>> coming up on washington journal, we will take your calls and comments live. then virginia tech political science professor caitlin jewitt talks about the democrat party nominating rules and how president biden's campaign contributions may be used in the future. we will also talk about his

proposed supreme court changes first with the president and ceo of first liberty institute kelly shackleford and later with the executive director of fix the court gave roth. also former dnc chair in pennsylvania governor ed rendell talks about the virtual rollcall to nominate vice president harris and the impact pennsylvania could have on the fall campaign. washington journal starts now. ♪ host: good morning everyone. there are 96 days until election day. this morning on the washington journal we will begin with your reaction to former president donald trump's interview at the national association of black journalists convention in chicago. here's how you can join the conversation. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, your line this

morning,. >> for american citizens to go back where they came from. you have used words like animal and a rabid to describe black district attorneys. you attacked like journalists, saying the questions that they asked are "stupid and racist." you had dinner with a white supremacist at your mar-a-lago resort. so my question, sir, now that you are asking black supporters to vote for you, why should black voters trust you after you have used language like that? >> will first of all i don't think i've ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner, first question. [laughter] you don't even say hello, how are you, are you with abc? because i think they are a fake news network, a terrible network. and i think it is disgraceful that i came here in good spirit.

i love the black population of this country. i've done so much for the my population of this country. including employment, including opportunity zones with senator tim scott of south carolina, which is one of the greatest programs ever for black workers and black entrepreneurs. i've done so much and i say this , historically black colleges and universities were out of money, they were stone cold broke and i saved them and they gave them long-term financing and nobody else was doing it. i think it is a very rude introduction. i don't know exactly why he would do something like that and let me go a step further. i was invited here and told my opponent, whether it was biden or kamala, i was told my opponent was going to be here. it turned out my opponent is in here. you invited the under false pretenses and then you said you can't do it with zoom.

well, where is zoom? she is going to do it with zoom and she is not coming. and then you were a half-hour late. i have too much respect to be late. they couldn't get their equipment working. >> i would love it if you would answer the question on your rhetoric. >> i have been the best president for the black population since abraham lincoln. >> better than president johnson who signed the voting rights act? >> you start off especially your 35 minutes late because you can get your equipment to work in such a hostile manner i think is a disgrace. host: the former president at the national association of black journalists convention in chicago. that was the first exchange of the day. on the implications the former president, the association president can limit productive statements saying that the associiois in talks with the vice president's cpan for

q&a, former president donald trump was set to appear in person. they have been in talks with both parties since january, and the invitation sent to candidates are not endorsements, he said in a statement and they align with the association practices to maintain 76. axios reports that the vice president was offered an in person interview but was not given the option to appear virtually when she became the presumptive nominee. a source previously told axios her campaign and organizers could not agree on a time. the republican nominee, the former president requested a different format for the conversation, a rally and been some questions, but the nabj president told axios they held firm that wednesday's discussion in chicago would be a panel. your reaction to the former

president's interview at the convention yesterday, john in brooklyn, democratic caller. caller: people don't look at history. somebody should check his, i don't know what they are talking about. he tried saying he was born in kenya, but this is something -- i wonder does he think people check out what he says? you've got to read history. the indian people and jamaicans, those are black people and anybody that is religious, read genesis fourth and fifth chapter. that is where that generation comes from. tell trump to check his history. thank you very much. host: teresa is a republican in tennessee. teresa? caller: good morning.

i think donald trump did a good job yesterday. i applaud him for showing up. he knew that they were going to attack him. i mean, she had it planned, she had it written. i think they were very disrespectful to him. why would they invite him if they were going to be so disrespectful to him? and kamala harris, she is not doing any interviews. they are putting on a play like they did for obama. trying to make everybody believe she is the best there is, and i have seen so many pictures of her being an indian, not a black woman. host: where did you see that, teresa? >> it all over the internet.

i have pictures of her in indian guard. she is on tv doing an interview with another indian woman in her kitchen where she says you are going to be the first indian president and she is like, yes. it is all over. why is she trying to hide it? is it that important to pretend to be a black woman to get the black vote? and one other thing, please let me say this. i remember when democrats attacked donald trump for having nothing but white people as his lineup for vp. and here is kamala harris, all white men is who she is picking from for vp. some people are racist. but the people she chooses, the white people and the white man she is married to don't seem to be racist. i don't understand the theory. host: teresa asks the former president rally after that

interview at the convention in chicago, on the megatron they displayed this headline from business insider. the trump campaign is projecting this on the screen above the stage at a rally in harrisburg, pennsylvania, a headline that referred to her as the first indian-american u.s. senator. from the other side, teresa, that harris campaign democratic supporters point out that she has talked about her black heritage, her jamaican father, and she wrote about it in her book, it has been something that she has talked about in the past. philadelphia, democratic caller. caller: i don't know where to begin. the first question that that young lady asked was a basic

question. i just don't understand what people see in this man. he is a racist from the neck down. i'm telling you. yesterday was an embarrassment and as a 76-year-old black man, there is no way that i would vote for a human being like this. thank you for your time. host: pennsylvania, democratic caller. this second journalist to question the former president at the convention yesterday was fox news'harris faulkner. here is how she framed her question and the former president's response. >> there is this question of in this moment where we are, why come here?

what is your message to them? >> my message is to stop people from invading our country that are taking, frankly, a lot of problems, but one of the big problems and a lot of his journalists in this room i know and i have great respect for, a lot of the journalists in this room are black. [laughter] i will tell you that coming from the border, millions and millions of people happen to be taking black jobs. >> what exactly is a black job, sir? >> anybody that has a job, that is what it is. [laughter] they are taking the employment away from black people. they are coming in and they are invading. it is an invasion of millions of people, probably 60, 70 million people. i have a feeling it is much more than that. everybody has been seeing what has happened. the first group of people, the black population is affected most by that and kamala is

allowing it to happen. she is the worst reporters are in the history of the world. she said she was there once, but not the right part of the border. host: the former president at the national association of black journalists convention in chicago, that with the second journalist to pose questions to him. there were three journalists on the stage with him yesterday. the former president putting out untruth social this post after the questioning which lasted a little over 30 minutes. the questions were rude and nasty, but we crushed it, he said. joe, independent. what do you say? caller: i say it was a good show, he put on a good show and that is all these things are is a show. as far as him making the comment about harris being from india and whatnot -- not from india,

but nationality, i was wondering when they were going to start bringing that up. she keeps on saying she is black but she is saying that now because she wants to be the black votes. before she said she was from india but now all of a sudden she's not. she looks more indian than she does black. host: and why does that matter, joe? caller: it shouldn't matter but the democrats make a big deal out of it. they are saying black, black, black. it shouldn't make a difference. if you are going to vote for a person you vote for the person because he is doing good or you like what he is saying, not because he is black, catholic, jewish, female or male. it is stupid. host: new jersey, independent. joe, the vice president also called a show yesterday. she had a rally in houston

yesterday where she talked to supporters. here is what her response was to the former president's interview at that convention. >> this afternoon. [laughter] >> donald trump spoke at the annual meeting of the national association of black journalists. and it with the same old show. the divisiveness, the disrespect. and let me just say, the american people deserve better. the american people deserve better. [applause] the american people deserve a leader who tells the truth, a leader who does not respond with hostility and anger when confronted with the facts. we deserve a leader who

understands that our differences do not divide us. they are an essential source of our country. host: the vice president, kamala harris are reacting to say when he appeared before black journalists at their convention in chicago. we want to know what your thoughts are in this first hour of the washington journal. jamie in wisconsin, democratic caller. caller: morning. i really feel like trump's appearance at the convention was very contradictory. i don't know if that is the right word to use. i don't know what he was trying to accomplish because i watched the beginning of the conference and the reporter asked him, you know, you said rude things to black journalists, why should

they vote for you? in his response was essentially that. he called the question rude. he barely acknowledged the question, didn't fully answer it. it was really laughable when he said no introduction, you didn't even say how are you doing? it is just really funny to think if the reporter was excessively using all these nice gestures and then immediately jumping into let's get into how you are a dreadful racist and have a racist past. i don't know what his goal was. i don't know if he voluntarily was or he was invited but either way i don't know what his purpose was there. host: he was invited, the association has a history of inviting the presidential

candidates before their convention. how do you respond to people like j.d. vance, the wall street editorial board this morning getting the former president credit for even showing up in that environment? caller: of course they would. of course they would. again, i don't know what his goal was, so that question is kind of hard to fix lane because item think it helped him at all. every time he appears in one of these events, he takes himself into a deeper hole and validates my stance on who i am voting for more and more every time. host: these people with what voting block? he digs a deeper hole, but with whom? what group? caller: in terms of his whole belief that he is racist. he validates it every single time. when a reporter asked in the

initial question of why are you so rude to black voters or to black journalists, you set all these terrible things about black lives matter,, his response was just back. he was blatantly rude to the reporter, he brought up these completely irrelevant things like kamala harris is not here, you weren't polite to me, you didn't introduce me. he just prove the point right away. he went into that convention basically on hot ground, if that makes any sense. host: ok, all right. the wall street journal editorial board does give the former president credit for going to the convention and sitting down for that interview. they also write this, that mr. trump called the question rude and disgraceful but he had to know this wouldn't be a lovefest. he also said oddly that, harris was always of indian heritage

and he didn't know that she was lacking to a number of years ago when she happened to turn black. now she wants to be known as black. that is the identity politics trapped democrats want mr. trump to fall into any dove right in. harris is multiracial and was a member of the congressional black caucus as a senator, and went to howard university, historically black college. mr. trump's answer stepped on his own best campaign message they do want to say is the economy. and they write this. the national association of black journalists is working to schedule an event with kamala harris in september. miss harris originally declined the invitation to appear in person, and she is doing almost no interviews these days where she might get a hard question. give the nabj credit by standing by its invitation to both candidates and mr. trump for facing a hostile crowd. that is how the wall street journal frames it this morning.

