will take calls about the u.s. supreme court and is supported presidential powern the bush and trump administrations and more. join in the conversation with your phonealls, facebook comments and texts. in-depth with john yoo live sunday, december 3 at noon eastern on in-depth on c-span. 2. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including media com. >> we believe that whether you live here or right here or way out in the middle of anywhere, you should have access to fast, reliable internet. >> miacom supports c-sn as a

public service along with other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ host: good morning. it is tuesday, november 21, 2023. the debate over cameras in the courtroom is our topic today, and we are talking about courtrooms set to host criminal trials against former president donald trump. we want to know if you support or oppose televising the former president's upcoming federal trials on retaining classified documents. the phone lines are open to call in and as usual by political party. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text. that number, (202) 748-8003.

if you do, please include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media, on x, facebook, facebook.com/c-span. a good tuesday morning to you. go ahead and start calling in now. this is a recent headline from "the washington post." trump and the media want a televised trial in d.c. but the justice department doesn't. the department formerly opposed a request to make the trial the first time that courts allow tv cameras to record a criminal trial. that request came in the form of a letter to the committee on rules of practice and procedure. this is a 16 page letter. this is part of that letter. media organizations joining in on the effort to get that body of the judiciary of the courts to decide to change this rule formerly known as procedure 53

to allow cameras in the courtroom. again, for the former president's upcoming federal trial. here is a bit of that letter to the judiciary saying the case is of to all american voters still struggling to make sense of the 2020 presidential election and its aftermath and who has an opportunity to vote for or against mr. trump should he become his party's nominee in 2024. ence mr. trump is being treated fairly by the just system, there is a very real chance they will reject the verdict whatever it is and that faith in democracy and our institutions will be further diminished. nt events in our nations capital take that too extreme, this sort of doubt and cynicism can lead to violence. that letter sent by media organizations to the committee on rules and practice and procedure as the committee for the federal court system that decides these rules. as we said, the former president's lawyers filed earlier this month saying they too want to open up these

proceedings to cameras in the court, but it is the justice department, jack smith's office, the special prosecutor, wants to keep to the precedent set by procedure 54. they note that the former president'sesir to create a carntmosere from which he hopes to profit by constructing like raud defendants try to do from the charges against him as the court has already observed in proceedings in the defendant's crimal t the defendant and hisel allow their inquiry statements to wage a public relations campaign. e former president ignores the high-profile criminal trials have long proceeded i accordance with the broadcast th courtthat they haverules of garnered significant and detailed media coverage of courtroom proceedings nonetheless. they cited the boston marathon bomber trial, the co-conspirator in the terrorist attacks of the september 11 trial, and the

oklahoma city bomber trial as some trials that were not broadcast in federal court and received significant media attention. so we are asking you amid this debate that has cropped up ahead of these federal trials coming, do you think there should be cameras in the federal court? what you are seeing now are the images of donald trump in a courtroom. that is from the civil fraud trial in new york. that proceeding was broadcast, and of course, the georgia criminal trial filed against the former president, that state trial, those proceedings have all been broadcasted on youtube and media organizations have been allowed to pick that up. you have seen those coverage. we are talking but the federal trials coming up. jack smith's cases against the former president. one taking place in d.c. and one taking place in florida. media organizations asking for the trials to be opened up to cameras in the courtroom.

do you support that effort? again, it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats to call in. republicans, (202) 748-8001. an independents -- and independents, (202) 748-8002. bob is in eastlake, ohio. do support or oppose cameras in the courtroom? >> i support cameras and all the courtrooms and all of these trials. i believe they are all bogus trials to begin with, and let's see what the government is hiding. let's see what is out there. i want to see all the evidence on both sides put it on tv -- besides. put it on tv. host: have you watched the proceedings of the georgia trial? caller: i don't believe i have seen the georgia trial but what i hear in the news and stuff like that, they are all bogus cases. first of all, they are all old. they happened years ago and why are they waiting until now for

