these people that are very qualified. the last point i would like to make is this. if you work for any company in the united states or whatever, if you work for an employer and your employer has a rule you do not like, you're going to quit

that employer until you find a company that agrees with all of your -- what is the word i want to use? everything you believe? i am sure a lot of people calling and have worked for a company, did not agree with their policies, but guess what? you need a job, you have to work. these people that are military, they did not make this rule. somebody made the rule. it is there. they did not make the rules. why are we punishing qualified individuals that are protecting us? everybody said that. they are protecting us. they are giving up their lives or them and their families. sometimes, relocated to all parts of the world. they are doing it to protect us. yet, we are here -- host: let's go to james in new york on our line for former military. caller: good morning, everyone. i am going to have to throw some weight and agree with the guy from the air force.

this has been going on for almost a year, i think. tuberville had the individual people come up and be voted in, from my understanding. the only reason one person can hold up all of this is because they are trying to do something that is not regular order. you should be allowed to do that. if schumer came out in the beginning and said, ok, we are putting this guy on the board and cap doing that, they would have been busy but this would not have been so backlogged. in the military, it is all about readiness. somehow, that turned into dies cannot get tattoos because the military owns your body. of course, pregnancy is not permitted while you are mission dependable. you can't just say, hey, i need to take a week off because i have a medical thing. that should not be a question about that.

if it is against the hyde amendment, that is illegal. that's find out who wrote that, put them in handcuffs and take them to court. a couple other things on this. yes, i love all the military. they have been doing fantastic. they need to focus a little more on the mission and not on the other wonderful colors out there. why are we covering this? i love c-span so much. but, why is this so important that it has been going on in entire week? this is a democrat talking point. we have had court cases exposing january 6, emails about our current president. people cannot put the money, why joe biden is getting all this money -- it is the paperwork he stole as a senator. of course there is reason to put him away. he is possibly selling stuff to the enemy. that is all i have to say. host: discussing the topic of

these military confirmations, holds. senator tuberville accuse the biden administration of being the one injecting politics into the military. here is what he had to say on that. [video clip] >> i cannot simply sit idly by why the biden a ministration injects politics and our military from the white house and spends taxpayer dollars on abortion. the only power that a senator in the minority has is to put a hold on a nomination. the only thing. i am not the first person to do this. holds on nominations happen all the time. hold on military nominations have happened many, many, many, many times before. typically, they do not last as long because the administration will work with a senator until

the issue is resolved. but, that has not happened this time. zero negotiation. abortion is the most important thing to the democrats, and they will not negotiate it. one more time. abortion is the most important thing the democrats have and they will not negotiate. this has been going on for nine months. every day this continues is a day that democrats think abortion is more important than the nomination and our military. i support many of these nominees, and i agree that these are very, very important jobs. but, we could have been voting on these nominees the entire nine months. the senate has had more than 90 days off this year, not including weekends.

each nomination could take as little as two hours. in fact, tomorrow we will be voting on three of the most important nominees that we forced the leader of the senate to bring to the floor. the nominees at the very top ought to be voted on anyway. these jobs are two important not to receive advice and consent -- and consent of the senate. host: let's hear a few thoughts from listeners and viewersn social media. lynn nelson in massachusetts says, police strs ce again, this is not a policy to pay to have an abortion. this is to pay f transportation to have one, if needed. men need to stop deciding what a won can and cannot do their boes. i am spartacus on x says thank you senator tuberville, we do not want our tax funds paying for abortions.

tell t pentagon to stop paying for abortions with our tax dollars, it is against the law. senator tuberville is the most effeive senator in the united states of america. dave says on x, tuberville is doing to our military what musk did to twitter, killing it with brain drain. let's go to shirley in pennsylvania --how do you say the name of your town? caller: lawrence county, pennsylvania. host: thank you, shirley. caller: thank you for taking my call, as well. i have a few things to say here. number one, first of all, i am 100% against abortion because god said i knew you before you were in your mother's womb, which means he already had a plan for you. it needs to continue on. have the baby. if you can't keep it, let someone else have it.

that is how i look at that. number two, i put the news on here this morning and i am hearing that president obama has put together this law that biden -- we all know that biden is, you know, he is not able to do this. we pretty much knew that somebody else was in charge. president obama has put this together and biden is going to initiate it. it is going to be on his watch. host: what are you talking about, shirley? caller: a1. host: i am not sure. go ahead. caller: anyhow, everybody pretty much knew that biden is not running the country, and neither is kamala.

we knew that it was somebody else. it came out this morning it is actually president obama. host: what do you think of the military blockade in the senate? caller: ok. my father and my brother were both in world war ii. you never heard of this stuff, although i am sure it went on. of course, the roe v. wade was already voted down. we know where that stands throughout the united states. i am just saying that, god forbid one of these women find themselves pregnant, why don't they just take a leave and have the baby and leave it with a family member or whatever they choose to do and get back to their military situation? i think that would be the best

way to do it, instead of aborting it. host: bob is in pittsburgh on our line for others. go ahead, bob. caller: four or five years ago, i was against tuberville. ever since millie and alston came on the scene, we are all into diversity. one guy mentioned it -- how many people are transgender, because they are gay, black, to get a promotion. what happens if these people need our men in the battlefield and if they are not qualified, they cause deaths and problems. that is what bothers me. yeah, you need diversity. really? do you really want somebody in the military, generals in that because of what they are instead of what they know? that is the problem. these people can be in military -- i am not saying all of them,

but they ought to do an investigation on these 300, find out how many are doing that. host: ok, alfred in whiteville, north carolina who is part of a military family. caller: yes, ma'am, my father was a world war ii soldier. wake up, modern-day america. it is a group of men promoting the laws of the civil war agenda. modern-day america is the trump agenda against america and its military. my dad was in world war ii. he would recommend the fire squad for tuberville. thank you. host: let's look at a clip here. deputy defense secretary kathleen hicks was asked if senator tuberville's holds impacted readiness and the health of those affected. here is her response from last week. [video clip] >> on holds, senator tuberville says his holds do not affect military readiness. he said they do not add stress

to the officers who have had to do two jobs at once. i want to ask from your point of view when you walk the halls, is that your experience? have officers been justified in filling two roles at the same time? >> we have said many times in the last six plus months he hold is unnecessary, unprecedented and unsafe. it is bad for our military, military families and bad for the country. we have seen tragic effects of that stress, but in a day to day sense, we have also seen the stress of the individual -- at the individual human level. i think that has been well communicated on capitol hill. we are pleased to see admiral frank eddie and general alban being confirmed. we understand general honing will be confirmed. you have 370 officers who have dedicated their lives to service to the nation. it is wrong.

it is unsafe. it is absolutely hurting readiness. >> a quick follow-up. you have seen the -- you say you have seen the tragic effects. do you think this added stress and workload may have contributed to general smith's illness? >> i am not going to comment on my personal views on that. general smith has indicated that he is trying to work two jobs, he is working from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 at night. i think it speaks for itself. host: let's hear from robert in lynchburg, virginia who is former military. go ahead, robert. caller: good morning, everybody. tuberville has not served a day in the military. what the good people of alabama need to do is recall him and get him out of the senate. the senate brought this on themselves by giving one individual all this authority and power to hold up the military like that.

i did 20 years in the military. tuberville, if he was my supervisor or something, i would vote him out of office in a minute. thank you very much for taking my call. host: liz in jonesboro, georgia on our line for all others. caller: good morning, and good morning america. i could not agree more with what robert just said. as he said, tuberville has not spent one day in the military. in fact, i do not know what he has done except be a coach. secondly, charlie sykes, who some of you are concerned -- called senator tuberville the dumbest man in the senate. this is a man who cannot even articulate the three branches of government when he was elected. the other things are the christians calling in. i am a christian.

i believe god says that vengeance is mine, and i will smite your enemies before you. so, you do not have to worry about women are doing. you just need to worry about what you yourself are doing. i agree an earlier caller said, chuck schumer could have -- one by one, but i heard it would take 900 days and as the earlier caller said, keep their butts in the seats and i bet there would be change immediately. as robert said, this falls on the people of alabama who have one of the lowest and poorest educational systems in the country. they are uninformed. i do not want to say they are ignorant, but why would you elect such a man is that? again, the female military person who called in -- yes. i guess people forgot about the

abuse that women have suffered there. there needs to be some sort of recognition and equity for women. thank you. host: let's hear from john in louisiana, who is former military. which branch where you end, john? caller: back in 1986, i believe it was, i was a major. i was up for lt. col.. i made lt. col., but the list was held up. i think it was frank loud and berg, the senator from new jersey. i do not re-member his reason. i was also up to command position. big deal when it came time, the guy that was in the command position in the squadron, he left. i went in, sat down. i was doing all the duties of the commander. did not make a difference if i had that lt. col. rank on or not. back then, i think there were

several thousand people on the thing, the promotion list. i think the one right now, there is just a few hundred. on top of that, when the session of congress ends, i believe that goes away automatically. i seem to remember that, i can't swear by it. to me, that promotion list and those senators if they want to, they can do it one at a time. i cannot believe it was going to take a bazillion years or something like that, i cannot believe that in one minute. host: when you had your promotion held up, how did it affect your work life and the rest of your life? caller: zip, nada. i was a commissioned officer. i swore an oath. it did not make a difference i had something on my shoulder.