ed, ocean city, new jersey, independent. caller: yes, ed o'donnell, i applaud and congratulate the journalists further questioning, very good question. i don't support any politician in either party, but i think journalists should be more aggressive in questioning politicians because a lot of these politicians are in some serious -- host: let's stop there. carl, independent color. caller: yes. i didn't know what was going on yesterday, but the republican party let their crazy white uncle come to a black barbecue. he comes out and he just starts insulting them. you all are a bunch of dumb negroes. it wasn't just harris.

he insulted of mike journalists -- the black journalists. this black people here, you didn't know this? it doesn't surprise me listening to those on the republican line trying to offer some excuse for what he fundamentally did. he just insulted an entire racial community. we are black americans. you didn't know we were black? you think we don't know that we are black? what is wrong with these people? you can't recognize what donald trump is? you know what, i'm going to go ahead and let these black negroes know where their place

is. i don't know what to say other than that. host: chicago, democratic caller. the white house press secretary was asked about the former president's remarks, the one the caller and many of you have been referring to, that very first question given to him at the convention with the journalists, and here is what she had to say at the white house briefing yesterday. >> can i ask you about sending that is happening right now, donald trump is speaking to several reporters were assembled there and write out the gates there was what can be described as a contentious exchange where the former president said i'm asking for someone to represent the president or vice president, not someone asking a campaign question. he said that harris was always of indian heritage and i didn't know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black he said, and now she wants to be known as

black. i need to know is she indian or is she black? i respect either one, but she obviously doesn't because she was indian all the way and then all of a sudden she made a turn and she went black. your response to those comments? [laughter] >> he is a candidate so i'm going to be super careful. i certainly have more to say. as a person of color, as a black woman who was in this vision standing before you at this podium behind the lectern, what you just read out to me is repulsive, it is insulting and no one has any right to tell someone who they are, how they identify. that is no one's right. it is someone's own decision. i'll add this. only she can speak to her

experience. only she can speak to what it is like. she is the only person that can do that. and i think it is insulting for anybody, it doesn't matter if it is a former leader, a former president, it is insulting. she is the vice president of the united states,, harris. we have to put some respect on her name, period. host: white house press secretary yesterday responding to the former president. we are getting your reaction, independent. caller: good morning. i think erne is missing the point here. donald trump is a showman. he knows he wasn't in the news when kamalaame out to get the democrats excited. if he is not on the news being talked about, he feels shunned.

so by him going to this convention, now he puts himself back into the news, now people are talking about him. democrats, independents like myself, let's not lose track. we need to keep focused. not every time he makes these outlandish statements, we need to keep it moving. we know the election is three months away, let's keep talking about the issues and not get sidetracked. once again he is a television man and he knows how to distract. host: do you think the association should have invited him and had him up on that stage for the interview? there is a debate within the association about whether that with the right decision. >> i mean, these are reporters. we are the people who are going to actually vote and put him in there. yes he should have been invited. kemal had other commitments, she knew what she had to do.

trump is a showman. he doesn't have respect for people of color. they should have invited him and we see what he is for what he is. he even attacked nikki haley. he attacked barack obama. it goes on and on, that is all i'm saying. thank you. host: pet in alexandria, virginia, republican. caller: i am a black republican and i heard the interview yesterday and i thought the woman was absolutely rude. just like when he was the president and blacks were doing well and congress attacked him. can the patient please get well? i'm sick of this divisive black --

host: what would you point to that was rude about her questioning? caller: she was rude. she said to him what have you done for us lately? obviously she forgot. host: her words were "why should black people support you given what you have said in the past?" caller: i'm telling you as a black woman what she said to him in plain english was what have you done for us lately? host: will stop there. kevin, florence, south carolina. kevin, what do you say? caller: i'm here, hello? good morning. thank you for taking my call. first of all, i want to commend the national association of black journalists for providing content for us to discuss.

even though it is not favorable, the result is creating media content and discussion. first of all, a black job is anyone at a trump rally holding a sign. that is a black job. american jobs are but we all aspire to. looking at the task at hand, i want to give credit once again for the professionalism of those black journalists as what they've been doing for the association. when do we wake up in america and get to decide where we are born or who we are born with or where we are born? she was born in oakland with an indian mother and a jamaican father. jamaican is not a race. it is a country. india is not a race, it is a country. with that said, what are j.d. vance's children? let's look at that. this is the point. you want to divide, discredit and do this, but here is

something. be careful how you discredit blacker. we are watching. this does not make america great again where you can use a paper bag to determine your race. we are in a new society here, blended families, blended people. when you look at the olympics, they are not picking winners because they are black. usa, americans. usa. host: kevin in south carolina, democratic caller. first, the national association of black journalists had a condition that has a tradition of inviting presidential candidates to their annual convention. want to show you from previous years, addressing the association was george w. bush who spoke in 2004. here's part of that question and answer. >> mr. president, in your

remarks you set 8 million people in afghanistan are registered to vote and as you said, exercise their god-given right to vote. it may be a right from god but is not guaranteed in the u.s. constitution. in 2000, an estimated 2 million people have african-american votes discounted. in florida, illinois, and other cities. are you going to order attorney general john ashbaugh to send election monitors to florida and other southern states and eight in new constitutional amendments where you endorse a constitutional amendment guaranteeing every american the right to vote in a federal election? >> first of all, look. i can understand why african-americans in particular,

you know, are worried about being able to vote since the vote has been denied for so long in the south in particular. i understand that. this administration wants everybody to vote. the best thing we did was to pass the helping america vote act with over $3 billion of help to states and local governments. to make sure the voting process is fair. and it's not just the south, by the way. the voting process needs help all over the country. to make sure that everybody's vote counts and everybody's vote matters, i understand that and that's why i was happy to work with congress to achieve this important piece of legislation. don't just focus on florida.

i've talked to a governor down there to make sure it works. it is the whole country that needs voter registration files need to be updated, machines need to work. and that is why there's $3 billion in the budget to help. host: then president in august of 20 -- two thousand four and seeking a second term, appears before the unity conference of journalists, showing you one of the questions that he took before the journalists. we are talking about yesterday's appearance by the former president before the national association of black journalists in chicago. marianne of nbc tweetsuthat any bj -- nabj, you guys started more than one hour late because sources tell nbc the former

president refud initially come out because of a live fact-check. the fact was live fact checking the former president on x with the #n/abj fact-check and you can find that fact checking if you go online. from the president's war room account, president trump has been wting backstage for them to fix their audio issue, i what they claim the holdup was, and advisor to the former president said he was not late, he arrived on time and patient waited backstage while they tried to get the audio up and running. there weew wires crossed backstage. differing accounts of why there was a holdup of about a half an hour yesterday. the former president set to appear for an hour before the convention gathering in chicago and the interview after starting

late ended after about 35 minutes. david in reno, nevada, democratic caller. caller: just want to make sure that you can hear me. host: we can. caller:-on hold for 18 plus minutes, which i completely understand. i've been trying to call for at least a month. i've never gotten more than 30 minutes of speaking time without getting shut off so let's try this again. i'm not a red, blue or orange die when it comes to politics. we the people must govern them, the government moving forward. millionaires and billionaires after 1500 plus days to flatten the curve of the 14 day virus that was and is a u.s. tax dollar funded -- man-made -- host: are you going to talk about the interview that the former president had yesterday? caller: sure, why not?

i'm going to say that c-span and basically all mainstream media is just trying to divide and conquer. why don't you just call us american people, why does it have to be the left or the right or the center when you guys keep moving the goalpost on the right and the left and the center? i just want to we the people to start having a say in getting our words in to start talking to each other and getting the middleman which is the press, c-span out of the mix because you guys are putting your finger on the scale and forcing us to take on harris as a presidential candidate which she hasn't been put in as a presidential candidate. host: david, we are going to talk about that coming up here on the washington journal, about the democratic national committee rules for replacing president biden after he decided to drop his reelection bid.

we are going to talk about the rules put in place coming up. david in atlanta, independent. caller: good morning. i'd like to say mr. trump yesterday, he showed a lot of chutzpah for showing up. i watched the whole thing and that kind of agree with the lady who spoke earlier. the number one moderator to me was very mean and how she greeted mr. trump and i think he used that to his advantage. everything that they used for him is an example where he was talking about why he had to wait 30 minutes or so to come on, but you just mentioned in that that he didn't want to come out because they had fact checked him.

he wanted to make sure he didn't have that when he spoke. if the moderator had said we wanted to make sure we didn't have a fact-check, she could have used that. i think when he started really getting on her about the audio and the sound, that was donald trump at his best, to be able to take a situation that was there and extort it or make it so that it was their fault. at no point in time did that number one moderator excused or say i apologize. she didn't. the third chair moderator, she said how nice they had the interview before, and what i also saw with the ladies, they didn't allow donald trump to answer the questions that they were asking. even if they were trying to track him or whatever, they didn't allow him to answer. host: let's go back to what you

first said. described with the questioning was rude. give an example. caller: in the very beginning when he had stepped out, she came out with the first question. my thing is always, and i look at it like this, if i come to your home, i'm your guest. i am in your home. you should show me at least courtesy. she could have at least greeted him and then go forth from there. host: but david, she thanked him for appearing and then she went into her first question. caller: mhm. and that is when he came back on her and said well, here you go. you couldn't say hello, you didn't. give me a greeting or do anything. that is when he tried to change up. if she had simply said i apologize, sorry about the

holdup, and then move forward from there. when you show your clip and they did the interview, if you notice that martin allowed president bush to answer the question. these ladies weren't doing this yesterday. who i really look at our people like roland martin, who know how to talk to a person even if they have bad intent and be able to let them speak. and you can hear their truth. we know what donald trump is about. host: david i'm going to leave it there and get a reaction to what he said from other callers. democratic caller, john. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. man, was he caught flat-footed. he just came in there with an opportunity to explain to the

african-american, black people, citizens of this country that he just completely screwed that up. he said something he thought was clever or something and then they gave him a seat and he sat down in that high armchair seat. when asked a straight question, he went to use those catchphrases and words and they didn't work for him and he was asked a straight question. here is somebody that gave rush limbaugh a medal of honor and if you listen to rush limbaugh refer to black politicians, the different congresswomen and people like that, he was very disrespectful. the way that donald trump said black, with that little bit of,