that to come up? it is all about the election. they waited all this time to bring up these cases now. they want people's minds tarnished. so let's put all the stuff on tv. let's see what they got, here all the evidence, and if he is guilty, he is guilty, and if he is not, he is not. let's see it. host: when it comes to the federal trials, the audio of those trials have been released and we have heard some of the audio here when it comes to the gag order that the federal judge has tried to institute when it comes to the former president talking about jack smith talking about this case. have you listened to any of those audio recordings that have been released on this case? caller: no, i haven't. host: some of those proceedings continued yesterday i should note. the appeals court in washington, d.c., scrutinizing this gag order. this is the story from "the wall street journal" about it. during a more than two hour hearing, a three-judge panel

expressed skepticism towards the argument from the former president's lawyers the gag order infringed on the former president's first amendment rights to political speech as he called it. want to play you a minute from that gag order hearing yesterday. it was about two and a half hours. here is the former president's lawyer arguing before the judge. [video clip] >> ts is what you have proposed so i am practicing if you have a conception of howt works. it would allow a court to still protect the criminal proceedings beyond prohibited -- prohibition on violating the law. this is your test so it seems incuent upon you to be able to explain to me what a court could do to protect the integritof criminal proceedings that do not violate the criminal law. >> the heavy burn of demonstrating in the courtroom

-- >> you are here challenging that order and asking us to apthe legal test. at has been crystal clear from the supreme court is they said many times recently, it is not a mechanical formulation. it is meant to be a lancing test, a test that balances the interest in free sech, which are very high, and the intest and protection and protecting the integrity of the cminal process and the criminal proceedings, which is also a weighty constitutional interest, so the reason i am asking this question is to seef there is any balance, whic is what the supreme court tellus to do in the test you proposed. so tell me how it balances if you cannotive me anything other than a criminal law violation that would satisfy your test. >> the phrase i believe the fifth circuit used in brown is absolute freedom.

>> there is no balance. >> criminal speech obviously is subject to restriction. core political speech that is part of e campaign speec >> i don't think labeling it core polital speech says whether or not it is in fact political speech or political speech aimed at raing or corrupting the criminal justice process. you can't simply label it that and conclude your balancing test that way. we have to balance. host: again, that is the audio from yesterday's arguments about the gag order when it comes to this upcoming federal trial that jack smith is bringing against the former president. we are asking you this morning if you think cameras should be allowed in the courtroom, not just the audio released, but cameras themselves broadcasting images and sound from inside the courtroom. there is a long-standing

prohibition on cameras in the courtroom in federal criminal trials and media organizations including this network asked the court to put that prohibition aside due to the historic reasons behind this case, and we are asking you, do you support or oppose that effort? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . give us a call. let us know what you think. this is william out of cincinnati, democrat. go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead. what you think about cameras in the courtroom for this case? caller: i want to see cameras in the courtroom. i think it should be very open to the american public. we need to shed a light on it.

that comedy channel, i think you have to mc that shows. host: what do you mean by that when you talk about emceeing the shows? giving a wrap up in a preview of what is coming each day? caller: yeah. the commentary and during breaks, he can do the interviews. it is great for tv. the whole process of the proceedings, i think he was levelheaded, open-minded. he will cut to the chase. host: you are recommending -- caller: i want to watch the

trials on television. i think the american people deserve that right with the seriousness that donald trump did to this country. i cannot see myself voting for a republican like i have in the past, voting for a republican again. host: can i just ask just one more question on jon stewart, do you recommend him because you see this as a form of entertainment because of his past work on comedy central? caller: no.

[indiscernible] the towers being down and the seriousness of getting cancer by going through it. whatever from bomb threats in iraq and standing up for those people. jon stewart led a real good campaign to help the poor soldiers out. host: i should note we have covered some of those press conferences and some of those hearings jon stewart has appeared in on those issues of burn pits post 9/11.

thanks for the call out of cincinnati, ohio, this is bob, independent. what are your thoughts on cameras in the courtroom here? caller: hi. good morning, sir. ok, remember what happened in 1939. hitler became close to god in a fascist way. also, mussolini, putin, and others. just to name a few, gaddafi, saddam, xi. i mean, come on. host: what does that have to do with cameras in the courtroom here? caller: because the american people want to see the real facts. the whole world wants to see the real facts,the whole world wante facts. period. host: bob in texas.