the only difference was more pay and i got colonel instead of major. i did my job. for six months, i was a squadron commander, which was a lt. col. position. i performed my duties. as soon as i put on colonel, same thing. it has no effect. host: ok. from ella polis, ohio on our military family line. let's hear from john. caller: yes, ma'am. i was not going to call. my wife was in the military and was raped. host: so sorry. caller: by two black up or military men in maryland. she raised the daughter, she did not have an abortion. i stepfather the daughter, she is now 40 years old. the military never done anything to the two men. my wife died last spring.

the daughter never knew that she was a raped baby. after the fact of my wife's passing, she tried to contact the two men that was one of the most -- one of them was the biological father. one was dead, one told her he did not care a doggone at all, all he wanted was the white woman. host: let's go to birmingham, alabama, who is former military. caller: hello? host: go ahead, clifford. caller: i was calling concerning the people calling in about this abortion deal. these people calling themselves so-called christian. if you are a so-called christian, that means you are christlike and believe the bible. what is the most important thing that you as a christian believe? god almighty, who you believe and trust, he does not force you to believe him.

that most important thing you can lose is your soul. he does not force you to say, believe me. he gives you a choice. you can choose to believe or not to believe. if these guys had to get pregnant and deal with what these women were going through, i think it would be a different thing. host: coming up next, we have heritage foundation senioragle fellow hans von spakovsky and sirius xm progress radio show host dean obeidallah, whoill discuss legal arguments and lawsuits surrounding the 14th amendment that aim to disqualify former president trump from the 2020 for presidential ballot. later on, public historian and author jason steinhauer who will discuss the historical roots and conflict between israel and hamas. we will be right back. ♪

>> live today on in-depth. author and former aclu president nadine strauss and joins book tv to talk and take calls about civil rights, free speech, censorship and more. she is the author of defending pornography, hate, a guide to free speech law and debates surrounding it. join the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments and texts. in depth with nadine stross and come alive today at noon eastern on book tv, on c-span two. >> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are both in session. the house continues working on 2024 federal planning legislation and the senate will debate u.s. district court nominations and vote on

president biden's nominee for nih director, monica barnett only. wednesday, javier becerra and homeland security secretary mayorkas will testify before the senate appropriations committee on the president's $106 billion several mental funding request for domestic priorities supportive of this week on a c-s, the house and senate are both in session. the house continues working on 2020 for federal spending legislation. on wednesday, homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas testifies. -- watch this week live on the

c-span networks or on c-span now mobile video app. go to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream on demand anything. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. the documentary competiti i back, celebrating 20 years with this year's theme, looking forward while considering the past. we are asking middle and high school students to create a video addressing one of these questions. in the next 20 years, what is the most important change would like to see in america or, over the past 20 years, what has been the most important change in america? we are giving away 100,000 dollars in total prizes every teacher who has students participate has the opportunity to share a portion of an

additional $50,000. competition deadline is friday, january 19th, 2024. visit our website at the student camp. work -- studentcam.org. c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse our latest collection c-span products apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are joined now by hans von spakovsky, from the heritage foundation, two works on election law reform. guest: good morning. host: joining us from new york is dean obeidallah of siriusxm

progress and hosted the dean obeidallah show. dean, do you want to give us an overview of section iii of the 14th amendment, which so many people have brought up as a way to potentially keep donald trump off the ballot in some states. guest: the quarters simple. it was enacted after the civil war. you to the u.s. government, had a position in the government and then after they oath, you engage in an insurrection, you are borrowed from holding office. that is the essence of it. we do not have the supreme court decision that will give us the guidance to say when where the other about donald trump, but people like myself and others

have made the point that yes donald trump gauged -- engaged in an insurrection fare there is no simple answer. it will come down to what is an insurrection as contemplated by the 14th amendment. it is being litigated right now. last year, there was a case in new mexico which gave good guidance. they said insurrection means an assemblage of people -- the execution of federal law. it does not have to be a civil war -- we cannot have somebody on the ballot who has already disqualified. host: hans, you have written about this. donald trump is not disqualified from holding office under the 14th amendment. can you describe a bit more about this amendment? guest: there are numerous

reasons why it does not apply to donald trump. the most obvious is the language. you look at the actual text, it does not apply to the former president. here's why. if you look at it carefully, it says if you took an oath to support the constitution previously as either a state official, a member of congress, or an officer in the united states, then the disqualification applies. donald trump has never been a state official. he was never a member of congress. the u.s. supreme court has said that an officer of the united states is someone who was appointed to office, not elected. they first said this in 1888. they'd repeated it a decade ago in the case involving a public company accounting board. what that means for the american nasty leg man is merrick garland is an officer of the united states. but if you are elected, you are

not considered an officer of the united states. joe biden is not an officer of the united states. under that interpretation of that language, being an officer of the u.s., this town apply to donald trump. there is a site -- this does not apply to donald trump. there is a second,. in 1869, 1 of the cases in section 3, the chief justice of the supreme court said section three is not self executing what that means it -- is it cannot be enforced unless congress passes legislation to enforce section three. they have never done that. last year in arizona, the state supreme court threw out a similar case filed against representatives so sare and andy biggs, claiming they should be

disqualified. the state supreme court upheld a lower court decision, saying this is not self-executing and congress has never passed legislation to enforce it. therefore, no state court has jurisdiction to enforce the act. one final thing, actually two. one, donald trump has never been convicted or even charged under the federal statute against insurrection or rebellion. see was charged with incitement of -- he was charged with incitement insurrection with the act by the u.s. house when they passed the second impeachment resolution. he was acquitted in the senate. so, what, we are going to have one county judge, one of 3000 counties that will override what congress has already done? but the final thing is section 3

has something unique in it. you look at the final sentence. it says congress can get rid of disqualifications, section 3 with a two thirds vote of the house of congress. there is nothing else like that in the constitution. what you will not seat mentioned in that new mexico case is there is no discussion of the fact that congress in 1872 passed and am is the act. hey got rid of section 3's disqualification with exceptions for members of congress who had served in congress just before and during the civil war at a couple of others. in 1898, they passed a second amnesty act that got rid of it entirely. it is questionable whether section 3 exists anymore. host: a lot to unpack there. want to look at the actual text of the 14th amendment,

section 3. bars from public o anyone we took an oath as an officer of the united states to support the constitution of the united states and engage in an insurrection or rebellion, unless congress removes such a disability by a two thirds vote. dean, there was a lot in there just now, but i want to latch on to this point that trump has not been conviction that convicted of insurrection or even charged of sedition. what you make of that? guest: if the framers of the 14th amendment want you convicted of that crime, it would have said upon conviction, you are disqualified. in the constitution, the word convicted appears nowhere. it could have said, "shall have

been convicted of insurrection." secondly, there is no obligation for a criminal conviction to trigger this section. it did not work in new mexico. why it is being debated in colorado, i do not think it belongs there. the heritage foundation is powerful but cannot rewrite the constitution. i think there are arguments that will be debated in court. we need a, not a county judge, to decide this. could win the election next year and then be disqualified from taking the oath of office for that is why it is got to be litigated now. that is what hoping the judge in colorado hearing the case will disqualify him. it goes up from the supreme court of colorado to the u.s. supreme court. they hear it once and for all so

we can have a definitive decision as opposed to the uncertainty of what i've -- what if trump wins and there are more actions to disqualify him? the definitive answer right now. host: we will be taking your answer on this. democrats, host: --(202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. be sure to include your name and where you are writing in from. i want to follow up on some of these lawsuits. you have a liberal group filing in colorado, demanding trump's removal from the ballot there for his role in the january 6 capital -- capitol riots. the minnesota supreme court has

heard oral arguments in a similar case. what is going on with those cases? you mentioned earlier that this ad hoc approach may not have longevity. guest: the ultimate decider is going to be the u.s. supreme court. i do not think anyone can get over the fact that if you look at the plane text without -- plain text without going into any of these other issues, it does not apply to a president or vice president. they are not officers of the united states. that is such a clear issue that there is a law professor who has published a recent article saying that section 3 could be used against trump until former attorney general michael mukasey brought up the fact that the president is not an officer of the united states. therefore, it does not apply to

him. stephen calabrese wrote a letter to the wall street journal admitting that he had not considered that and then in fact he was wrong. section 3 does not apply to presidents. in all of these cases, these cases are similar. similar lawsuits were filed last year trying to get various members of congress removed from the ballot. none were successful. i think the same thing is going to happen here. one final thing. these are nuisance lawsuits, no different from the lawsuits that were filed against barack obama in 2009 after he became president. there were lawsuits filed in various states trying to claim he was not qualified to be president because he was not a natural born citizen.