you know, bile in his voice. if he came to encourage, to explain why flack voters should vote for him because of their concern for disenfranchisement and police brutality and job discrimination and those sorts of things, if immigrants are going to come over here, what does it mean for black jobs? and he says anyone that has a job. so what he is saying is that if you work for a living, you are black, which isn't good. and the way this guy is used to standing up, he is caught flat-footed. somebody just tried to shoot him and now he has put in this platform. it was a bad decision by his campaign and his handlers. host: more of your calls coming

up. happening today, a memorial service will be held for the late representative eila jackson lee, blick congresswomen serve e 18th district for three decades. e passed away earlier this month from complications due to pancreatic canr. a live coverage of theervice starts at 12:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can also watch on c-span now or online at c-span.org. florida, republican. caller: good morning. the interview, the real reason that donald trump should be reelected as president. the way he stood up to that interviewer is the way he has stood up to putin x,i and the fellow from north korea. that is why he had such success

in the years he was president. he stood up to those people and he told them this is my side of the story. when they said they want to do this or that, he would stand up to these people the way he stood up to that reporter. and that if the reason he should be -- you know, we have a proven fact in him. we don't know what harris will do. i would say we should reelect him as president because he did the right thing. our economy was great, everything was great, we had no complaints. why wouldn't you reelect a man like that who has the capability of standing up to the presidents of these other countries? that is the way i feel. host: before you go, the former president was asked yesterday during that interview about his pick for his running mate, senator j.d. vance of ohio. here's a headline in the wall street journal this morning at a rally. fans brush off his controversies. what do you think of the pick by

the former president of j.d. vance? caller: i think j.d. vance is a very good man. he's done the right thing. he came from a poor background and there's always something that these people are going to hatch onto. they have to find something about the weird or something. everybody is weird a little bit, but that is what the phrase is now. they must send this out because everybody that stands against the republicans, where did they get that? is that a memo that goes out to everyone? that makes you question your news media when everyone of them that is against the republicans, they are all saying he is weird. where does this come from? even speaker schumer, he is weird. if people with any intelligence at all can figure out -- and

what is so bad about it? host: you are referring to talking points, talking points that go out by the parties officials. caller: why can't they have their own talking points? why do they have to be sent a little memo to start out with he is weird? host: florida, republican. let's listen to the former president when he was asked to respond to remarks made by his vice presidential candidate about women who choose not to have children. here is the former president yesterday. >> did you know that he had these views about women who don't have children before you picked them to be running mate and do you agree with him? >> no, he is very family oriented and he thinks family is a great thing. that doesn't mean he think that if you don't have a family -- i know people with families, people with great families, people with very troubled families and they also know people with no family, they didn't meet the right person.

you go through life, you don't meet the right person. >> but he's not just talking about families here. people who don't have children. >> i think i'm speaking for him, to. he strongly believes in family, but i know people with great families, i know people with not great families who don't have a family, and the people without a family are fair better, superior in many cases. he's not saying they are not. what he is saying is that he thinks the family experience is a very important thing, a very good thing. but that doesn't mean that if you grow up and you grow older and you meet somebody that would be wonderful to meet and would have been good that that is a bad thing. he's not saying that. my interpretation, you would have to ask him, that my interpretation is he is strongly family oriented but that doesn't mean if you don't have a family there is something wrong with it. host: the former president at the national association of black journalists convention in chicago talking about his running mate.

in the wall street journal, mark kelly, the senator from arizona, is border posture helps his resume. that is wall street journal reporting this morning. cnn was reporting that vice president harris will reveal her pic on tuesday. she is slated to have a rally on tuesday in pennsylvania. josh shapiro, the governor of that state is among the short list of potential picks. new jersey, independent. caller: how are you doing, good morning and thank you for having me on. i just have one quick comment about everything that transpired yesterday. being a black american, i think black americans have to start waking up and allow people 12 a

seat at app platform's in our tables. trump was met with so much hostility yesterday, if kamala harris was invited, she would be met with the same hostility that trump was met with, even more, and she probably wouldn't even be invited on their platforms. i think it is very disingenuous for the black convention to invite former president trump on. i think a lot of people obviously are upset and we have to stop letting the vile people who think less of us be invited to our platform because if the roles were reversed, i don't think vice president harris -- first of all, she wouldn't be met with any kind of friendly question or any open arm if she was on a right-wing platform, so why would the same thing happened to president trump? we have to start opening up our eyes and be smart about who we invite on a platforms.

thank you so much for your time. host: we are getting your reaction to the former president's interview at the convention of like journalists yesterday in chicago. take a look at how it played out across the country, trump, harris happened to turn black, quoting him there from the start. the chicago tribune, trump's appearance turns contentious. and then there's also the pittsburgh post-, full attack mode is their headline this morning on the interview before the like journalists. and then there is also the los angeles times, trump attacks harris identity. what do all of you think about the interview and what he had to say? richard in new jersey, republican. call: good morning.

let me start by saying to the gentleman in florida, the democrats, they' been doing this for 10, 20 years. your producers, they get the talking points. host: we don't get talking points. we don't get talking points, richard. caller: maybe you don't see them, but your higher-ups see them. host: and how do you know that? caller: because i know people that work for abc and cbs. every morning, certain democrats get them every morning. host: let me just clarify, certainly we get press releases if that is what you're referring to, all campaigns send out press releases with talking points in them. caller: too hard this morning.

number one, the reporter rachel scott went out there and was proving with the media is today. she went after them, she was disrespectful. and yet harris and the white house press secretary, did they give him any respect? they called him everything in the book for years and years. he doesn't get respect for that. rachel scott with this person out there, he always said from the question that he was asked. host: all right richard. atlanta. we will go to you, democratic caller. caller: good morning. boy, is this a discussion. i have five points i want to hit on, i'm going to do them quickly. first of all, rachel scott is a

journalist. if you follow rachel scott, she uses the same lined of interviewing that she always has. she goes after people. if you noticed not too long ago she followed nancy pelosi down a hallway at the capitol, asking her if she thought joe biden should step out of the race. she followed her and followed her and followed her and finally nancy pelosi had to say i'm not going to talk about this on tv. she uses the same line of questioning for everyone. let's talk about roland martin who used to be president of the black journalist association. he was in the audience and he was screaming out every time trump said something that was controversial or not true. and he had several interviews afterwards where he talked about it. so people go on youtube to see what he really had to say. kamala harris, people, please stop mispronouncing her name. it is, love -- kamala.

and people in politics, certain people are mispronouncing her name because it gives them traction. if you look at the interview, george bush was not confrontational, he was asked controversial questions. he took his time and he answered it. donald trump finally came out with the same posture that he always faced. he deflects and he offends. rachel greeted him when he came out. then she went into her line of questioning him. he did not do anything to endear african-american voters to him. completely alienated us. and if you look at some of the comments that were made by major

social media and online african-american contributors, you will see a flaming, flaming commentary about him. so for him to say she is not black, he knows she is black. he knows she embraces both sides of her heritage, and why shouldn't she? she does it proudly. and for him to stay black jobs again, he knows that that is something that just gets black people up in flames because again, what is a black job? he didn't explain it. he just said they are taking black jobs. next they are going to take your jobs. so he knew what he was doing. he knew that it was not going to be a love fest, but they are journalists, and they should ask the hard questions. they don't have an allegiance to either party. thank you for taking my call.

host: another question from the journalists at the convention yesterday, here is the former president responding to a question about his age and health. >> if you win, you will still be president at 82. which is older than biden is right now. >> but not mentally. [laughter] >> he is shot. most people, i know many people in their 80's and their 90's that are in great shape, some of our greatest leaders. you look throughout the world, world history, some of the greatest leaders in the world are in their 80's. >> would you consider stepping down if you felt that your health was declining? >> absolutely. i think i'd know. >> how would you make that decision? >> if i came onto a stage like this and i got treated so rudely at this moment treats me. >> my goodness. >> and i'm fine with it because

she was very rude, sir. very rude. that wasn't a question. she gave a statement, that was the question. >> you said you would. >> if i thought i was failing in some way, i will go a step further. i want anybody running for president to take an aptitude test, to take a cognitive test. i think it is a great idea. i took two of them and i aced them. host: former president trump at the convention yesterday with the national association of black journalists. ohio, independent, we are getting your reaction to that interview. go ahead. caller: what i'd like to say is i appreciated the hard question in the beginning. it was his opportunity to say

wait, let me talk about why i am here and i am trying to develop a relationship with the black community, to continue develop. so really it was a softball question, but i really appreciate the fact that she asked a question right off the bat, really got the conversation going. we need are journalists to be asking the tough and the hard questions. that is their job. is to have the candidates speak to us, whether we are black, white, blue or purple about who they are, what they believe, what they plan to do, what is their vision for the future. it is not for them to really kind of set it up and make them feel good like what happens over redd foxx. host: response to the caller to say he was rude. that she didn't say how are you, anything like that.

the former president said it, too. response to that criticism. caller: actually, if you look at it and you go back and you just look at it without any emotion, she shook his hand. we don't know if they had a conversation behind the stage. maybe she said hello behind the stage. why make the assumption that she came out there to really kind of let him have it between the eyes? we don't know the whole picture. host: lauren, upper barbara, maryland, democratic caller. caller: good morning, greta. this is a great conversation. a lot of people have already hit the points that i wanted to discuss but i do have a couple of other things. the first thing is that trump does not like women. because when he gets those tough questions, he can handle it. and it seems like he got even more flustered because they were coming from a woman.