this is vernon in maryland, republican. good morning. caller: hello. good morning. my point is the cameras you are asking, it is long-standing that there should to cameras in the courtroom. i am of the opinion that we should not have them. if we want to change that, we should change that for every criminal proceeding. host: don't make it a one time thing for this case? caller: i don't want them to do any exceptions because the democrats will have their own situation and try to ask for a solution as well, so just have it -- either have the cameras in for everyone or don't have the cameras. special treatment adds more to everything happening right now. host: vernon, this ban on televising federal proceedings was adopted back in 1946, and so

it has been in place throughout the -- from the beginning of the age of television. and a long-standing tradition. as we said, this network and others have asked them to make enough caption here -- to make an exception here. have you watched any of the georgia proceedings or the new york civil fraud proceedings? caller: yes, i have been following them closely, what is happening in the news. and what i hear from a lot of democrats is there will be a time where they themselves will be asking for this and we don't want to make this some kind of a precedent. host: thanks for the call from maryland. back to some of the many opposites that happen -- op-eds that have been written on this in recent weeks and months of the cases have started to get scheduled and filed. we will go to an august piece from a former watergate assistant special prosecutor.

this appeared in "the new york times." the federal t sayg notelevising matter how experienced a judge contlling the courtroom, mr. trumpld tough gestures or well-timed outbursts try to use the broadcast to sway public opinion and in the process undermine therial. concerns about witness intimation and safety in this case certainly extend to potential tv coverage as well. broadcasting trials is sometimes except it will but in instance, becausef concerns about protecting witnesses and jurors, shots and angles would almost certainly not inc their faces or the jurors's reaction, but they are critical elements in understanding the witness credibility in the witness's impact on the jury. appeal made by media organizations, and again, c-span is part of this appeal, that appeal notes that if rules were

made in the courtroom not to show shots of jury members or certain aspect of the courtroom that the media organizations would comply with that they were allowed to put cameras in the courtroom. again, this is a debate we are having with the judiciary right now, and we are asking you to weigh in on it. do you think there should be cameras in the courtroom for these upcoming federal trials for the former president? carlita is in eight mile, alabama, independent. good morning. carlita, are you there? caller: yes, i'm here. host: go ahead. caller: i want to say i kind of agree with the statement that was just made because of all the intimidation that goes on with the witnesses that come up against trump and the trump organization's, that people attack them, that we need to be very careful with showing these

people on the camera. however, i do feel that the public needs to have a clear understanding and view of what is going on. not necessarily through the lens of the media but actually what the actual testimonies and things are. because i feel like depending on whichever media outlet you are looking at, if it is not televised, it is going to be spun a certain way, so i do think the cameras should be there, but i also feel that the people in the courtroom should be protected, the witnesses and things. host: the argument that the government makes here in trying to keep the cameras out of the courtroom is that there have been high-profile federal criminal trials in the past and the american public was still informed about what happened in them, about the arguments on

both sides, and appointed to the boston marathon bomber. they pointed to the 9/11 trials. they pointed to others saying it is not just cameras in the courtroom that allow people to get an understanding of what happened in the courtroom. there are people allowed in the courtroom to watch and cover. news organizations are there as well. what do you make of that argument, that we don't necessarily need the cameras to know what happens in the courtroom? caller: in those situations, probably not, but in this situation but are talking about a highly charged political situation, and again, depending on whichever media outlet is covering it, it is going to be spun whichever way. so i think for this situation and because we are talking about the highest office in the land, the most powerful office really in the world, we need to hear

firsthand what happened, who was involved, to what extent, and it does not need to come through a secondhand media outlet to the people in order for us to make a decision as to how we are going to vote. host: do you think people would watch? caller: oh, i think absolutely people would watch. if they watched the o.j. simpson trial, i think they will watch this trial. host: again, coming back to this letter we sent to the judiciary on this issue, just some stats that were cited in that letter. and i wonder what your thoughts are on how many people watched when it came to the second impeachment trial of the former president after the january 6 attack on the capitol. an average of 11 million viewers watched the opening arguments. this is across msnbc, cnn, fox abc, cbs, the folks who track those numbers.