every one of those lawsuits was properly and correctly thrown out. that is what ought to happen here. folks made to divorce themselves whether they like or dislike donald trump. that is not the issue. the issue is whether the constitutional provision can be used against him. it cannot. host: what other states are taking the 14th amendment approach? do they have different prospects compared to colorado and minnesota? guest: i want to respond to what hans right up. it is a question about whether this applies to donald trump or not. the this week in colorado, the issue came up and the story was -- made an argument that to me resonates strong. the idea that the framers of the 14th amendment said, if you are a state official and you swore an oath to the constitution and

then engage in insurrection -- but if you are president you can do the same thing and we welcome you right back. this will be litigated. we will see with the decision is. maybe it does not resonate but it is common sense. why with the framers of the 14th amendment safe you are an elected official or new swore an oath to the constitution and then engage in insurrection you are banned but if your president or vice president that is fine? that does not resonate. the minnesota supreme court heard the case. they were skeptical of the idea. many asked the question of if we could do this, should we do this, maybe congress is better suited. that was brought up in the colorado trial. the judge had a great question for the trump experts -- an

example. the constitution is too hard to interpret. trump's own story and expert witness that i cannot give you an example. that is ridiculous. our court has been interpreting every amendment since we had a judicial system. they can interpret every amendment. i do not -- i think colorado may be ironically -- trump has filed in michigan a state where he has to be on the ballot. maybe that is the case it will go to the supreme court because he brought the action. but for people with a little background, there is no wrong answer because we do not have a definitive decision. either one of us could be right. to me, anyone who was president

of the u.s. who swore an oath to the constitution and then attempted to overturn the election should not be on the ballot. that is my emotional argument. we will see what the supreme court decides. host: let's hear from richard in a guest, maine, republican line. caller: they were talking about donald trump causing an insurrection. -- cost one and he ain't facing any charges. nancy pelosi filed an impeachment against trump, i called representative golden and susan collins and i said what about john sullivan and nti? they said, who? they did not know. host: richard, did you have a question for our guests about the 14th amendment?

caller: what? the 14th amendment, donald trump did not try to cause in insurrection. this people were there voluntarily. he had nothing to do with january 6. it was rey and antifa who have not faced any charges. host: let's go to scott, reno, nevada, independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking the time to take my call. i am a recovering republican, now an independent. i am in middle school teacher for 29.5 years. there is no doubt in my mind that trump incited insurrection. it is not the first time. i have seen or two kids are in the hall, going one plus two another when one kid says to another, hey, wouldn't it be

funny if you slapped billy and took his backpack? i am not telling you to do it, but wouldn't it be funny? i am going to go to the capitol with you. i will be right there that i am not telling you to storm the place, but wouldn't it be great if somebody did? my question on the 14th amendment -- is there any legal avenue or argument that will allow trump to get around the amendment? i am concerned for the sake of your -- the democracy, whether you are red, blue, purple state. that he will be running the show again. appreciate your time. host: that is an interesting point, this idea of if trump is reelected. hans, how do you think the 14th

avenue -- amendment argument might play out if trump wins the election? (202) 748-8001 first --guest: first, congratulations to him for being a teacher. that is not easy. they are making the same mistake as the colorado court. they are concentrating on did trump insight and insurrection, did he participate? that is not the issue. the issue is that section 3 the 14th amendment apply to him? that issue, i think, is clearly decided by supreme court precedent. the language itself does not apply to him. there were two amnesty acts that got rid of section 3. if he gets elected, it is congress that has the ultimate and that ultimate ability and

only power to remove a president. they could impeach him again and hold a trial again if they think he should not be in office. for anyone who asked he can only be impeached for actions you take while in office, that is not correct. there are plenty of examples of congress impeaching federal officials for actions they took before they became federal officials. in fact, the last successful impeachment they did of a federal judge in 2010, part of the articles of impeachment were for actions he took when he was a state court judge. the ultimate power rests with congress. host: dean, what is your take about how the 14th amendment may play out if trump is reelected, particularly if some of these court cases go through and they find that the 14th amendment applies?

guest: if it is done in a patchwork way, not through the supreme court, he would be on the ballot in certain state and not others, which is horrible for the nation. it would to fight even more. there's why we need a supreme court decision. i will live with the supreme court's decision. it is not congress who decides. it is the voters. richard sankey is an independent, used to be republican. if you want to ensure that donald trump does not win, come out one year from today or vote early and the people will ensure donald trump is not reelected, not congress, not the criminal justice system. for those who believe -- weekly 14th amendment, do not wait for

the january 6 case pending d.c. or florida, you have got to vote. but if he does win, there will be more lawsuits then if it has not been decided by the supreme court. most what kind of uncertainty that would cause -- who knows what kind of uncertainty that would cause. host: speaking of the upcoming election, while speaking at the freedom summit in florida, asa hutchinson urged republicans to choose a new leader, saying there is a significant likelihood that trump will be found guilty in some way or next year. >> next march not only brings march madness. with it, we will witness our justice system at work and on trial in federal and state

courtrooms. as someone who has been in the courtroom for over 25 years as a federal prosecutor and in defending some of the most serious criminal cases, i can say there is a significant likelihood donald trump will be found guilty by a jury on a felony offense year. [booing] >> that may or may not happen before you vote in march. that may not make a difference to you, but help make a difference for our chances to attract -- it will make a difference for our chances to attract independent voters in november and it will weaken the gop for decades to come. as a party, we must support the rule of law. we cannot win as a country without integrity in the white house. while some will ignore the

destructive behavior of the former president, i assure you we ignore it at our own peril. the next generation will not look favorably on this time. on this day, 43 years ago, november 4, 1980, ronald reagan was elected to be the 40th resident of the united states. reagan beef and incumbent president during a time in which there was great uncertainty at home and abroad. years before on that election day, the u.s. embassy in tehran was stormed. 52 american hostages were taken by force and held captive for 444 days. high inflation and high interest rates threatened the american dream. the man occupying the oval office clean overwhelmed by the

job and the flexed by the times. does this sound familiar? between today and the end of march, republican voters must make new choices to give us the right leader for the gop, someone who believes in the party of lincoln and dragon -- reagan. then we need a new leader in the white house so we could resume our march to a more perfect in. florida must lead the way. host: hans, what is your take on that? guest: you are asking a political question. he is urging people not to vote for trump because of the lawsuits against him. i am here to talk about section 3 and whether it can be used to disqualify from the -- disqualify trump from the

ballot. in some ways, he and i agree. the ultimate decider's the voters, but one thing i would say and a lot of people do not realize this, even if hypothetically donald trump was convicted, that would not prevent him from being elected for serving as president because the supreme court has said there are three qualifications to be president. the fact that you might get convicted of some other kind of crime does not prevent an individual from serving as president. congress could impeach that individual and remove them. is it a political liability? it may or may not be, but that is not the issue. the issue is not whether or not you like, trump, whether you think he would be bad or good for the country. the issue is can growth rate

being used to remove him from the ballot? -- is can section 3 beat used to remove him from the ballot. i think it is clear that he cannot be. host: dean, so many cases against trump. test a difference to republican -- desk it make a difference to republican or independent voters another one of these cases is in the works during the election? guest: daniel -- donald trump could be in a prison cell and get elected as president. he could be president from prison. you could do that. no prohibition on that. seen the polling -- the only thing i have seen in the polling, politically you have

seen that the gop base, 55% or 60% support donald trump. it does not matter the lawsuit. i do not know if that makes donald trump stronger or not. i think they are troubled by indictments. i do not think that the gop base, the part that likes him, with -- would be troubled by him being convicted. they listen. they either agree with him or do not care. that is what we are dealing with. asa hutchinson says that's what each of hutchinson said, objectively speaking, 100% right. if donald trump is convicted in d.c., he will not be seconds before election day. he will be a convicted felon

traveling the country. that will affect some voters. some will say it is a partisan witchhunt. i do not think his face is troubled is literally out on bail right now. he had to post bail in georgia. many years ago, if you said the leading candidate for a party was charged with nine plus felonies, including attempting a coup attempt, look at what that person has done. i don't think this election in 2024 full b trunk versus biden, it will be trump versus democracy, and that will be the case going forward. we are going to find out over the next year. host: let's get back to a discussion of the 14th amendment. chris in his part on our democrat line. go ahead, chris. caller: hi. president trump wanted to

overturn an election that he lost. he tries to get the people that showed up on january 6 to stop the proceedings of the house of representatives physically. he failed, the house of representatives signed off on the election. president trump is a loser. host: ok. i'm guessing this gets back to what you are saying about the separate questions about whether or not you like trump. guest 2: right, you have to reverse yourself, whether you like trump or don't like him, and for the same reasons that they decided -- the courts last year decided it could not be various members of congress, including one in wisconsin, trying to get u.s. senator ron johnson off of the ballot, supposedly he had participated

in the insurrection january 6, still failed, and one of the key issues, and again, the arizona state supreme court said section three cannot be enforced by state courts because congress never passed any statute providing enforcement of it, and there is no private right of action under section three. host: brian is in minnesota on our republican line. go ahead. caller: yes. the american people are so very tired of the democrats putting their thumb on the scale to affect who they can choose for president. it is that simple. thank you. host: dean, this is an argument we hear quite a bit, that these cases are just yet another attempt to keep trump of the ballot by sort of any name that