he should be ready and used tough questions after having been president for four years. and i thought it was interesting about the fact-check that she provided with the wires that were crossed backstage or was it an issue with him not wanting to be fact-check? whatever it truly was, journalists should not have been criticized for the delay. they were not back there connecting wires. he should not have criticize them or attack them for the lateness. one other thing is nobody mentioned anything about the abortion question, and he once again mentioned that abortion happened in the ninth month which we know is not true. it's not a thing. host: if you were on at, "politifact" was fact checking

and they did fact-check those remarks that he made. if you're interested, you can find them on x. one more last moment from this interview before the national association of black journalists, the moderators said the interview was supposed to last one hour but it started a half-hour late. so here is how it ended yesterday. >> i want to bring down prices, and i also have to stop the invasion. and remember, they are taking your jobs. these people>> i think we have t there. we will get that is the last word and thank you very much for coming and joining us. >> thank you very much. thank you everybody very much. >> thank you, mr. trump. >> we will emailed details about conversations with kamala harris in september. thank you. [end video clip]

host: that was the national association of black journalists interview. if you missed it and you want to watch it in its entirety find it online at c-span.org. we will take a break and when we come back democrats are pushing forward with a virtual roll call vote to officially nominate vice president harris to be the vice presidential -- to be the presidential nomination. we will take a close look at that with caitlin jewitt, a political science professor. and then later a conversation with kelly shackelford, the president and ceo of the religious freedom organization first liberty institute. stay with us. ♪ >> we are welcoming a great national crusade to make america great again. >> taxes will go up, and anyone

who says they will not is not telling the truth. >> our beloved nation at peace and we are in the midst of a springtime of hope for america. >> we and the party believes in the american dream. >> read my lips, no new taxes. >> i still believe in a place called hope. >> here is the question for the american people, who do you trust in this election. >> the real choices whether we will build a bridge to the future or a bridge to the past. >> i have unlimited confidence that the wisdom of our people in the future of our country. >> i stand here tonight as my own man and i want you to know me for who i truly am. >> they had their chance and they have not led we will. >> i am john kerry, and i am reporting for duty. >> these four years have brought

moments i could not first and will not forget. >> it is time for us to change america. >> i was not my own man anymore, i was my country's. >> i do not believe that rolling back regulations on wall street will help the small woman -- the small business woman or family or help the construction worker. we have been there and we have tried that, we are moving forward. >> under my administration our friends will see more loyalty and mr. putin will see less flexibility. >> he wants to make america great again, where he can start actually making things in america, again. >> we will make america safe again. and, we will make america great again. >> here and now i give you my word, if you entrust me with the presidency, i will draw on the best of us, not the worst. >> this towering american spirit

has prevailed over every challenge and lifted us to the summit of human endeavor. >> c-span, your unfiltered view of the conventions powered by cable. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 3:30 p.m. eastern the vanderbilt university professor joshua clinton on the rise of public polling from the 19th century from the modern times. at 4:30 p.m. eastern a july 4 celebration featuring a reading of the declaration of independence by actors pretraining historical characters including abigail adams, benjamin franklin and thomas jefferson hosted by the national archives. at 7:00 p.m. eastern watch

historic convention speech as she -- featuring notable remarks by presidential nominees and other political feature -- figures from the past several racket -- decades. this week jesse jackson spoke at the 1988 convention after losing the party's nomination to michael dukakis. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2, and find a whole schedule in your progr guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. joining us from virginia is caitlin jewitt from -- a political science professor at virginia tech and the author of the book "the primary rules: parties, voters and presidential nominations."

let us begin with the situation we are in the democratic party. president biden dropped his reelection bid, and it would appear that his vice president, kamala harris, is the presumptive nominee. are there federal rules in place by the party to deal with this situation? guest: there are. there are party rules in place, though the nomination process is harvard -- governed by parties and private organizations. there is no federal or state law or constitutional mandate that dictates how this will unfold. it is up to the democratic party. host: what rules do they have in place? guest: the democratic national committee's rules committee helped hammer this out because this is an unusual and unprecedented situation. beginning in about an hour the delegates to the national convention will do an online and

virtual vote for the nominee. and vice president harris is the only candidate to qualify for that ballot. as soon as those delegates finish casting their ballots she will move from being the presumptive nominee to the democratic party's nominee for president. host: these rules adopted by the party, they were done so by a vote of 157 to three. so there does not appear to be much pushback within the party. can you explain? guest: yes. there is some discussion while the primaries were unsold -- unfolding should biden resign or not. then of course after the debate performance that did not go well for president biden, the discussion around that picked up, and we saw a lot of calls for president biden to step aside and let someone else run on the democratic ticket.

and so, there was a lot of speculation will it be a contested convention, would be chaos will it be the democratic party fighting itself, but once president biden officially announced that he would not be running for a nomination we saw the party coalesce around vice president harris very quickly. and, essentially ensure that will not -- that they would not be a fight for who would be the nominee. host: what about the party opening up the nomination process initially saying that if you qualified you could submit your qualifications to the party, but you have to do so and prove your legitimacy of a candidate by a certain day before today. so before they started the virtual roll call vote. if you wanted to challenge the vice president as the nominee, what did you have to do? guest: you had to have a

petition which 300 delegates signed but no more than 50 could come from the same state. essentially you had to show that you had delicate support that was widespread and not just concentrated in one state, but one -- but no other candidate other than vice president harassment those qualifications. she got 99% of delegates signing her petition. host: that is the press release sent out by the dnc and the chair announcing yesterday that the vice president, 3900 23 delegates from across the country petition to put vice president harris on the ballot for the democratic nomination. and the vice presidency. the support of 99% of participating delegates. who were those that participated? guest: these are delegates that are selected either directly in the primary and caucus process or in state and county party

conventions. they are generally party enthusiasts. they might buy -- they might be loyal biden supporters and campaign contributors. they are party activists in each state sent to the national convention to vote on the presidential nomination. host: what do you mean by pledge delegates? guest: pledge delegates are the delegates that, slightly less than 4000 this year, that are sent to represent the voices of the people and the results of the primaries and caucuses. and they pledge in good conscious to support the candidates that they were sent to support. the vast majority is of these delegates were biden supporters because he had very little to no competition in the primaries. but that is distinct from what the democratic party calls automatic delegates which many people know as superdelegates. the superdelegates are automatic

delegates -- or automatic delegates are party notables, the state party chair, democratic members of congress, democratic governors and former democratic presidents like bill clinton and barack obama. and they do not have to vote in accordance with the primaries and carcasses -- caucuses or the results. they are free to support any candidate that they would like. host: had there been a challenge to the vice president being nominee, what role would pledge delegates play in the first round of voting versus automatic delegates? when and at what point would they play a role? guest: following the 2016 nomination the democratic party change the rules for the automatic delegates because they had concerns that the automatic delegates, about 750 elites could decide the nomination and

the democratic party realized that people did not think it was fair and transparent so they change the rules. now the rule is that automatic delegates are only allowed to vote on the first ballot. if it is clear that they will not sway the outcome. if a candidate already essentially has the nomination locked up and the automatic delegates will not have an influential say. if it seems like it could be a contested convention and a candidate might not -- might not receive a majority the automatic delegates are not allowed to vote until the second ballot. host: today the virtual roll call begins. who gets to vote? guest: because so many of the pledged delegates signed the petition for vice president harris to be on the ballot, the dnc said that automatic delegates will also be able to participate because there will be one ballot and one candidate. host: how will this virtual roll

call work? guest: it begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern time and it will finish monday at 6:00. delicate will -- delegates will be voting virtually. they have put out many security features to make sure that it is a secure nomination and election. they will vote virtually. they need to do it sometime between this morning and monday evening and, as of monday evening we should officially have a democratic nominee. host: they'd had one in 2020 during the pandemic. we are not in a pandemic. why did the party decided they would continue with this method of voting? guest: the democratic national convention is scheduled to begin on august 19 and there is some concern over ballot certification that some states, mainly ohio, that the states need to know which candidates will be on the ballot for august

19th. and they notified the democrats in may that there was an issue here. the ohio legislature passed a bill to change that deadline to september 1, so it seems like they would have been fine to proceed with just nominating at the convention rather than doing it virtually, but ohio has a republican secretary of state who has assured the democrats it would be fine but the party is being cautious and doing the virtual roll call to nominate early enough before the initial deadline to make sure that there are no legal challenges and that the democratic candidate is on the ballot in all 50 states. host: this virtual roll call will take place over the coming days without a running mate for the vice president. how is that possible that they can vote without knowing who else is on the ticket? mandy: well at the national -- guest: at the national

conventions there is always a separate vote for the president and vice president. that does not change the situation. at all. it has always been that the delegates nominate the president without having nominated the vice president as well. we do expect, however that the vice president will be announced before august 7 to ensure that it is all announced before ohio's original ballot certification deadline. host: and so there will not be a rollcall vote, a separate one for the vice presidential candidate on the democratic ticket? guest: it appears this year that it will not happen that way. there will be ceremonial and celebratory, that is the language that the party is using, votes on the nominee, the presidential and vice presidential nominee at the

convention. but the convention chair will, once harris makes her selection will essentially say that is the vice presidential candidate this time around and we will see the ceremonial votes in a few weeks. host: we will see a representative from each state stand up on the floor the convention and, as you said, in a symbolic way put forth the delegates in nomination for the vice president. will this impact the convention? will it look different? guest: it should not look different to most people, those watching on television. since 1972, the convention has been less about selecting the nominee and more about sort of coming together around the nominee. and showing party unity and trying to pitch the party's platform.