at least 20 million people watched the first day of the house select committee hearings on the january 6 attack, and an average of 13 million viewers watched the following days when it came to that investigation. do you think that is a lot of americans? do you think that is a few amount of americans? 330 something million people in this country. caller: i want you to think about it in this term, what we are talking about the number of people who changed the election, who actually elected this last president, it was not that many people, right? or it was about that many people, so to me, that is a significant number, and for people who have not made their minds up as to who they are going to vote for, i am sure they would be among that number, so i believe it is a significant number. host: thanks for the call from

alabama. greg in north carolina, on the line for democrats, what do you think? caller: good morning. cameras in the courtroom, a lot of people would watch and i were to remember transparency is a good thing, especially for our government. maybe on the other hand it is not a good thing because it creates risk. ultimately, i do support it. i have a question for you. for the trial, are the charges different versus new york? host: there are different charges in each one of the cases the president is facing. when it comes to how those numbers are in florida, in that trial he faces 40 federal charges for the documents issued, and in the d.c. case, he faces four felony counts for

efforts to overturn the 2020 election. in georgia, it is 13 felony counts for election interference in that state, and in new york but it is bribery charges, so we are talking about different criminal charges across these four trials. caller: ok. so that does change my opinion a little bit. it definitely needs to be televised. we have not had a president deal with something like this before so that is my opinion. host: in raleigh, north carolina, republican, good morning. caller: yes, i oppose televising the trials. where was everybody when john edwards in north carolina was charged in federal court? how about senator menendez up in new jersey when he was found not guilty the first time in federal court?

were you all jumping up and screaming we need to televise it? i don't they are not president, but they are still senators, and everybody is supposed to be treated the same in the court system, so where was everybody when good old john edwards from north carolina went to federal court and nobody brought up being televised? where were you? host: in terms of that specific case, i am not exactly sure the answer to that. thank you. there has been an ongoing effort for decades at this network in among others in the news business to put cameras in the supreme court. in terms of how much impact a supreme court case can have on american life, we have been trying to get cameras in the supreme court for years and years now. not successful so far, but we have had the same day release of the audio, and that is what we have right now and that is what we will have in these cases involving the former president,

these audio releases. what we are asking for is we want the cameras there as well. caller: right, ok. will you ask for that in the senator menendez trail but he has that as well? caller: i think -- post: i think -- host: i think we would support cameras and all trials and cases. our focus on capitol hill, they are our neighbors across the way and we cover all of the supreme court cases, but i don't know about some of the other specific cases you mentioned, thomas. caller: ok, sir. thank you very much. host: this is kenny in california, independent. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. you guys are the best thing going. you are the only one step up -- you are the only ones that offer opposing views. it is a hard choice for me. i would be dying to watch it every day day in and day out,

but there is an underlining concern that we have a defendant, although he is running for the highest office in the land, that carries a certain undercurrent with him where he does not abide by anything the judge says, so if the judge were to impose any type of limited water on what is to be said or what should not be said, we have already seen this defendant that would go walk right out the courtroom and criticized the judge that criticized -- criticize the judge, the judge's clerk's, the jury, and another is the underlining of the defendant doing that when there is a strong segment in our society that follows that defendant and will become violent. and because of that, unfortunately, and i think it is something the country should be able to watch, i oppose having

cameras in the court. i think the caller clarida, she made a very good point. and i think she very much hit it on the head that a lot of it would be pinned on the spin, which media outlet that you view. if you view fox, they will cut it and spit it their way. if you go to msnbc, they are going to cut it and spit it their way. people that follow these outlets , that is the way they are going to look at the trial, and i will and that with saying the fairness doctrine. with the fairness doctrine was in effect, you would have people on each media outlet that would have two points of view, so the public would get both sides of it every day, day in and day out.