democrats can come up with. guest: let me first respond to the line, when he is saying is correct, but in the case of new mexico last year, the county commissioner, what a catalyst for trump. they had a trial and found that january 6 was an insurrection, and one who was not charged with insurrection, but with trespassing, gaining support. he is removed from the electoral supreme court, peel twice, and he was rejected. i'm now hearing it, effectively, this is a law of new mexico. that is why the supreme court decided. i think we will find, we will find out late in november, early december. that is going up the ladder. the supreme court, which is controlled by about 6-3,

republican, including three trump appointees, if they say that donald trump engage in insurrection and is hard by the constitution, that way it is going to be. there are people out there who say, it is undemocratic to try to enforce section two of the 14th amendment. first of all, it is undemocratic to try to overturn an election. that is the definition of undemocratic. withholding a constitution, if donald trump had not engaged in this action, we would not be talking about section three of the 14th a minute. all of us have learned so much more about our constitution after donald trump. we may have never heard it before, because of donald trump. i think it is important that people use every legal means, if

he's not removed to organize and defeat him come literally a year from today. guest 1: can i say something about that? host: go ahead. guest 1: dean lost that new mexico case. i suggest people pull it and read it. almost 50 pages by a county judge in which he spends the entire opinion talking about whether this former county commissioner engaged in insurrection or not. do you know how much of the opinion he devotes to the constitutional issue of whether section three even exists or can be applied? three paragraphs. and he made no mention whatsoever, there is no discussion whatsoever of the two amnesty act that i talked about. there's no discussion of the self execution issue, because this is a state official, the whole issue of it being in the

united states is not even apply. there's no question whatsoever in the 50-page opinion. using that as a basis for justifying these other students does not really work very well. host: dean, before you respond to that, let's look at other students copy cases involving the 14th of admit and former president trump. in minnesota, and colorado, in michigan,. . what is your take on what hans was just saying, that the one case to hang on is a little like ght? guest 2: both of us could be right. both of us could be wrong. we don't know. even hans could agree with that. you know, a former court of

appeals judge, harvard law professor, made a compelling case in an article that this would apply, and donald trump should be disqualified. you had a university of pennsylvania law officer writing an article, making a case that does justify. no one is wrong. me and hans could argue one supreme court my would like you. i would like to be a plaintiff. i would be giddy to be a plaintiff. ultimately, the supreme court is going to decide, and that is how it is going to come down. watching come of the prism of trump or not, this is a legal issue, and i will accept the supreme court's decision. i might not like it and i will accept it. host: before we get back to the

callers, i want to go back to a post saw on social media on x, w had a question about the language of the 40 commitment. body saying, "i believe the keyword's office, it is not say officer. if we go back to the linkage of" the 40 commitment, which bars from publi office, anyone who took an oath as an officer of the united states to support the constitution of the united states. guest 1: that is right. the caller is confusing the jurisdiction clause with a qualification closet for sec. 3 to apply, you had to have been either a state official, a member of congress, or not are an officer of the united states. if you fit any of those three categories, then, yeah, you can't hold an office of the united states. but you don't get to that second part unless you fall within the

first part, and that is the issue. and the supreme court has decided that issue on multiple occasions, saying that an elected official is not an officer of the united states. sorry, but section three does not apply to biden, it does not apply to barack obama, it does not apply to a president or vice president of the united states. host: sherry in portsmouth, virginia on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think one is missing his conversation about the 14th amendment in terms of the original purpose, which was in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were brought about in terms of dealing with the end of slavery, and that is not what the folks are focusing on at this point, but that is really

kind of the importance of what the 14th amendment was. it was about trying to create a quality for the formerly enslaved. basically they are not allowing the truth of the amendment to be what it is all about. we need to understand that it was adopted in terms of not wanting the formerly enslaved to turn against their masters, their former owners. so it was one of those kind of reactionary amendments but necessary to help, you know, deal with reconstruction as the back, and it failed, essentially. my organization, what we try to do is help america heal from the wounds of slavery without shame or blame, and that means we need to look at this history and be able to talk about it in ways that are helpful. so i think basically the fax between the two sides are important and is scary, and we need to have these kinds of

conversations, not people throwing chairs and getting very emotional about it but understanding that what we are trying to do is to make competition work in a way that is fair to everyone can right now, it does not work for everyone, and this is what we need to do in order to be able to get that to happen. host: i will let both of you respond to that, dean, on the history of the 14th amendment. guest 2: that is correct. the team, 14th, 15th of admit, the three minutes after the civil war, were about ending slavery, overturning the dred scott decision. 15 amendment, you have a right to vote regardless of race, 100% correct. i hope this conversation is not undermining that. we are debating one section of the 14th amendment, section three, the people who swore an oath to our conversation, those

trying to overturn, end, not just violent acts, people removed from office after the civil war were just getting over supported terms of the language to those involved in the confederacy. i am not in any way trying to denigrate the 14th amendment. it is about one specific commitment, and, again, the idea that hans is arguing, indeed we would not be having a debate right now. it is a different argument. my argument is if it is that clear, the case of minnesota would have been dismissed immediately. that was not even the big focus from what i read, and i read the entire thing. these are issues brought up. can the president -- can it apply to the caller said, the

spirit of the 14th amendment, if you swore an oath to the constitution and try to overthrow, the confederacy, and come back to our government try to do what you did from the outside insight, undermine our republic, and that apply to the president, vice president, and only members of congress? that will be a determination for the injustices of the united states supreme court. i think they will say of course it will apply for that is the original intent of the framers of the 14th amendment. host: let's let hans respond to that caller. guest 1: the caller is correct. i published an extensive study last year when these will be filed against members of congress in which i go through the history of the 14th amendment, and section 3 was put in because, republicans

controlled congress after the end of the american civil war, and they were angry when members of the confederate government and military were starting to get reelected congress. and that is why they put that provision in there. but they also put in a provision, because, while they were angry about that, they also, you know, had a goal that they wanted the united states to be knit together again as one country, because it had almost split into two, a slave state and a free state. that is why they put the provision in at the end, that would allow congress to actually get rid of section 3 and the entire disqualification provision. that is why they then has to be image the act, the last one in 1898, entirely getting rid of section 3, and was no language

in it, preserving it for future occasions. so, yeah, the history is important, but it is not just the history of this passage but the history and how it was treated in the decades following its passage also. that is why into many of these cases, because of these lawsuits in these court cases, the judges seem to be either ignorant of or ignoring the constitutional history of section 3. host: let's go to a few more posts on social media via speed, is the code is by definition the chief executive officer u.s. ? doesn't he take an oath, like all other officers? guest 1: the supreme court has said, like i said, first in 1888 and most recently, a decade ago, that you are an officer of the united states if you are

appointed, not if you are elected. now, you may not believe that the supreme court got that right, but that is their interpretation and application of what that language means, so that is the prevailing law, no matter what the prevailing case is where that is an issue. host: another post on expert dian, what do you think about project 2025? first of all, explain what project 2025 is. guest 2: another quick thing about hans, though, the supreme court may have decided in 1888, but i think the supreme court is showing an overturning president, like overturning roe v. wade. so you might not want to rely on past precedent. the supreme court may overturning just like it did roe v. wade. that project is the idea that his trunk a in, my understanding

of it, from what i've read, to essentially eliminate what is a safeguard against a tyrannical executive branch by eliminating the civil service jobs, by the civil servants, being there for decades and decades made allows less partisanship, a little more stability, while getting rid of that to the extent they want to, just putting all, let's say, magg people in there, there will not be any protections good to say before to the mimic cannot be enforced by the portal what happens? i posed this to hans, if trunk wins and in the 22nd amendment, you cannot have a second or third term. at that moment, or people like hans and the heritage foundation going to say, no, donald trump, you can't have a third term, and

we will help enforce it, thereby you can be the king of the united states of america? guest 1: i'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous hypothetical. congress is the one who certifies results, and there is no way they would certify result for a third term and violate the constitution. i don't know where dean is reading about project 2025, but the idea that it is for donald trump is just wrong. what the heritage foundation has died -- and, look, they first did this when ronald reagan became president. what we're doing, what the heritage foundation is doing is preparing what was already republished publicly a huge book on the policies that we think any incoming president in 2025 ought to implement throughout the executive branch. it covers what we think the justice department should be doing, hhs, all the different

departments. this is not any -- that much different from what other groups -- i'm sure the center for american progress does the same thing. they have all these policies and regulations. host: explain to the audience that project 2025 is an effort to train people for the presidential transition. guest 1: right. it is also to try to come up with a list of individuals who would be good in a new administration. and, look, whether it is a democrat or republican administration that comes in, they have an almost impossible job. you have to fill thousands of political posts in a new administration. they get inundated with resumes. when bill clinton came in, for a couple of thousand political posts in the federal government, their office got over 100,000 resumes. so the idea here is to try to do some prescreening ahead of time,

come up with a list of individuals who would be good in those posts. i'm sure, like i said, other organizations will have a more liberal outlook they do exactly the same thing. but our project, we hope that any president coming in would use it. it is not designed for any particular person. guest 2: can i ethical question? host: no, were going to bring it back to the 14 to mimic and go to grady in ohio on the democratic line. caller: hello. caller: yes, this is basic high school civics 101. the legislative branch, congress, failed to impeach him, and the vote was strictly down political lines. republicans refused to impeach him, and mitch mcconnell himself said, let it be up to the courts