it has not been a place where these decisions are ahsed -- hashed out in modern times. host: let's get to questions. roland, independent. caller: i am listening and it seems like the democratic convention and all of this other stuff is a big mess. it just shows that the common man is not voting for these leaders, all of these elite delegates that you mention. it is just crazy. let me finish. and the way they treated joe biden, and i am not a supporter of him at all, but his issue was not his physical issue, it was mental. look at franklin d roosevelt. he was in a wheelchair and

served for four years. they should've put joe biden in a wheelchair or with a cane to continue serving, but he had other problems. he had serious mental problems. host: he said it is a mass and there are yearly delegates voting -- elite delegates voting in the nomination process. can you address that? guest: it feels like a return to pre-1972 when it was delegates and party leaders choosing the nominees at the national convention. that in many ways had to happen by the nature of when president biden said he would not seek reelection. because there was no way for primaries and caucuses and the states to hold elections between the beginning of july and essentially the beginning of august when they needed a nominee. and so the democratic party i

think recognizes this and has been saying we are going to do this in a transparent and orderly fashion and proceed in the best way that we can wreck rising that there was no -- recognizing that there was no opportunity to hold primaries and allow citizens to voice a preference. host: linda in connecticut. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i am glad i came behind the last caller because i am a person who has worked on local, state, and federal campaigns. i wanted to say for every person that goes to a state convention or federal convention for the democratic party, there are dozens and dozens of workers who sit in the campaign offices and stuff envelopes and do all kinds of small bookkeeping types jobs and they volunteer on a daily

basis. those people represent all of the people who work on the campaign, who were active go outside. it is a reflection of the party and its workers as a whole. host: let's take that comment. guest: absolutely. the parties are built on grassroots. there are so many volunteers and local activists that are essentially the backbone of these campaigns. and the national conventions are a coleman nation that draw just a few of the people together to represent the party. i know that over the years the parties have increased the amount of delegates but they are also limit -- often limited by the number of delegates that they can have by just a culture -- logistical challenges of the city that host them. host: virginia. independent. caller: how many american cities

-- citizens voted for kamala. that would be zero. stole my vote for biden. so you basically stole america. the elites do not get to choose. you do not get to pick the president who you want to run. the american voters are supposed to vote. you have stolen the whole democratic vote. i do not understand what just happened. guest: the democratic party has procedures in place and party rules that govern what happens

if a candidate is unable to continue running once they are officially the nominee. host: go ahead. guest: they have rules and procedures. host: caitlin jewitt is the author of a book "the primary rules: parties, voters and presidential nominations." can you explain the difference between how it works, the delegates work for the democratic party which you already talked about versus the republican party. they just wrapped up their convention. guest: the differences between the parties because again these processes are governed by the parties which are private organizations and have their own rules. the republican delegates are bound to vote for the candidate that they were sent to the convention to represent where as the democrats just need to vote in good conscience.

it is actually easier for the democratic delegates to shift their preference of vote at the convention or the virtual rollcall as we would see that it would be for the republicans. of course we do not know how it would unfold for the republicans but -- because we have never seen this. it is possible that the rules will be changed or altered if the republican party was in a situation like this. host: louisville. democratic caller. caller: good morning professor, i worked in a university too, so i always address people who have a higher degree by professor. i was curious, how do delegates get picked. i have never really thought about it since the conversation came up, are they elected, how are they picked. and will there be a record at the rollcall when it is done so we can view the vote. i live in kentucky which is a

very red state. and that always just piques my interest and i thought you could answer my question. thank you. guest: delegates are selected because of american politics and nothing can be simple and it depends on the state. it is through the local party apparatus. if you are interested in being a delicate -- delegate that is something to check in with your local party. often they are activists and in some states they are directly elected in the primaries and in other states they are chosen at state convention or district convention and then they move up through the steps of conventions at the state level before being sent to the national convention. host: are you talking about pledged delegates or unpledged. guest: unpledged. the automatic delegates are

superdelegates and they are the elected officials who know that they will be going to the convention. host: so they are automatic that is why they are called automatic delegates? guest: and the democratic party has criteria for those, and elected democratic member of congress, democratic governor, state party chair and and they have a category for former notables who are former democratic presidents or vice president. host: brian in las vegas. democratic caller. caller: hello. my question is with the divide in the country becoming wider and with the wealth gap becoming wider, why would the democratic party not planned for something like this? right now it looks like the aristocrat -- aristocratic class of the democratic party is picking who they want to be the next president. guest: i think the democratic party position and the pushback from the democratic party would

be that these delegates are local party activists. that they make an effort to have a diverse set of delegates representing different social economical classes and they make sure that they have gender balance in these delegates as well. and so it is certainly a select group of people. but the democratic party would disagree that it is an aristocratic class of people. there are certainly ordinary people who serve as delegates. host: explain the history little bit more of the democratic party and why they change the process after 1972 to address concerns like you just heard. guest: in many ways, 2024 is feeling reminiscent of 1968 when president lyndon johnson competed in the new hampshire primary seeking renomination and he won the new hampshire primary

but not as much as expected. so at that point, this was in march of 1968, he announced that he would not seek renomination and there were other candidates in the democratic race competing in the primaries. but at the convention that summer, which happened to be in chicago where the democrats will meet in august this year, the delegates selected vice president hubert humphrey as the nominee even though he had not participated in a single primary. that was the democratic delegates, and the party elite deciding who would be the nominee and ignoring what happened in the primaries and caucuses. and in chicago in 1968 there were sizable protests going on outside the convention hall both over the process but over the vietnam war and the democratic party policy on the vietnam war.

at that national convention because they saw the fissure erupting and was concerned they created what was known as the mcgovern-fraser commission. it did several things to reform the primary process. the main thing it did was that it tightened the link between the votes of the primaries and caucuses and the delegates. so the delegates were now pledged to represent what happened in the primaries and caucuses. and so delegates could not just go to the convention and vote for who they wanted. they were sent to reflect to the voters in their state wanted and that was the democratic party saying that we want to hear from the people. we want timely and meaningful participation for voters. that is seen as the beginning of the modern era of presidential

nominations. host: and today's election and this process that we are in right now in 2024. what do you make of some republican saying there could be legal challenges to what the democratic party is doing? guest: i understand that people are outraged or upset or confused about this happening because it is not the typical process and not the way it typically unfolds. the supreme court has affirmed on numerous occasions that the nominating processes of the priority -- of the party is a private party process. and from my understanding there is no legal basis to challenge this process. people can be upset about it, but the democratic party only had a presumptive nominee in joe biden, they did not have a nominee because the vote had not happened yet. host: caitlin jewitt is the

author of the book "the primary rules: the parties, voters and -- we appreciate the conversation. thank you. host: after the break two opposing views of president biden's proposal to overhaul the supreme court. up first kelly shackelford, president and ceo of the religious freedom institute, first liberty institute and then after that gabe roth. we will be right back. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span 2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. 3:30 p.m. eastern, joshua clinton on the rise of public poland on political issues.

-- public polling on political issues. july 4 celebration featuring your reading of the declaration of independence by actors portraying historical characters including abigail adams, benjamin franklin and thomas jefferson, hosted by the national archives. and want american history tv series historic convention speeches featuring notable remarks by presidential nominees and other political figures from the past several decades. this week, jesse jackson spoke at the 1988 democratic national convention in atlanta after losing the party nomination to massachusetts governor michael dukakis. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span 2 and find a fu schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history.

c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. keep up with the biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download for free today or visit our website, c-span.org/c-spannow. your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has

provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we've been your primary source for capitol hill. providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to work policy is debated and decided all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, already five years and counting powered by cable.

washington journal continues. host: tuning at this morning's kelly shackleford, president and ceo of the first liberty institute here to talk about ideas of reforming court. you wrote an op-ed with the former attorney general bill barr on fox news earlier this week calling the proposal by president biden dangerous. what did you mean? guest: really this is a continuation of a process that started as soon as president biden came into office. they began looking at court packing and other ways to control the court because they were not happy with a few of the opinions. if you look at the court even this term, almost half the opinions were unanimous and if you look at the others weren't, most of those weren't ideologically split. so it is really a bizarre kind of hissy fit i guess you could

say in a way being upset with some of the opinions of the court and then wanting to totally change the structure of the court. we are talking about changing things that have never been changed since the constitution was passed, and these things that they are proposing are incredibly dangerous because many of them would really destroy the rule of law and in particular, we would lose the independence of the judiciary, which is not only crucial, it is something the american people are strongly behind. the last poll on this last year showed that 91% of the country thought the independence of the judiciary was critical to their freedoms. and they are right. and the founders would link the same thing which is why they put certain things in the constitution like the fact that these federal judges are for life. so any attempt to change that is not only unconstitutional if you don't do it through an amendment to the constitution, but it

reeks severe damage not only on the system of justice but our willingness to accept that it is independent and not politically based because of the new system that they are trying to put into place. it's a very dangerous thing. we could go into the particulars, but everything they are offering really, the only exception would be court packing, which they had bills in the first two years of president biden's term and they had a commission that was looking at that, and that just takes a vote of congress and the president, that would be incredibly dangerous. once you do a court pack you really have lost your court forever. it becomes an appendage of the political branch of the legislature and the independence of the judiciary is over. whatever rights you think you have, you don't because all the

political power would have to do is simply at justices enough to take away whatever rights you think you had. these things they are talking about our radical, and i think they would be incredibly damaging to our country. host: what specific change would pack the court? guest: all they would have to do is and four justices. in the first two years -- host: where is that in the proposal by the president? guest: the new proposal they've moved off of that but i don't think these proposes they are proposing now, none of them are going to get through between now and the election. this is to push up the issue that their base has been very committed to. they want to restructure the court. they want to take over the court in certain ways. and the ones that are proposing the term limits and the ethics,

these proposals are things that really can't be done without a constitutional amendment. the easiest thing to do when they obviously know that is not going to happen is to pack the courts. at just takes a majority vote and this was one of the major proposals that the commission was looking at. i think that is where they are going to end up if they continue with this move and realize they are not going to get a constitutional amendment, that would take two thirds of the house, two thirds of the senate and then ratification by the reports of the states. that is not going to happen. some of these proposals, they said they can do term limits in a clever way by not specifically removing a justice, but by putting them in some sort of different status. even expert on the left from berkeley and others say no, you can't do that.

the term limit idea would run right against not only the constitution, but many court cases going back over 100 years, essentially, that said judges have lifetime tenure because of what is written in article three of the constitution. this idea that they are going to somehow move the justices, it is not an authority that they have. they have authority over the lower courts. cost is created what they call the inferior courts, but the supreme court is in the constitution itself and they can't those types of things without a constitutional amendment. host: from the president's op-ed on what he is proposing now, a constitutional amendnt barring immunity for crimes of former president while in office. this would take two thirds of congress and ratification by the ates. term limits for the justices, 18 years, and a binding code of conduct for the supreme court. that is what the president recently proposed.