so since it is repealed, now you can go to whichever source you watch. you are going to get that spin. i think she hit it -- host: let me go back to this network, to what you brought up. you are saying certain networks will cut it, spin it a certain way and certain networks will cut it and spit in a different way. you don't think people will watch the proceedings in their entirety. so i guess my question for you, do you think cameras on the floor of the united states house and senate have been a good thing? do you think that is happening, that the speeches that are given on the floor of the house and senate are cut a certain way cut a certain way by the other? that is our mission here, to provide anything that happens in the florida house on c-span for you to watch live and anything that happens in the for the senate on c-span2 for you to watch live. caller: sure, i am absolutely 100% in favor of cameras in the house and senate.

i think it does a great justice to the country, but, excuse me, when the public views the house, the floor, or the senate, and politicians speaking, they are not looking at it with a critical eye. they are just looking at the representative that may come and offer their position on a bill or their opposition on a bill in a certain way, but they are not looking at it with a critical eye with it being attached to a president of the united states. with it being attached to if they are going to go out that day and protest, if they are going to get revved up and say the other guys, democrats or republicans or whomever our trash and the scum of america. i don't think it has that

residual effect. host: there has been worse language than that said on the floor of the house and senate over the years but i guess you are saying it is more charged around this particular figure in american history right now. caller: absolutely. absolutely. there is nothing, nothing that i can remember that would have an undertone of violence that this has. i witnessed the civil rights era. i went through the vietnam protests. i lived through it all, and nothing that i can recall in my 70 plus years on this earth that i can recall carried the same undertone of that one individual can cause violence, that one individual can walk out of a courtroom and say, pick up arms. and i am not saying it from

being anti-trump or pro-trump or anything like that, but i am saying it because of his tendency to not follow any of the rules set by a judge, none. so we have to take that into consideration. it is only fair to the public. host: that is kenny in california. it is just after 7:30 on the east coast. in this first hour of "washington journal" today, having a conversation about cameras in courtrooms and specifically the courtrooms that will host the federal criminal trials of former president donald trump. asking you to support or oppose having cameras there for all of those proceedings. (202) 748-8000 for democrats to call in. republicans, it is (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. just a roadmap ahead today on "washington journal," in about 30 minutes we will be talking about the state of the u.s. economy. mark zandi will be joining us for that conversation.

and then later today, a conversation about crime statistics and crime trends in the united states. we will be joined by adam gelb, president and ceo of the council on criminal justice. that is in our 9:00 a.m. eastern hour today, but for the first hour today, this conversation about cameras in the courtroom. out of durham, connecticut, democrat, thanks for waiting. caller: yes, good morning, john. so i think there is a couple ways to look at this. one, somebody who has done the practice of law for a couple of years and then simultaneously tried to understand what dynamics happen in the court, i think sometimes there is the predisposition to really not gather just by hearing the audio alone, to really not gather the true substance of the court interactions, and i mean this in sort of an evidentiary every way but more the compelling

arguments and statements of the defendants, simultaneously, the reactions of the attorneys, the questioning, and what is overall the process of the judge. it is sort of like by allowing the cameras in, you get the additional sensory input that helps inform the decision. now, that can be biased, and i will say it does play a huge role, and i think some of the callers today have rightly brought up the major concern over how people articulate this in a way that is it showmanship or grandstanding, and then simultaneously, how do you protect the integrity of the system, including the process, as the judge alluded to, the federal judge yesterday, how do you protect the witnesses from that sort of harassment component that would come from it being visualized. long point out of this -- host: on the point of witnesses,

the counterpoint there is that these witnesses that would be set to testify against the former president, all of their names would be known already. media outlets have widely covered whether they have made deals with the prosecution that these people are known already, that the cameras would not make the difference here of whether these people may or may not be harassed. and the point goes further that jury members, their names are often found out after trials anyways, so concerns about that. it is a concern that happens when it comes to any major high-profile trial. think of jury members post the o.j. simpson trial or something like that. these things happen anyway regardless of whether the cameras are there or not, so why should the cameras make a difference on that? caller: well, i think two things.