to decide, so donald trump is being charged for crimes against the united states of america. so the legislative branch failed to check-in, so now the judicial branch is doing his job. i don't understand what the problem is. the people who support trumper going to pick it until the cows come home let. it take its course, and i will be satisfied with that. and the supreme court and the federal courts are conflicting the people who participated january 6, and they are batting 1000. so if the 14th amendment don't get him, guess what? the feds will. have a nice day. host: do either one of you want to respond to that caller? guest 1: you know, people are thinking about what i'm talking

about means i support donald trump, and i'm not going to tell people who are supporting the election. that is not the issue. the issue is rather -- and i hate to keep repeating it, but the point is, does the 14th amendment allow a state to remove an individual from the ballot who is running for president? i think it is pretty clear that that cannot happen. donald trump had all kinds of charges filed against him, but, for example, in the federal case that is in washington, d.c., he has not been charged with the violation of 2383. that is the provision that charges you with insurrection or rebellion, the keywords in the 14th amendment. that is not one of the charges. there are other charges, but that is not one of them. guest 2: there were people

removed by congress after the 14th amendment it was enacted who were not charged with any crime, and they were not allowed to serve in congress. not in terms of active military look overt act of the insurrection, the civil war in that case, and were not allowed to be in there. and, again, the constitution is very clear, it uses the word "convicted" numerous leap it if the framers of the 14th amendment say you could argue it is changing, to put the words "convicted" in there, having engaged in insurrection. of course you need that. i've got to say i'm just hoping that hans, we talk about hypothetical all the time, if donald trump or to seek a third term, the heritage foundation would come out loudly and vocally and say he cannot, because that is the 22nd

amendment, that is about our democratic republic going forward. i'm a little concerned about is hypothetical, when donald trump had set his first term he would keep numerous terms as president. host: i'm guessing you don't want to respond to that one, hans. guest 1: that is just funny. we have a great heritage guide to the constitution. i recommend people take a look at it on our website. we go into great detail about the amendment which says you cannot serve a third term, and of course we would in no way say that anyone can violate that, whether it is barack obama, joe biden, or donald trump. host: ok. andy in phoenix, arizona on the republican line. caller: hey. good morning, everyone. i know everything about the 14th amendment stuff, but if it is attached to try, it is another fraud perpetuating against trump. i hope you allow me to make a

few comments. "washington journal" did a show not too long ago about election integrity, and your guest was saying how, you know, there might be a small problem here and they are, but no problems really. the ballot boxes are secure, this and that. i don't know if you guys heard about the connecticut democratic primary recently, that a judge over will -- overruled the decision for the winter i believe because of all the videos that came out. i saw some of the videos of people just stopping the ballot. and, you know, we really do need election integrity, and the fact that it was democrat on democrat, one was stuck in the ballot box is just hilarious. but they tell us the elections are perfect. host: you have a question for our guests, related to the 14th amendment? caller: i do have a question. i'm sorry you don't like me pointing that out about the integrity of the election, but maybe you can have a story about

the connecticut primary. but i do have a question for dean. you said what would happen if trump won the election? the first thing that came to my mind is the train would be put back on the track, because the train us, the tracks in this administration. that is for people to decide. what do you guys think about states trying to remove trump's name from the ballot? a small handful of people taking away the peoples voice of that state. if they did that in arizona, i would be livid. you are deciding for me who i can vote for and can't vote for? let the people decide. the insurrection, what a joke. when happen on january 6 was not in insurrection. that's what happened on january 6 wanot an insurrection. host: before you respond to that, dean, want to go t quote from brett raffensperger, who said, for a second-rate

st to re candidate, would only reinforce the grievances of those who see th system as "rigged and corrupt." since our founding,cans have believed in a government that is just and has earned the consent the governed. taking away ilit to choose or object to the eligibility of candidates illuminates that consent for slightly less than half of the country. along the lines of what the caller was saying, dean. guest 2: we have a constitution, a democratic republic, and we will be a third world, banana republic, with trump. i want to point, when he said that is not in insurrection, a man on my show yesterday, this man who was in a rack war veteran can no longer serve as a

capitol police officer, which he loves serving in. it was a barbaric, brutal attack, and what troubles me is the cbs poll last year says 60% of republicans view that attack as an act of defending freedom, and the majority of republicans view genuine six, that terrorist attack, as an act of patriotism. -- january 6, that terrorist attack, as an act of patriotism. you cannot run if you are not an natural born citizen, if you are under 35 years old, you can support it or change it. host: what do you think about the point the caller raised about the idea of one state taking trump off the and others not? does that have any legal consequences? guest 1: can you imagine the electoral chaos that can cause? look, it is not just one state,

but we have over 3000 counties across the country, and we have stateboard judges in each of those. imagine the electoral chaos that can be caused by, you know, one county judge saying he could be taken off the ballot, and other saying no, he cannot be taken off the ballot. you notice that these lawsuits now have been filed in state court. you know why? because federal courts have ruled, and there's been a case that just recently returned to the supreme court. a lawyer father lawsuit in florida, in federal court, claiming that donald trump should not be on the ballot because of the 14th amendment, section 3. his case was dismissed, the appeals court dismissed it, he filed a petition for the supreme court. the supreme court refused to take the case can and the reason was, all the courts said,

he would not have standing, he would not have the ability to file a lawsuit as a voter, because voters do not have the ability to question the qualification of a candidate. host: we have a little bit of time left, so we will get one more caller and some quick responses. kathleen in illinois on our independent line. caller: hi there. i'm hoping that the gentleman can figure out what i'm asking. but if this were to go to the supreme court, two you think it would be judged as a living constitution, which is like the living and breathing, you know what i mean, or as an originalist, it has got a clear and definite meaning? real quick, i wanted to point out that the dictionary definition of "officer" is one who holds an office of authority or trust of an organization such as a corporation or a government.

so if you can kinda figure out what i'm asking, that would be great. thanks. host: hans, i will let you go first, first on a definition of officer again, and secondly how the current supreme court might interpret a case like this, if it came before them. guest 1: i think what the supreme court would do is apply its past precedents on how it would examine and look at a provisional of the constitution. as i have explained during this hour, it defined an officer of the united states as someone who is appointed, not elected, by looking at the other provisions of the constitution and be way they are used. so you don't use a dictionary definition. you look at the way it was applied, written, and put in the constitution and other texts. i don't think they are suddenly going to change 150 years worth, saying that an officer of the

united states is someone who was appointed, not elected. and so i think it will actually be a very easy case for the supreme court to decide, and, frankly, you might even get a 9-0 decision on it. host: dean, i will give you the last word. guest 2: i think you could get a 9-0 decision, but if a lower court says donald trump is disqualify, i think the supreme court would not want to engage it. why? this supreme court, with three appointed by donald trump, understand that yes, if they allowed trump, a man who engaged in insurrection, to get into the white house, who knows what would happen? the reality is, nine people enrolled, looking around without a power, it donald trump rules the way he wants. so don't be surprised, america.

they can look at the democratic republic. host: dean obeidallah of the dean obeidallah, thank you so much, and hans von spakovsky of the heritage foundation, appreciate your time guest 1: thanks for having me. host: later on "washington journal," we will hear from public historian jason steinhauer of the woodrow wilson center who will discuss the historical roots of the conflict between israel and. first, we will have more of your calls and comments in our open forum. you can start calling again now, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . we will be right back. ♪ >> the honorable mike johnson,

having received a majority of the votes cast, is duly elected speaker of the house of representatives of our 118th congress. >> the battle of the house leadership is over. house gop members elected louisiana republican congressman mike johnson as the new speaker of the house following the removal of kevin mccarthy. c-span brought you every moment from capitol hill as this historic election unfolded. continue to stay with the c-span network as the house reconvenes and gets back to legislative business. you can also visit our video library at c-span.org, where you can find out more about house speaker mike johnson's career in congress, with more than 250 appearances since he was sworn in in 2017. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> weekends bring you book to become a featuring leading

authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. former a.c.l. yo president nadine -- aclu president nadine strossen joins book tv's "in depth." on "after words," a journey fm poverty to academia, serving as president of smith college, brown university, and prereview annan university in her book. -- prereview and in university -- prayer once anytime on booktv.org. ♪ as part of our new series, we are asking you, what books do you think shaped america? >> the book that i think shaped america is "the sound and the fury," by william faulkner. >> "to kill a mockingbird" by harper lee. >> you can join the conversation

by submitting the books you think helped shape this country could go to our website, c-span.org/book sthatshapedamerica, click record video, and be sure to watch "books that shaped america" every monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to it we will be taking your calls through open forum for about the next 20 minutes or so, on the democratic line, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents line, (202) 748-8002. if you would like to text us, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. just make sure to include your name, where you're from, and we are also on social media on x @cspanwj and facebook,