we are taking your questions and comments on that this morning. republican dial in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us with your thoughts. confidence in the supreme court according to a poll that was done in july. when they ask those that they pulled about their confidence levels, 44% said that they have some confidence. 40% that hardly any confidence, and 16%, only 16% said they had a great deal of confidence in the supreme court. when hp asked about the view of supreme court justices, 70% said they shape law to fit their ideology were 28% said fair and impartial.

could these reforms of term limits and ethics codes help the view of the supreme court by americans? guest: i think they would do the exact opposite. we have an independent judiciary, and if you change that you are going to have the opposite. let's think of term limits just as a policy matter. lily white blood going to do if you do that is you are going to create political judges. you are going to create judges who, number one, you're going to have this political process where the president is picking two each term and is going to be part of the political process. additionally, think of justices who are not independent but are going out and they know they are going out. obviously that would affect many of their opinions and their physicians because they are thinking of the jobs they are going to have next and who is going to be happy with what they are doing. now they are courting fabio with

regard to their future career. the founders thought through all this and they look at these options and they specifically knew it was very important for the judiciary to have this lifetime tenure. you don't find anybody else in the constitution with that. it is a very valuable thing. the last thing you need is congress having ethics requirements for a court that they don't even have for themselves and having congress controlling the court, again, they don't have that control over the supreme court. but if they did, think of what that would mean. let's look at what has happened over the past month or so. you have judge aileen cannon down in florida who is a federal district court judge who is over the trump documents case. and recently in a legal opinion she said that jack smith, the

special prosecutor was not appointed correctly because he was not approved by congress and that is unconstitutional. people can disagree about that and i'm sure on the court of appeals they will be arguments going up that it is a very accepted legal opinion. in one week, and think about this, judges hardly ever get an ethics complaint for what they are doing because they are not unethical in what they are doing. she had over 1000 ethics complaints in one week. it is obviously an orchestrated effort, and you think that is bad when we don't have these fools with the supreme court talking about politicizing something and creating less confidence in the court, it is a really, really bad idea and again, i think people who are upset with really just a few opinions of the court are taking incredibly extreme measures that i think would damage the court permanently, if not lose the

rule of law. host: let's get our viewers involved. ed in pennsylvania, republican. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead, question or comment? caller: i have a question. i myself, i republican and it's very interesting to hear mr. shackleford talked this morning given his background. we are talking about things that would deface the court, but he doesn't seem to have any problem with the federalist society and his own organization efforts to gain the court and engage in court packing of their own. all these things that politicize supreme court justices and make people lose faith in the rule of law as mr. shackleford has described this morning have been the culmination right now of a decade-long effort by our party, mr. shackleford's party and my

own, the republican party, to control the supreme court. nobody elected this, -- leonard leo. congress did not anticipate mr. shackleford or leonard leo. it would threaten their investments. aileen cannon -- host: i'm going to take your points and have mr. shackleford respond to them. guest: i think the founders very much consider the process that we've been going through for the past 200 years, over 200 years. the idea was the president was to appoint -- the president is obviously an elected official. that is a politically elected official. they knew the president would do that and that people would speak to the president about who they thought were the good justices. that is what happens always in our country. then the senate would become involved in having to approve that, advice and consent.

i don't think this is anything different. we've always had that approach. people have always had their two cents for the president and said here is who we think. and you would have different people under a democrat or a republican president. that is nothing unusual. what is unusual is trying to change the structure of the constitution in somewhat of an experiment. 250 years later, when a number of things that are being proposed, if you look at what has happened when you've done these things in other countries, you really lost the respect of the court. you've lost the independence of the judiciary, and it is something that i think if people could separate themselves from not liking an opinion here or there, that would probably solve a lot of this. many people want this because there is really a few opinions that they don't like. that is a really bad reason for

completely upending our structure and our constitutional republic that has served us so well for 250 years. i think the american people will always be against this if you look at the specific proposals, and you allow them to take the judicial term limits which would, again, they are trying to get around it. i think it clearly requires a constitutional amendment. but it is not even really an equal attempt to have judicial term limits. it starts by getting rid of the longest-serving justices. it is amazing that the first three of the two most conservative. that's not an accident. this is a partisan move to get rid of the most conservative justices on the court and replace them with more liberal justices. talk about politicizing the

court, this whole attempt is a partisan move. it is not something that came from both sides coming together and maybe setting something that would work in the future they think better for our country, which still i think is very dangerous because i think the founders really thought through this well and i think their system is the very best choice of those available. host: we are talking to the president and ceo of first liberty institute, the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated to defending religious liberty for all americans according to your website. robert in minnesota, democratic caller. caller: yes, good morning. i think the man you've got on there is steering the public the wrong way. we are trying to get honesty in our judicial system, and that one time there was honesty but you know what is going on now,

they are accepting money, motorhomes, what have you. they are breaking the law. the law doesn't pertain to them. they work for the people, that is who they work for. they don't work for republicans or democrats, they work for the people. host: you are shaking your head when he talked about the alleged ethical violations. guest: this is one of the things that i think has been so sad to see some of these extreme groups on the left fund journalism groups to run attack after attack after attack on justices. and the vast amount of those are beyond completely baseless. probably the leading one is the tax on -- the attacks on justice thomas because he has a friend, harlan crow and harlan crow has a plane and he would go on his plane to his summer home to visit, to spend a week. they are friends.

the judicial conference did not require and say that you report that on the ethics form, riding on an airplane with somebody. that has changed now since the controversy, the judicial commission has changed that where it is now reported that the idea that justice thomas did something unethical because he didn't report something that wasn't supposed to be reported is an example of the types of attacks that were occurring. we were collecting these daily from these groups that were funded by the left that running these articles. they were sometimes averaging 25 articles a day across the country. so when you see on the court over and over again, and by the way, these things that they attack alito and thomas for, justice ginsburg and sotomayor and others on the left have done all these things and more and no articles written on those. it is clearly a partisan attempt to lower the respect for the court, to delegitimize the court in order to then have more

control over the court. i think it is damaging to our country and it is really unfair to the justices. in none of these articles did you ever have the thing that we would all worry about, which is it any justice was given anything and then had somebody appear before the court that had given them things and then they didn't recuse themselves. there's never been a story on anything like that. and the justices, even take the justices they are attacking most, clarence thomas because he is the most conservative on the court. i don't think anybody who knows justice thomas at all would think that anybody would influence justice thomas to do anything but what he thinks is right. host: one about, and this is forms.com, thomas never repaid a substantial portion of the $237,000 loan from a wealthy friend. thomas attended at least two

donor summits for the network, rising political organization and participated in a dinner with high-level donors without disclosing his appearance. the pro-public up also reported he cultivated a relationship with the brothers with repeated trips to the bohemian globe, a private retreat for wealthy men. and they reported that during his tenure on the supreme court, he has accepted gifts including 38 destination vacations, 26 private jet flights, vip sports events, and a standing invitation for a private golf club. you said other justices have done the same. what have they done? guest: you got justice sotomayor who when she has gone to speak had people asking them to buy a certain amount of books for her to speak. you have all kinds of examples like this that have been laid out. there was a recent article that lays out a number of examples and points out that these things are going on because there is

nothing in violation of anything with them. and again, these rules that they are trying to come up with, the idea that you can't go and speak at an event if you are a justice and then it is a matter of who is there at the event, you are allowed to speak, the idea that you can't, and the way they talk about plane rides, a lot of time they're talking about harlan crow who is a very close friend of estes thomas. -- justice thomas. it has never been an issue that you can't ride on a plane with a friend to their home or whatever else. this is something that congressmen do all the time. it was not required to be reported until just a few years ago, the judicial commission added that. and justice thomas has certainly has and will from now on report that along with the other justices who never reported being on a plane with somebody to go somewhere for an event. it is common that people want justices to speak at events and come to events.

and i think it would be a damaging thing for the country if the justices were all not allowed to speak. i think they have great thinking, they carry a great history with the court. if justices disagree i think it is ok to talk about some of these issues in public. i think it is a good thing for our country. so trying to smear all of them and make them into -- there is no example of any such thing in any case, think it does great damage to the court and it is all one sided. i think this is a really bad, dangerous approach where we are trying to partisanship our courts. we are trying to make airport much more political so people will say well, they are more political because the opinions. i don't think that we've always had very controversial opinions were people on both sides. in fact, if you look at the conservatives, conservatives don't feel like three of the

justices are really that strongly conservative. talking about chief justice roberts and cavanaugh and amy coney barrett. you've got disagreement all over the place. that's ok. but to begin to smear the court and lose respect for the court with really baseless allegations like these i think does no one any favors. i think if you look at all the justices from the left and from the right these are people who come to their opinions because they really believe in what they are writing. they are trying to look to what the constitution or the federal law says. one change that has caused a lot of this discomfort certainly on the left is really for the first time in the last six or seven years, we have a supreme court who are originalists and who think their job is to find the original meaning of the text and as a result of that it has led to some changes in opinion, certainly, and that is where some of the angst and some of

the criticism comes from. that criticism is normal. criticizing the judges is fine for their opinions but trying to go after them personally, their spouses, all these kinds of attacks i think is really dangerous and i think it is damaging to the country. host: let's hear from frank in new york, democratic caller. caller: mr. shackelford, earlier you indicated that the current court is not politicized, but the polls that c-span throughout -- put up show that 70% of the population thinks that it is politicized. so really you are just stating your opinion here. it is all just your opinion. you obviously happy with the decisions that were made recently. of course, because they were decisions that you agree with. i have a question for you. merrick garland, what is your

opinion? host: go ahead and ask your question. caller: so my question, what is your opinion on the way that mitch mcconnell handled the merrick garland issue during the obama administration? host: let's get that question. guest: the approach, you go back for 100 years, what you find is that if you have a party, if you have a senate that is split from the president in the last year of a presidency and acp comes open, the senate is a political body. let's say a republican is president. they let the election determine if people have an opinion on them.