one, i am very reluctant to pass over the impact that has on that individual's life and the fact that they go right in front of the camera and are, their faces are seen, their testimony is bird, their expressions, so i would say that, yes, there is information and that information makes it out in the public discourse and the stream of information, but there is simultaneously an element of that that takes some time, and people, the threat may slightly be different. to your point, a good one, there are plenty of factors here. let me not dismiss the fact that this information makes it into the stream. the question is the timing of the tenacity, and overall, the believability and truth of those individuals that are sitting there and whether or not they are being intimidated. witness intimidation is something that goes back very long in this country, and for the exact same reasons we are talking about now in a digital

age where everything gets shot across the internet in a heartbeat of a second. that changes the way it should be approached at least in the short run. at least in the immediacy. john, i am telling you i am for it. i am just weighing the components of this and saying at the end of the day, my ultimate choice would be if it were me and i was a judge sitting there, to allow all the contextual clues to be immersed and put out there in the public. in other words, allowing the camera to be in the courtroom. what lasting, but then to require exactly what has been brought up today, the spin zone. if they are allowed to cover it, they have to do almost exactly what, and it has been brought up, but it is also what c-span does, which is you must be required if you show this information on your news outlet, fox news or msnbc, that you will

carry it in its entirety. and that means there will be no editorial is asian during the actual -- they can't editorialize it but they have to show the whole trial. i think that speaks enough volume to the balance between the two. it drives the fulcrum at the edge. it does not mean they would not be able to have their pundits and all the way in because you will not be able to stop that. host: one of our viewers on x rights in at they would be ok with it if and only if the coverage was restricted to just the courtroom and no statements from either party before or either the proceedings. but one other thought because you said you are a lawyer. you mentioned the element of it taking some time for these things to get out in the public realm when the cameras are not there. one of the arguments that has been made, even if the judiciary

decides not to allow cameras in the courtroom, there is already cameras in courtrooms to show proceedings in overflow rooms, where there is overflow audience rooms. there is kind of an internal system in many courtrooms that allow people sitting in other parts of a courthouse to see what is happening in the courtroom that is actually hosting the case, and one argument has been made to hold onto that piece of video of what is happening when it comes to the trump federal case and to release that sometime in the future as sort of a historic document, that it was a historic prosecution of a former president and even if it is not being released in real-time to be seen in the news, that it is kept and released at some point in the future. what are your thoughts on that? caller: i think there is an interesting way to approach it. i would say the delay that can happen as a result but still

capturing something that is so historic is a good thing, so i would be for that, but i also do think it is important to have real-time information. i know this will sound crazy, but i am also dutch i also practice medicine in the thing is when you see patients, you don't need to -- you can look at their lab information later on down the road after the patient has already left, some of the back-and-forth discussion you have had, but you really need to be able to be in that moment with the individual at that specific time in order to appreciate all of the sensory input that is important to make your decision, and the decision being in that case a medical decision, but in the case of a judiciary where the article three branch is reviewing and presenting this information to a jury and the jury is making a decision, that sort of timing is critical, and i just don't know if it is wise to delay that.

maybe there is a chance sort of, but the moment is there, and i think the sanctity and the compassion -- the passion that comes out which may be too much passion in the momentary experience of that is more profound so i would be for it either way, but i just think it should be broadcast. i am in favor of what they have been trying to do for years and the supreme court them and i think they have been able to start their responsibility because of these concerns over grandstanding, but ultimately, it comes down to the people have to know and this is so consequential on so many levels. but set the precedent to make it fair. host: thanks for the call. on this network's efforts when it comes to the supreme court, there is a whole timeline of our efforts over the years to try to get cameras in the court if you want to read more on that this is kelly in ohio, republican.

thanks for waiting. caller: hello. host: go ahead. what are your thoughts on cameras in the court? caller: i am for them. however, the presidential candidate kind of thing going on, it has a lot of extreme circumstances obviously. but i think we should treat it kind of like we do ballgames where they will broadcast a ballgame, record a ballgame, but they do not show it until the game is over. why not the same thing with this? let the cameras be in the courtroom, let them see everything going on, but you are not allowed to broadcast it until after it is overcome, after the decision has been made. host: so you are saying after the entire trial is over, not just day-to-day? caller: exactly. host: thank you. caller: that way there is no influence on jurors or the