facebook.com/cspan. let's start with andrew in pennsylvania on our independent line. caller: hello. go ahead. good morning. i don't know what to say again. i was listening to the show you just had with the heritage foundation representative and the other media heads, you know, donald trump cannot be convicted for the most part on any criminal charge, because most likely, amongst a jury of peers, someone is going to vote against convicting him, so if the verdict cannot be rendered beyond a reasonable doubt, i resent these people who get on media, talking about these issues with the millions of dollars that are being spent in his defense, and his

prosecution, where the average american cannot afford more than $500 in expenses at any given time. i myself have gone, you know, into great amounts of debt recently and legal questions, and these people are running around, talking about the rule of law. in america, there is no rule of law. there's not a question of due process, because there is no due process, with the question of equal treatment under the law. and it donald trump and joe biden and all the republicans, all the democrats are not going to treat themselves equally into the average american, i think they should be just disqualify, arrested, or something should be done with them, because they are out of their minds. host: ray in pleasant view, tennessee on our republican

line. go ahead. caller: yes, first of all, i don't think this is in insurrection. i think it is a bunch of people that got out of hand, upset about the election, because the media try to cover up everything that, my view, they were doing, so they got out of hand. you did not tell them -- stop right there. they are saying he's going to be the next president, because people in this country have got enough sense to see that the man they have put in there now, and the things happening in the world, because of people like this democrat that has messed this country up, common sense people are going to elect a man

with less, and that is donald trump. host: california on our independent line. caller: my turn? host: yes, go ahead. caller: i want to say one thing. i'm 63 years ok'd i remember tim and tammy figure -- jim and tammy baker, i think they are founders of the heritage foundation. they were a sham then and they are a sham now. the guy you had on, he seem so serious, but i want to know, what is in it for them, if it is the jim and tammy foundation, the same one? they were a joke then and they are a joke now. thank you. host: in texas on our democratic line. go ahead, amin in texas. caller: ok, when i don't

understand, and everybody out there listening to me, the leader of the the proud boys was at home, called in, and never went to the capital, and he got more time than anybody else that was there, and he got sent to the pen. now, i want to know, what was the difference from what he did and what trump did and why trump did not get any time at all. thank you. host: bobby in texas on our independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i won't be long, but it is baffling to me that in this country, that boys hired for a cashier at walmart, to obtain a job, can obtain the presidency.

what this man has done to our country, when he attempted to do, when he continues to do, should not be allowed anywhere near the white house. it is baffling. i remember when i graduate high school in 1979, anyone that ran for office had to have high morals, high values. trump could not win in high school. host: ron. caller: trump could have sent in police, anything that was needed

to calm the situation, and he did not. that is all i have. host: in omaha, nebraska, democratic line, miles, go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i'm calling in regard to donald trump's malicious treatment of these criminal justice system, and that is the fact that the district of new york has damming evidence on this man that puts him away toward some of the biggest things, filing of his business, and to see that his children played a very forefront role in this criminal enterprise is ridiculous. and to see the utmost disrespect toward the judge, the prosecutor, and the clerks are moving forward with the threat and all this other stuff.

the fact that he could do other things to the judgment of prosecutors, and the clerks are ridiculous. it just shows you that this man is not fit for another run as the president, if he is doing this to the system that we all need and take advantage of. that is what i have to say. host: kyle is in myrtle beach, south carolina, calling on our independent line. caller: hey, yeah, i would just like to put down a couple of things about your previous guest. he has a history about lying about voter fraud and specifically the 14th amendment. there was a court decision back in 2019, where kris kobach was held in contempt of court, and hans was an expert witness that was found not to be credible, who gave several misleading examples to the court, and who lied outright about multiple things, "expert witness," you

know, seems kind of ridiculous that you guys would have him on as some kind of authority, when he was shown in recent years them as recently as 2019, that he is just not credible. host: graham, democrat line, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. host: good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can hear you, go ahead. caller: great. 14th amendment camejo protection, no person shall be a senator or representative in congress or elector, a president and vice president or hold any office, civil or military, under the united states or in state who has a previously taken an oath as a member of congress or officer of the united states or as member of any state

legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any state to support the constitution of the united states shall be engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given a tour comfort to the enemies thereof. now, it is pretty simple to me that that is the letter of the law. trump, he definitely projected an insurrection. trump definitely is responsible for the insurrection on the day, and he has not been liable. i just can't see how we can allow him to be running for the president or any office, even the dogcatcher. should not be allowed to do it, period.thank you. host: next up, we have bud in

arkansas on our independent line. caller: hello? host: yes, go ahead. caller: you hear all this back and forth. people need to get a little bit historical. read the biographry of aaron burr. if he had not killed alexander hamilton, our country could have gone a different direction. ehrenberg was a timeshare salesman who got home plate and refused to give it up, but the personalities involved, look at them and see if these cannot be the bookends of our democracy. thank you. host: from tennessee, bubba is on our republican line. caller: yeah, good morning. we definitely need trump back in office. the country is in bad shape. we are in a dangerous time with this weak president we

have. he can't even find his way off the stage. and he is running the country? he is a joke along with all these democrats that voted for him. . trump had nothing to do with the insurrection, if that's what y'all want to call it. it was more or people went in, trespassing might be the worst part. a black officer killed a white woman, who was the only person who got killed. you people need to wake up and put trump back in office, because we are in for world war iii, whether you want to admit it were not. host: winston in florida on our democratic line. caller: hello? host: yes, winston, go ahead. caller: good morning. this is my first time calling, and i watched c-span repeatedly. what i don't understand is you, the host, and others, you sit there and allow people to come

with no understanding, no knowledge, and they don't know what they are saying. why you guys allow these people to come on? research what you want to ask before you come on! this is what i just want to say. at least tell those people, because it is wasting the time. they come forward, don't know what they want to say, and they sound like a jackass. host: people come in because we want to have an open forum for civil discussion. let's go to our independent line. caller: i would like to talk about the character van. there was an article on google, and they interviewed some of the people from south america, and one gentleman, he was leaving

honduras because he only made $12.50 an hour, their utilities were too high, and their taxes were too high, so he comes here, gets free housing, plus he gets probably better wages than we get. this is a scam, and they are laughing all the way, because we are sending billions of dollars to their country, and then they are sending the remittances back. host: rob is in eagle river, wisconsin on our republican line. caller: hi. i just want to say, why did january 6 happen? the day of the election, we all watched live on tv the machines go down, legal drop boxes, democrats illegally changed election laws. we saw massive ballot dumps. it was all on tv live. it was live! how can you say it was an honest election? two democrats just got busted

stepping the ballots in their own election! thank you. host: let's now go to don in new orleans, louisiana on our independent line. caller: good morning. yeah, the scenario over there, israel and hamas, i mean, i understand the protests from the country, the united states, but, you know, we have had some wars here where people had to stand up, even the war on drugs, for instance, you know, there was drugs in certain communities, social economic communities, the black community, if you will, and people had to stand up against these drug dealers and all of the issues that went along with the drug dealing in

your neighborhood. and the investment and the disinvestment of the community of public resources. that is here. even in south africa during apartheid, you had people standing up against the apartheid regime. they did not have weaponry. my question is, i have a question about, you know, people saying they are not going to vote because of the issues over there, but is there a way that the citizenry of the palestinians arms to fight back against hamas, if hamas is using them as a human shield? i'm trying to see, where are the people standing up for themselves? all these middle eastern countries, saudi arabia, only the palestinians to fight back, to have a resistance.

i think the issue of dragging many countries in, ukraine is fighting back, for instance. ukraine is fighting back with the assistance of the united states to give them weaponry. they are not giving them so much direct cash. he'd rather than give direct cash payments, but they were giving arms, weaponry that they have on stockpile anyway, so those efforts have -- those weapons have an expiration date, i imagine, just like local bread have an expiration date. i'm just wondering why people are so against one side and putting pressure here on our political system, and yet they are not advocating for the palestinians, in this case, to stand up and be armed to defend themselves in their communities. host: let's go to tony in florida on our independent line. tony, are you there? ok.

it looks like we lost tony, but we will end our open forum there for now. coming up, we have public historian and author jason steinhauer, who will be joining us about the historical groups of the conflicts between israel and hamas. we will be right back. ♪ >> monday, watch c-span series and partnerships with the library of congress, books that shaped america, we will feature zora neale hurston's novel "their eyes were watching god," said in central florida during the jim crow era and focuses on racially should, gender roles, and female empowerment.