if you have the same party in charge of the house, the senate and the presidency, the tradition has always been, and again, this is politics, that they would put the person through, that they would actually fill that seat. that is what has happened. if you look at the past and you look through the examples, that has been laid out with regard to the court and what they do in the process. and it depends upon if there is a difference between the parting of the president and the party of the senate, because one appoints and one has to approve. so these stash those same parties that typically will fill the seat will wait till the election. host: winchester, virginia, independent. caller: yes. i have always been of the frame of mind that the extreme right and the extreme left don't bother me with whatever laws they pass because the court itself would keep things

correct. but not with this court. this court is abjectly corrupt, justice thomas has been bought and paid for. it truly seems like the federalist society is telling these judges how to rule, not just picking. and my question for you is explain how the reading of the 14th amendment could come to any other conclusion than the fact that donald trump cannot run for office, yet they allowed this to happen? are you there? host: go ahead. guest: let me start with something that has been said. again, there is no evidence that any justice has ever accepted anything with regard to any case that has come before the court, and somebody asked earlier about the polling. the polling that was done within

the last year showed that 70% of the countries against term limits because they see it as a violation of the independence of the court and the separation of powers. the reason you are having a lot of negative views of the court is because of all the nasty again, i don't think if anybody is really being fair in any of the justices reaching their opinions except for what they really believe is the right answer in the constitution or the statutes. given the idea that we take people off the ballot and not allow citizens of the united states to spoke on the leading candidate of a party, that is incredibly dangerous. the last time that happened was right before the civil war.

what people are wanting sometimes with so much energy because of political views, i think people need to sit back and do you really think these justices are issuing opinions they don't agree with or do you think this is there judicial philosophy? they are trying to do their best to interpret what the constitution says. most of the time, they are agreeing with each other. 47% of the cases decided were unanimous. you have what is a small number of cases where there is vigorous disagreement. i think this attack and trying to delegitimize the court is very dangerous. we start tinkering with the court, we will want to go back to the wonderful system our founders put in place.

host: you mentioned in poll you saw 70% say they opposed term limits. 58% of all surveyed said they would support limits. the rest said they didn't know or neither supported or opposed it. 69% said they supported term limits while 6% opposed them, your response? guest: the pole i am referring to, there is a website with the history, changes in the court, what happens to those. links to polling that i am referencing. that website is supreme2.com. in that pole they ask if people want term limits, if that would

be a violation or endangering the independence of the judiciary. it was either 69% or 70%. they could see the pole right there that was done. i think most people ask these questions. they probably never thought through these issues. there has been some very extensive thinking. they make conclusions about this. the idea that we are changing our constitution and our full system of justice because people don't like a few opinion. it is a better approach to talk about these things and argue. what joe biden is doing is trying to change the presidential immunity thing. it is the first time we have had to deal with that issue.

the president doesn't have absolute immunity. he has to have some immunity. if he doesn't, they could have prosecutors in conservative counties begin to prosecute president biden because of the negligent homicide of soldiers in afghanistan. you could go after president obama for bombing innocent people by mistake. those become criminal. the idea that you have to have some immunity. maybe they haven't drawn those lines perfectly at. over time, new cases come up and maybe they could be better or they did it exactly right. this idea that because you don't like the opinion, we will possibly ruin our court as has happened in other countries is really the wrong approach. if you are really being honest and you are betting these

justices, they are doing their best, come to the right conclusion on what the law says, if you don't like it, let's have a public discussion about those issues and let's see if we could put more justices in the future on this approach or philosophy. that would do great damage to our country. host: thank you for the conversation. host: up next, a conversation with a long-time advocate for reform of the supreme court. we will be right back.

>> saturday, american history tv features historic speeches, from other political figures of the past decade. this saturday, jesse jackson calls for party unity after losing the 1988 presidential nomination. >> if we divide, we cannot win. we must find common ground. >> watch historic convention speeches saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern c-span2. watch the live campaign 2024 corage of the democratic national convention august 19 through the 22nd. watch the republican national convention anytime on the website. >> book tv every sunday on

c-span2 discussing nonfiction books. coverage of the 2024 reading festival from the franklin roosevelt library in hyde park. new deal programs, and the jazz age in new york. the american enterprise institute with his book american covenant, the power of the u.s. constitution and its ability to bring american together. michanovernor gretchen whitmer with her book, life, leadership, and her journey in politics. watch book tv, find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: bloomberg was first with this story that the wall street journal reporter who has been imprisoned by russia is said to be freed in a major prisoner swap, along with evan gershkovich is paul whelan. a multi country prisoner swap. more on that coming up. we will get your reaction to that news in open forum. we are continuing our conversation, joining us this morning is the executive director of fix the court. your group has advocated for reform to the supreme court. did president biden go far enough? guest: it's definitely a good start.

we were pleased to see the president is on board with these reforms, 70%, 80% of the country favors an enforceable ethics code with popular policies that make sense. it's very consistent with the where the american people want to see the court. they are acting more political, less ethically. certain guardrails should be established with more traditional background where they weren't serving for 30 years like they are now. the average is 16 years up until recently. i think anyone of us has been reading any article in the press , the ability lasted longer than that. it is a really important step for president biden to think about. host: nathan lewis is a lawyer,

he writes the high term limits are a waste, alexander hamilton wrote in federalist 78 that the judiciary was the weakest of the three department. the periodical appointments could be fatal to their necessary independent -- independence. experience on the bench and with them that term limit would quickly eradicate. guest: opponents of term limits love throwing out federalist 78. to me, what we have here is the justices are exerting political power. the idea that you would take away their independence. if you read the constitution, it is a little bit more important

than the federalist papers. you have the senate, all politically elected officials confirming the justices. maybe we have a kennedy, o'connor, in the middle. if you read the founding document, of course they will be political, based on what their political views are. you will not have a republican president. you will not have a democratic president, the random flips we have seen with stephen's, that is happenstance, that is the outlier. the court is a political body, how do you make it less political? by having turnover. host: you have proposed increased access. guest: c-span has been on top of

that for years. ryan has been amazing on that. that is something i'm very excited we have live audio not just in the supreme court but every federal or of appeals on the shoulders of giants on that e. host: c-span has repeatedly asked the court to allow cameras into the courtroom to do what we do congress, show the process unfolding, uninterrupted and no commentary. 18 yearerm limit for justices, enforceable code of ethics, adopt financial disclosure rules , more openness around public appearances, what do you mean? guest: a lot of the justices are

appearing and we only find out about them months or years later. just like when i worked for politicians, i would say governor asked -- x, the supreme court could do that too. justice breyer is an example. if you have justice sotomayor or justice thomas speaking at the federal society or one of these other groups, it is important for the public to know about it. i think the supreme court police could manage that. the justices meeting with people in their chambers. this is the historical society. if you remember 18 months ago, the historical society was being

used to get to influence the justices. him and the political operatives use the supreme court historical society to get close to the justices to influence them on issues of choice. i think knowing a little bit more about who the justices are speaking with, i just found an appearance justice jackson made. i.e. mailed the supreme court about a week ago. it's important to know who they are meeting with. host: what is this incident you asked to clarify? guest: justice jackson attended a dinner with the head of the

u.s. patent and trademark office. the head of the u.s. patent and trademark office is named the litigant of the supreme court. there is a picture of him with justice jackson. there's many cases where he is the lead litigant. her personal capacity on the one hand. if you had justice sotomayor meeting with merrick garland. they might be friends even though it is a friendly event, because they are litigants, you want to be sure no gifts are being exchanged, that this is a one time thing hosted. if this is only a new thing that

justice jackson and her would have met because of her position , we are all worried about harlan crow, he only became justice thomas because he was a justice. the timing is a factor. host: we will go to alan in sterling colorado, republican. we are listening to you, question or comment? guest: a little bit of both, where does the speaker think our justices are not following the constitution? we have imbalances and the supreme court is the major balance and check for irregularity from our constitution.

they need to follow the constitution regardless of whether they are republican, democrat, or independent. guest: in terms of when they are not following the constitution, that is other organizations concerns. my concern is about are they following federal ethics laws. other other federal ethics laws that could be drafted? when someone like justice thomas or justice jackson doesn't file a disclosure accurately, there is a federal law that says they will referred that individual to the justice department for an investigation. that justice could be fined, a lawsuit is filed against them. similarly, there is a federal refusal statute that says any

justice shall disqualify him self. to me, the way i read the constitution, congress establishes one court, the supreme court. congress sets its docket, it's changed how its docket has developed. the fact that it is 100% discretionary, that is a decision congress made. how much money it gets each year, the number of justices. this is just my organization, there are other organizations that deal with the environment, marriage, health care, all of that. i'm more worried about the justices following ethical guidelines, not the courts.

host: on president biden's reform proposal, the leader of the republican party had this to say on the senate floor. sen. mcconnell: the president says he wants term limit, never mind what the constant says. never mind the senate. president biden has left his allies in the current composition of the court. hange constitution. what the president is actually proposing is a process for people other than justices, again, the constitution be damned, the fact is that president biden himself stood up to investigate whether to change

the supreme court. this morning the president backed the commission for the insightful analysis that supposedly informed his reform. never mind this cochaired by one of his closest political confidants didn't recommend he do anything. guest: because of the executive order creating the commission that says don't give us recommendation. most of the commission went on record saying we want ethics reform. there are op-ed's from larry tribe, all of these people on the commission. that they were not allowed to

give recommendation. to the other points, this ethics code is something that almost existed for the supreme court. after watergate there were a lot of good government rules being put into effect. also laws that would establish the ethics commission that could have investigated any unethical behavior of the justices. unfortunately, they lobbied against their inclusion. we voted for five people, jesse helms, barry goldwater, joe biden, pat lahey. we are talking about a bipartisan bill 45-50 years ago. there should be a way to file a complaint, it is not a radical

idea. it was put into place before mitch mcconnell's favor court, the ninth circuit, they said we will just take what the ninth circuit is doing. that was the way it developed. it is no more dangerous than having the senate ethics committee or house ethics committee. host: we will go to nikki, rockaway park, new york, independent. caller: good morning, america. i wonder sometimes how did our nine supreme court justices when there are 13 judicial district? i also wonder how did any other federal judge including aileen cannon, donald trump's court master who presides over his

last criminal trial was decided to be a special master over the supreme court. it just gave a current sitting president, joe biden, immunity from any criminal act including removing the supreme court today. he could be prosecuted. guest: my organization doesn't deal directly with supreme court opinions. it should be a good steward of moral leadership. on your first point about nine justices currently, the country has expanded since they were initially created. it is not difficult for justice roberts to oversee one circuit.