witnesses or anything. it is for posterity basically, just recording it for posterity. host: would you be concerned about the ultimate monday morning quarterbacking as it were of this case when that happens? especially the decisions made and the next day you can start watching this case day by day? caller: well, that happens anyway. host: fair enough. thanks for the call from ohio. kevin in windsor, connecticut, independent. good morning. caller: yes, thanks for taking my call. yeah. this has to be televised. the american people, the country has a right to watch this. the former president having insurrection on our country, i mean, this is for future presidents too. you better believe there will be future trumps coming down the pike. i have never seen it. i am 65 years old. i went through the cuban missile

crisis, watergate, but this is a must. the people earned the right to watch this live and judge it for themselves. host: are you watching any of the georgia trials, the 13 federal counts on election interference? that happening in a state court, and that is being livestreamed to youtube and networks have picked that up. caller: not on the internet or anything like that, just the stations, but the people earned the right to we never had a president try to overthrow an election before, and now this guy is trying to put his political opponents in jail and get rid of the constitution. this man is a danger to our country. host: that is kevin in connecticut. this is henrietta in florida, republican. good morning. caller: hi. good morning.

i think that cameras should be allowed in the courtroom. to coin an old phrase, sunshine is the best disinfectant. for example, i saw c-span's coverage of the gag order, and it was very, very interesting to hear the different arguments. it was completely eye-opening. when the judges questioned the prosecution, it was jaw-dropping to hear a lot of -- from a prosecutor who could not answer questions from the judge as to free speech, what is the boundary of the president or the ex-president's free-speech.

it was illuminating, so i agree, cameras should be allowed in the courtroom. and i thank you very much. host: our coverage of the audio that was released on that is available at c-span.org if you want to go back and listen to that, what happened yesterday. when it came to the gag order. two comments from social media, this is rosie -this is rosarian saying it should be filled but the footage should not be aired live due to concerns regarding the jury intimidation and corption. and another saying it is a matter of public interest in consequence so it is absolutely necessary the american people get to watch it live. this is kathleen, georgetown, delaware, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, john. good morning, america. good morning, c-span listeners. i believe they should let the camera in the courtroom. there is too much discourse

between republicans and democrats in the minions in his back pocket. he curses everybody. he gives them names. he is so derogatory, and he is such a rabble-rouser. he just gets these irrational radicals going crazy, and he is talking rhetoric about the government. the constitution, all of this. i do believe we have the right to listen to his own words in the courtroom to defend what he is accused of, and he is the former president. he is not the president regardless of what anybody thinks, and i think the voters have a right to listen to and judge for themselves before they vote what they want to vote and who they want to vote for

according to his statement. thank you very much and have a good morning. host: kathleen in delaware, to manhattan, this is sophia. good morning. caller: good morning, john. absolutely, yes, they should show everything. what else is missed? we know everything. they show us everything. president trump has said he wanted it televised. please make it. let him be satisfied. i have been conservative all my life. i changed two independent one year ago after watching all of them, including, i mean, fox, newsmax, news nation. i give them one minute each to

what they are reporting and showing. some people got really upset about the last riot he had, former president trump. nobody covers him but c-span. i watch one minute and it is repeated, but anyway, it should be, what do we have to lose? four years ago i said democracy is king. now, c-span, when they advertise it, i feel like i am talking. by the way, my birthday was saturday. i thought one of you would come. i have you and greta but i want all of them. it is ok. i waited for this day. you have a nice thanksgiving day on thursday, and be strong for me.

don't go nowhere, ok? host: happy birthday, and you have a nice thanksgiving as well forget it to alan in mississippi -- as well. to alan in mississippi, republican. good morning. are you with us? got to stick by your phone. this is mark in tulsa, oklahoma, independent. go ahead. caller: hey, john. how are you doing today? i will say something about c-span and then talk about this courtroom thing. c-span, interesting channel. i have called probably eight or nine times now and i think this is the third time we have talked. always a pleasure to talk to you. i respect you. you challenge the callers. it is a beautiful thing. keep challenging us, brother. i like it. i want to challenge you, c-span. make this more than three hours, 6:00 to 9:00 central time. let's make this like 12 hours.