the book, written in 1937, is considered a harlem renaissance classic. tiffany will join us on the program to discuss the book. she is the author of "zora neal hurston and a history of southern life.." watch books that shaped america, featuring "their eyes were watching god," monday on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video out, or online at c-span.org, and be sure to skin are a qr code to learn about companion podcasts where you can learn more about the authors featured. . > a healthy democracy does not just look like this, it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed, a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word, from

the nation's capital to wherever you are, because the opinion that matters most is your own. this is what democracy looks like c-span, powered by cable. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker "play c-span radio," and listen to "washington journal" kaylee is 7:05 a.m. eastern come important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day, and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern, catch "washington today," for stories of the day. listen to c-span any time. just tell your smart speaker "play c-span radio." c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> this year, bookkeeping marks 25 years of shining a spotlight on leading nonfiction authors and their books, with talks from

more than 22 thousand authors, nearly 900 cities and festivals visited, and 16,000 events. look to be has provided viewers with 92,000 hours on the latest literary discussions on history, politics, and biographies you can watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, or online at booktv.org. book tv, 25 years of television for serious readers. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we're joined now by jason steinhauer, who is with the woodrow wilson center and a global fellow there and also author of the book "history disrupted: how social media and the world wide web have change the past." good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: you call yourself a public

historian. can you explain what that is? guest: sure. people are familiar with the fact that there are historians. people may associate stories with working inside universities, writing academic articles, teaching to students, performing community service, and that is a large contingent of the profession, but there are others who work in more public facing roles at museums, archives, libraries, inside federal government, inside a state government, and national parks. if viewers go to national parks, they can get towards from guides. those are often public historians. it is a profession that focuses on the public-facing aspect of what we do, engaging with public audiences, and public historians are responsible for museum exhibits we see in the smithsonian. they responsible for all kinds of monuments and memorials that we see across the united states and around the world. it is a large contingent of our field, and that if they field i came from. i started at a museum, worked in the library of congress for a

while, and now i do work through the wilson center and others. host: in addition to your book, you have a sub stack, and on that subsector you recently wrote a piece looking at the historic conflict between israel and hamas. why did you decide to do that now? guest: when the october 7 attack happened in israel, i was traveling in europe. as the news was coming in and as the information about the atrocities were starting to be revealed, i had this moment where imy grandmother was a holt survivor, she was from poland and for 10 years of her life, she was on the run from people who wanted to kill her. she initially had to flee into the woods. she was in the woods for a while. she went back into the woods with the partisans and even though she survived the war, she went back to her home and tried to reclaim property and local

polish citizens tried to kill her so she was on the run again. she was on the run for 10 years, across europe and eventually settling in a refugee camp in germany where my mother was born and eventually found her way to canada. i thought about that story, my grandmother's experience and i thought about all the times in history where jews have had to flee, have had to run from those who would try and do us harm, and in the october 7 attacks, i saw that again. i wanted to share that perspective with my readers. just so that they were aware of it. that there was this history, that there was this generational trauma, that there was this sort of narrative, this story of judah being persecuted, being chased after, being murdered and squandered in a variety of different contexts and that really does affect the way many jews and israelis see this

conflict and understand the current situation we are in. i wanted to share that perspective with my readers and i understand it is a perspective that is sort of unique to me and to my experience and my family, but i've been really pleased and gratified with the response it has gotten. a lot of people have written me from all over the world, thanking me for expressing it and for sharing that story, even people that have a different interpretation of the events that are unfolding have written me to thank me for sharing that story. i think it is an example of how there are possibilities to bridge these divides between us and there are ways to use stories and history and language as a way to build bridges and find ways to connect, even on a conflict where we are, as fiercely divided as this one. it has been very heartwarming to me, to see the reaction and to know that there are ways we can talk about this issue across

ideological and political lines. host: you write lovingly about your grandmother and her very strong connection to israel itself. can you -- can you talk about why that was so important to her and how that informed what you were writing? guest: my grandmother never wanted to talk about what happened during the holocaust. it was too painful. but she did always want to talk about israel. one of the reason she wanted to talk about israel was from her perspective, israel offered what she never had, which was a secure place to be jewish. a secure place to live among the jewish people, to celebrate the holidays, to have the customs, keep the traditions going, and to have that sense of peace and security, and that is what was taken from her during the holocaust. that is what she worked her entire life to rebuild after the holocaust, after being on the run for 10 years. she saw that in israel.

i think a lot of juice around the world also see that in israel which is why one of the reasons why the recent attacks have been very upsetting, because israel is for many jews, a place where they do feel like they can be safe to be jewish. they can walk around, they can practice the customs, do the traditions. there will be a place of security and safety there, that they can just be who they are and live freely and securely. to be our people inside of our homeland. i think the attacks have really unsettled us in some ways, because of that and also some of the responses we have seen to the attacks, where people have called for juice to be killed or eliminated -- jews to be killed or eliminated. something else that i wrote about, if i grandmother were alive today, i think what is happening in israel and around

the world in some parts with the anti-semitism we are seeing would be distressing to her and would probably bring back memories of the second world war and what she was running from and what she tried her whole life to reestablish, which was a safe and secure jewish life. host: people looking at this from the outside, how does that connection that you describe by jews to the state of israel like your grand mother had as well as the sense of always having to run, how do you think that informs the response we are seeing by the israeli government to this attack? guest: i think it plays a role. i am an american. i don't have any connections to the israeli government. i don't have any inroads to the conversations happening within the government, so i can't speak them and i don't know what their strategy is and what their mission is, in particular. i know the broad mission is to eliminate hamas but i don't know how they plan to do that. i would think that absolutely

part of the response here is to demonstrate to hamas that israel is not going to run. israel is going to stand in place and defend its people,, and going to do everything in its power to continue to be a safe and secure place for jews to live and worship. and not just jews. israel today is a multicultural democracy. all kinds of people live in israel. there are thai immigrants, african immigrants. israeli arabs. i think part of the response is to say to hamas, we are not going to run. we are going to stand and fight. we are going to make sure our people are safe and secure, and that they can live freely and live safely in our country. i think that is certainly part of informing what we are seeing unfold.

my hope personally is that all people have that, whether you are in gaza or israel or the west bank or anywhere in the world. freedom, peace, stability, security and those are all things that we all aspire to and my ultimate hope for all of this is that we somehow get closer to peace and we somehow get closer to a resolution where we don't have to fight anymore, where there are no more wars or atrocities and people can live happily, freely, securely in peace. host: we're going to be taking your calls on this topic as well. as normal, our call lines are for democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. and if you are calling from outside the u.s., you can also reach us at (202)-748-8003. before we get to those calls, i

want to ask you how you rate the proportion of israel's response to the attacks from hamas. guest: i'm not sure i feel qualified to answer that. we have really good people inside the state department and inside the u.s. government who have been in touch with our israeli allies and in touch with people on the ground in gaza and i think we need to do everything in our power to make sure the people in gaza who need assistance and human at terry in relief and medical attention get that attention and get that relief. i trust our government, i trust the israeli government and i trust the united states to do that and to make sure that people get what they need. i think -- i was just at a dinner the other night and we said a prayer for the palestinian people. it is heartbreaking to see what is happening, it is heartbreaking to hear about people who are being killed.

these are real people with real lives, hopes and aspirations and dreams and they are suffering. they are suffering in israel, they are suffering in the west bank, and gaza. we need to find a way to end that suffering and give people freedom, the ability to live the life they want to live, and i hope that the governments can get together and find a way to do that and quickly, because it is heartbreaking to turn on the news each day and see reports of more casualties and fatalities. it breaks my heart and it breaks the hearts of people around the world. host: let's hear from sheila in washington, d.c. on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i'm calling because i am devastated each time i turn on the news, to hear about all the deaths and we have to realize that these are people. if there is any kind of way that

the united states can find a way to have medical supplies, food, water, because people are people no matter who they are and it's a sad thing to have hamas using people as shields. i'm just hoping that something happens and that maybe israel and palestine can have separate countries in the future. we've been trying to do it for years. hopefully we can get something done. host: jason, what do you think this current situation means to the two state solution? guest: it's a great question. it is very hard to see a pathway to this two state solution with hamas as an active player. hamas's charter clearly states

they don't recognize israel. that they condone the killing of israelis, jews. it is difficult to make peace with an organization like that. it is important to note that there are many palestinians in the west bank and gaza who want peace and don't feel like hamas speaks for them. but they also suffer at the hands of hamas because there have been reports and people have seen this in the media, of hamas inflicting violence on palestinians who try to resist hamas rule. we need to find a way towards peace. i fully agree with the caller. these are all human beings with lives and hopes and dreams. we need to find a way to end the cycle of violence. we need to find a pathway towards peace. we need to work towards the solution that works for the people on the ground who need relief who, who need freedom and

liberty and dignity and all the things they deserve. right now, it seems hard to see that pathway with hamas in the way. that is part of why israel is trying to eradicate hamas. how successful that would be, i don't know. but i'm not convinced at the moment that hamas is actually interested in peace or would be a willing partner to a two state solution. host: we have a listener question on x, but i first want to read a tweet they are referencing that says, from the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, marights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate. my work and advocacy has always centered in justice dignity -- centered in justice and dignity for all people, no matter faith or ethnicity.

for the listener question, in your sub stack peace, you said the slogan from the river to the sea is code for liquidating all jews from israel via displacement or slaughter. do you believe are presented of to leave doesn't know that -- do you believe are presented tlaib doesn't know that? guest: i'm not going to comment on what she does or doesn't believe. if she is on the record saying she stands for human rights and dignity for all people, i agree with that statement. people deserve that. that includes people in gaza and the west bank. it includes people in israel. there is a lot of debate about the various chants one here's at a rally and what they mean -- one hears at a rally and what they mean.

certainly when hamas says certain things, it takes on a very different meaning because we know that in the hamas charter, they have especially called for the annihilation of israel and the murder and death of the jews who live there. when they say that they want to take over from one point to another, that in the minds of israelis and minds of the jews around the world, that raises alarm bells because we know when they say it, that they are willing to achieve that objective through genocide, death and slaughter. this is why i think the path to peace, which is what we should all be striving for, right now, i don't see how hamas can play a role in that. they have especially stated --

they have explicitly stated that they desire for israel to go away and for all israelis and jews who live there to be eradicated. that to me does not get us closer to peace. host: in washington, d.c. there was a big protest yesterday, and i saw many signs that said from the river to the sea, palestine shall be free. what was it like for you seeing that? guest: i didn't see anything yesterday. i was in the suburbs doing much needed shopping and medical appointments and things like that. i personally would love to see more rallies that have peace signs on them. i was thinking about this from another piece i might write. when i was growing up, talk of peace was in the air everywhere. people flashed peace signs and would say peace in the middle east and they were very active

and vibrant on college campuses. peace movements and studies. everything was about peace. recently it feels like everything has become about war and violence and eradication. there is a lot of harmful and hurtful rhetoric that has been circulating that either suggests these things or flat out just says these things. we have seen graffiti in the united states that says death to jews, death to israel. i would love to see more rallies for peace. i would love to see more peace signs across american cities that say we want peace, we want dignity and security and stability and freedom for all palestinians, for all israelis, for all people who wish to have it, we want it and we want our political leaders in israel and the united states and the united nations and the palestinian territories to be working towards that goal. i would join those rallies in a

heartbeat with a big peace sign, a big heart, and i wish we saw more of that. host: ken in connecticut on our republican line. caller: good morning. hello jason. i would like to say first of all that we support you in america 110%. you are god's children. we love you. students in america really need to learn history. they are out there protesting in the streets with signs saying free palestine. i guarantee you israel will definitely free palestine from hamas. once hamas is gone, palestinian people and israeli people hopefully, and i'm sure they will live in peace at first we have to eliminate all of these tyrants. all of these haters in our world. what is going on, it is good

against evil. this is what people have to understand. it is good against evil. you have two words. stay on the good side. the palestinian students, a lot of them probably have people, relatives in hamas and they are out there protesting in the streets without knowing really about history and about what those people want to do to innocent people and what they have done. this is going to end. this is the most terrible thing to happen, but sometimes terrible things bring good things and this is what's going to happen. israel will rise. host: with the caveat that you are american, did you want to respond to anything the caller has said? guest: yes. born in the united states, always a proud american. also jewish and we all have

multiple identities, these different hats that we wear. american jews are some of the most patriotic americans because in this country we've been able to find freedom and stability in large part and have been able to practice warship -- worship. it is why so many jews are proud to be americans. i will also say i don't think it does us any favors to demonize people in this conflict who disagree with us. i have some amazing friends, some of them the best friends i've had in my life who are palestinian americans. we see this conflict through different lenses but our friendship has remained and endured and i still count them as some of my closest supporters, even to this day, and i am some of their biggest supporters. even on the ground in israel, i was talking to a friend of mine in israel over email and he was telling me that his company that he runs in israel, he purposefully hires palestinian

coders and ux designers to work for him. that is how he sees his contribution to peace, to bring people together across these barriers and borders. he's been active in peace movements in israel and the territories for the last 15 years. there are lots of people who want peace. there are a lot of good-faith actors on all sides of this conflict who want this to end. who are sick of this cycle of violence time and time again. i think that is what we need, we need all of those people of good mind and good conscious who believe in -- good conscience who believe in peace to come together and rally together and join hands, and i think that would be how we can take this awful series of events we have seen over the past four or five weeks and spin it into something positive for the world. host: another comment from x.

i support israel in their defense. i'm getting tired of hearing and seeing isrl dropping a 2000 pump -- 2000 pound bomb to kill one hamas leader. this gets to that sense of portions we were discussing earlier. do you have a response to that? guest: i'm not in a position to comment on that one way or another. i am not israeli, i don't work for the government, i don't work for the defense forces. i have no insight into why they are doing what they are doing, what their strategy is, what their plan of attack is, who they are targeting. i am getting the news just like everyone else and trying to make sense of it. i pray for the people, i pray for their safety and i just hope that somehow or another, we can find a resolution. host: bill is in florida on our independent line. caller: good morning.

my comment has nothing to do with mr. steinhauer's hope. i certainly hope for peace. but i would make this comment. long before the holocaust, there were people in israel trying to secure a land. most of the world has been settled, unfortunately by violence in terms of how territories and countries are laid out. some geography but some violence. i think israel's claim would have been better if it actually had been taken by force. i think they made a mistake as to the 19 67 war to think they could give land for peace and what is going on now is terrible

but i must say this. i think it helps people who believe that they are going nowhere and that they are willing to fight as opposed to being disposed of. this is a big deal and people should support israel 100% in this. host: this is something you do get into a bit in your piece, the origins of israel. i wonder what you think of what the caller had to say and how the origins of israel as a nationstate might have factored into where we are today. guest: israel was established through the united nations. if you go to the united nations archives or look online, you can find the documents where this was all debated and resolved through the united nations. where the official resolution was passed recognizing the state of israel and of course the

seeds had been planted decades before. the land that is now israel was at one point part of the ottoman empire, that was taken over by the british after world war i. as part of the british mandate, there was a clause in stipulation that said this would become a home for the jewish people and in part it was because jews had been persecuted pretty much everywhere else they had been, so there was a need to find a homeland where jews could live and practice freely and there was this historical biblical connection with the land of israel and jerusalem being a holy city. that was, if you look at the history of the 1910s and 1930's and 1940's, you will find all of these debates back and forth, in the historical correct -- historical record about how this

state should be created, what would happen to the arabs who live there, what would happen to the jews who lived there, making sure the rights of everyone who lived there would be secured and upheld. there was fierce resistance obviously, from some parts of the arab world, the creation of the state of israel, and there continues to be fierce resistance. even after the united nations declaration and all the wars that have been fought since and of course there are some who still don't recognize that the british mandate was lawful and legal. people dispute that. certainly the history plays a huge role here. it also oftentimes gets distorted and manipulated and turned into propaganda and there are parts that are taken out and parts that are put in and especially on social media where you only get little bits flying by on your newsfeed. it can be hard to suss all of this out.

there are thousands of books that have been written about this and thousands of articles. if people are interested, i encourage them to dig into the literature and history, and you will see it is very messy and very complicated but it absolutely informs what we are seeing today. host: a couple more calls. but first i want to go to michael thorton on x referencing your sub stack piece. he says to the palestinians also have historical perspectives and trauma that affect how they view israel? guest: 100%. absolutely. viewers may be familiar with something called the -- the term refers to 1948, the war that was fought after israel's independence and the displacement of palestinians from their homes, which created a refugee crisis we are still dealing with 80 years later. absolutely, there is historical

trauma for people in gaza and the west bank. i have palestinian american friends who i talk to about this issue a lot and they have their own historical trauma just like we have our own historical trauma from the holocaust and all the other violence american jews and jews around the world have experienced. i encourage people to dig into that history and learn about it because it absolutely affects how some of these issues on the ground play out today. host: let's try to get a couple more calls in. anthony in new york, democrat line. caller: hello? host: make sure to turn down the volume on your tv. caller: ok. i would like to applaud our guest for taking time to explain what it would mean to have a

cease-fire with hamas. 9/11, that is something -- they came through new york in airplanes and people didn't even have a chance. people need to learn their history before they talk about a cease-fire. when you cease-fire, you are smitty to terrorism and it needs to stop. -- you are submitting to terrorism and it needs to stop. thank you. host: with the understanding that hamas is not the group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, i wonder if you want to give any final thoughts on this idea of the response -- israel's response to all of this and the lasting impact on american jews? guest: from an american jewish perspective, the events of october 7 were horrifying but i would see equally horrifying has been some of what we have seen afterwards.

it is a very scary time for jews not just in america but around the world. we are seeing some very disturbing messages, very disturbing chants and slogans, attacks against jewish students on university campuses or on synagogues. vandalism that seems to applaud or celebrate the murder of jewish people. as unnerving as that is, i think it is even more unnerving for us to believe that maybe there are people out there in our own country who would welcome this, that would want to see this. that is a scary thought. we think about what we all have a responsibility to do moving forward. we all have a responsibility to speak out against hate. to speak out against the

demonization of other people, even if those people disagree with us sharply on contentious issues. i think we have an obligation to try and find common ground. we have an obligation to try and see the humanity and dignity in each person. i think we have a responsibility to collectively try to work towards a peaceful solution that will give people the right to live their lives, practice freely and live freely which is something that we all want and all aspire to. i think we need to do that in a way where we are not calling for violence against other people, and we are not condoning violence that has already taken place. i think we can do that. i think we have the language. i think we have the historical knowledge. i think we have the leadership. i think it is incumbent upon all of us to lock arms and support

each other. to reject hate, reject violence, and find a pathway towards peace and demand that our political leaders do the same. if anyone takes away any message from this conversation today, i hope that is the message they take. host: thank you, jason steinhauer. a global fellow at the woodrow wilson center. we appreciate your time. that's it for today's episode of "washington journal." we hope you will tune in tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. for another edition. have a great day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]