let's quit showing the broadcast of the housework with no one in there except some guy talking about a post office thing. but anyway, let me get to the reality of this court thing. ok, so this is what i think about it, sir. first of all, the people that are controlling this government, they want a guy like trump in there. they do. like 32% of the people love him. 32% of our population lives trump. there is no way he is going to be convicted of any crime. it is a joke, but let's show it. let's show it and show what a joke this is. our government wants trump to be the next president so we can strong-arm the public and that guy can come in and dominate so we can have the central power leader dominating us.

anyway, the court system in our country is lackluster. i was on a jury in oklahoma. i will redo the case. we incarcerate more people in the united states than any country in the world. host: where there cameras in your case? caller: unfortunately not, john, because it is tulsa, oklahoma. host: do you think is a jury member you would have acted differently had there been cameras in that case? if there was cameras in the courtroom? caller: absolutely not. absolutely not. how many jurors have died in the united states of america? i thick if somebody is going to be mad about the decision, they will not take it out on the jurors? they will take it out on something else besides the jurors. how many jurors have died in the united states? it is a weak argument.

they don't go after the jurors. they go after the jurors who enforce their vote. you understand what i'm saying? host: got your point. eddie in saginaw, michigan, good morning. the couple minutes left and we want to be to as many calls as we can. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: i am doing good. go ahead. caller: first of all, but i would like to know, who got the power to decide whether or not they can have cameras in the courtroom or cannot have cameras in the courtroom? who makes that decision, first of all? host: i can give you that. it is the federal courts, the judiciary, committee on rules of practices and procedure. they are the ones that review these rules, and this is a long-standing rule of the judicial conference called rule 53 of the criminal rules and procedure.

that is who decides here. the courts to make there was about how the courts are run, although i should note that some members of congress have pushed legislation to try to open up courts to cameras, and so that is an avenue being pursued as well. caller: ok. ok, now let's look at the whole thing. ok, the man, mr. trump, is saying to the whole world that the system is corrupt, that the system is rigged against him. this is what he is saying. he is totally saying this. you agree? host: one of the reasons his attorneys have argued for cameras in the courtroom is to show whether it is a fair or unfair trial, that is the argument they make. caller: ok, right. so with that now, you got a lot

of people on the left that is going. you got a lotta people on the right. so showing this whole procedure of this hearing is going to have some kind of good point, it is going to have a negative point to it. and then just like some of the callers already said, what media outlet carries it, there are some networks that are for trump and some networks totally against trump, so with that, in the whole united states, everybody will be watching this because it might swing a vote when it comes down to the election, with the election comes up next year. this is a big deal. this is not know -- it can cause

a lot of problems. it can cause a lot of things. is it a good thing for it to be televised? it could be, and it might not be. so the public is the one weighing in on that. host: do you think the public should get to decide? caller: well -- host: in the form of being able to turn on a channel with the case? caller: well, this is what i'm looking at. i am looking at the man is always doing his presidency, saying that the media -- it is a corrupt media, so now with this, if they show it, then we as the people would be able to see if it is corrupt, but man, this can do something to the united states if it does not go right.

i don't know if the powers that be are looking at the money thing of it because it will be about some money. host: got your point. running short on time. let's get to rodney in florida, republican. go ahead. caller: morning, john. happy thanksgiving to you. host: same to you. caller: over 70 million people voted for trump. trump west president, the first president to be put on trial. it looks like the government decides, they push the scales of justice one way or another. you had willis and letitia james, jack smith all piling on trump with these charges all at once before the election. now they want to shut him up and gagged him. jack smith was originally going to go after the classified documents. that was his mission but they left it open ended, now he has changed his whole direction of this investigation for january

6. but quietly, they said this week that the classified document case against biden where he had chinatown all of these places is quietly being dropped, and i will tell you -- host: running short on time. turning to the cameras. caller: i will get to the cameras. i am saying they are trying to gag him and shut him up. >> we will leave washington journal here for just over 40 minutes to keep our commitment to coverage of congress. u.s. house, the coverage on c-span. justice sotomayor: the