other justices are seeing more than one circuit. the argument has been made, america needs to have more justices. i don't necessarily buy that argument. i think that is sort of to the notion that we will be a joint democracy. i would lab -- rather our elected officials moving forward and whatever the supreme court is. it is an interesting thing to think about. i don't think it has any bearing on the court. host: scott in lincoln, nebraska, democratic caller. caller: i disagree with you there, we need more judges to represent, maybe preferably one per state. that number would represent, have a good feeling to it is

what i'm trying to say. you mentioned ethics. i'm calling in a question how competent some of these judges are. this person is not competent, whatever it comes to something else, maybe a traffic ticket. i think accepting gifts, bribes, spending that much time when you are in charge of something very important, when you are looked up to by your peers, somebody with that much power, we need to make sure they are competent and they understand how fragile something like that is, especially when it is a handful of them. we need some more judges. that way they could monitor each other's activity. host: we will take your point. do you think there should be more justices? guest: i mean no.

i think i was pretty clear earlier. if you have 50 justices on the supreme court, one per state. you have paddles of justices, that would violate the one supreme court law of the constitution. in terms of ethics and gifts, the problem we have, if bennie thompson asks justice thomas to recuse himself in the january 6 cases, which he could have, it would only be justice thomas deciding that recusal motion. the idea that you as an individual are masters of understanding your own bias is ridiculous. this goes all the way back, no man should be a judge in his own case.

that includes decisions of impartiality. i feel like the idea of having other outside officials, other justices, that would -- just like in the lower court write a report and recommend remedies for discipline for the justices should they violate their oath. host: let's hear from kathy. caller: three points, the democrats didn't have a problem with the supreme court until the left was no longer in control. and the conservatives had a say. the only way to counter the weaponization of the justice

department and to counter the executive orders is the supreme court. sandra day o'connor said years ago that sooner or later the court was going to have to address affirmative action. they have done that. one thing i think is odd is no one is talking about that decision by the supreme court. it is off the radar. i do agree with a lot of things. thank you. guest: my organization has been around 10 years. the supreme court has had a majority of justices appointed by republican presidents since 1969. i think there have been a lot of reactionary opinion on the right that i probably don't agree with.

i think some of the opinions that are more left-leaning, might not agree with some of those as well. to me, it is less about is the left or right winning but are the justices issuing opinions based on political preferences? despite the fact that kelly told you this half an hour ago, half of these opinions are unanimous. the cases that matter, it is not like all cases re: will. no one cares about the affirmative action case anymore, it is 9-0. the justices are political because they are acting politically, they should be subject to the same ethical guardrails that politicians

have. to give a quick example, hopefully there will be a companion in the senate to restrict the gifts that the lower court justices have. the loopholes are giant norma's -- ginormous. that is really what my organization is to sort of as people are realizing the justices are political, requiring them to follow some of the same rules the political branches have to follow. host: you could find more information if you go to x @fixthecourt. thank you for the conversation. we will take a short break. your thoughts on the breaking news that three americans have been released by russia in a prisoner swap.

evan gershkovich, paul whelan, we will give you more details on that coming up after this break in open forum. >> c-span coverage headed to chicago for the democratic national convention. watch live beginning monday, august 19 at the party was for the presidential nominee. he feared democratic leaders talk about the administration's track record in the vision for the next four years as they fight to retain the white house. the democratic national committee to live, monday, august 19 on c-span, c-span.org or c-span now. get the latest schedule updates and watch the full courage of

the republican national convention. you can catch up on past conventions anytime on demand at c-span.org/campaign or by scanning the code. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org, videos of key hearings, debates and other hearings which are markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right inside of your screen when you play select videos. this makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking

you to where policies are debated and decided, all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in open forum on the "washington journal." you can respond to the breaking news this morning of a prisoner swap. russia has decided -- agreed to release paul whelan and two other americans. john sullivan the former u.s. ambassador said the expected release of three americans marked a great day but also comes at a cost. the russians are not releasing these people for nothing, he said. that is from cbs news this morning in their reporting. we can get your thoughts on that

or any other public policy or political issue. republicans, (202) 748-8000, democrats, (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. more from the reporting, the biden administration has agreed to a prisoner exchange with russia and is expected to secure release of three american citizens imprisoned in russia, including the wall street journal reporter evan jerk, paul whelan and a russian american radio journalist. a senior administration official has confirmed this and others expected to be part of the deal as well. it includes a multicountry swap. 13 prisoners reporting to russia as well as the three americans.

eva in california, democratic caller. we will begin with you. caller: i am calling for the supreme court reform. it is common sense that the supreme court lacks common sense. thank you. host: alex -- alice in phoenix, arizona, republican. caller: i am not a republican. i am a democrat. host: it is alright. go ahead. caller: this is something i wanted to say that i was that obama is not born here in the country. they need to give trump and prove his dna. i wish somebody would get their dna. host: more on the prisoner swap

from cbs or the wall street journal reporter was taken into russian custody while on assignment in march 2023. authorities charged him with espionage, drawing immediate condemnation from the american government. if you like he was sentenced to 16 years by a russian court in jail. they called the jury trial a sham. stand in florida, independent. caller: i also watch things work trump was on the news and they asked him about january 6 and he said he wants to pardon them all. host: apologies. we lost you and you are talking about the former interview he did with the national convention of black journalists. if you missed the moment the color was talking about, you can find it on our website, c-span.org and on our free video mobile app.

dell, illinois, democratic caller. caller: i am happy you are back and happy you have a regular job. this is good news with russia. they want with us and we were able to negotiate terms. i am happy that this occurred. my concern is with what is happening in the middle east. netanyahu was here and i don't know if that was something he got permission to increase the iran fight. i am concerned about a greater, wider war in israel and in the middle east and how we do not want to be supporting any escalation in that war. host: the russian times come her

netanyahu determined to protect israelis, addressing his country yesterday about the killing of the hamas leader. and then you have this in the washington post this morning, a threatening wider war by hamas. the wall street journal front page, killings of two israeli enemies raised prospects of wider war is the headline. and the new york times, iran vows to seek revenge and death of hamas leader. mary in ohio, republican. good morning. we are in open forum. caller: there is a limit to how many migrants in any society can take. this is president bill clinton september 2022 c and an interview. we simply cannot allow people to pour into the united states

undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumvent the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country. it senator barack obama, 2000 five. i am trying to make people aware that in 2020 -- 2025. i'm trying to make people aware that mayorkas fired all the immigration judges and put people in with five weeks of training. they were told to let every person in whether they fit the criteria of asylum or not. they have up to eight appeals and they can stay in this country for up to eight years before they are deported. most just get lost in the shuffle and go off and live there life. people in this country, when the

white guilt goes away. i don't have way guilt. and that pose a eight racism will end. host: calvin, winston, north carolina. independent. caller: thank you so much for you and your c-span team for creating this forum. when it comes to the election, there is so much for us to keep up with and your opportunity with open form and things going around in the country. when it comes to this election, i am curious and somewhat dismayed that one of the candidates running lead an insurrection that was clearly documented on c-span from moment

one to the moment when it was over. january 6 did not start on january 6. it started with stop the steel, started with folks in the republican party not wanting to certify the election beforehand. by the time we saw them climbing through the windows, folks with weapons beating up law enforcement officers, that was just the tip of the iceberg. i find it interesting with when will there be a debate, there is a clear choice here for a lot of us that whatever the faults may be with the democrats and harris specifically, one person led an insurrection where his vice president wasn't going to be hung on the gallows. host: ok joining us on the phone is the former governor of

pennsylvania, a democrat who served from 2003 to 2011 and served as the chair of the democratic committee. today begins the virtual roll call. it appears the vice president harris is the nominee for the party. are you comfortable with the way this is playing out for the democrats? guest: i think this is clear evidence that the party members, you saw everyone fall in line with what president biden did it. there wasn't any opposition. they were afraid to announce their candidacy and no one did.

host: do you think this process is viewed as the fair given how it is being conducted, a virtual roll call and that this is the pledged delegates and automatic delegates that are voting? guest: no one filed to run against vice president harris. he had to come up with 300 signatures if you wanted to get put into the role called for the contested ballot. there is no contested ballot. everyone is getting the chance to vote including the people reversed to vote in second round. host: how does the party dealing with the fact that the vice president has yet to name her

running mate? guest: i guess it will have to be a virtual roll call to endorse or select the running mate that vice president harris names. host: one of the top contenders for that slot is the pennsylvania governor. pennsylvania in 2020 went to president biden by just over 80,000 votes. is it crucial for vice president harris to pick governor shapiro as her running mate? guest: i don't know if i would say it crucial. i think we can carry pennsylvania with out it. he would make it much more likely. but so would mark kelly make it more likely we could carry arizona or other candidates.

i always thought that governor cooper would have been a good place presidential candidate and would have made it likely to carry north carolina. but i think that shapiro would be a great vice president. he is smart and has tremendous values both personal and family values and is very articulate. he is young and energetic. i was governor when he came to the legislature as a freshman. within one year -- and i was glad to see it because he knew how to get things done. it was a tremendous help to me during my time as governor. host: why is pennsylvania a swing state and what do democrats need to do to win there? guest: it is much like the country. we have two big cities,

philadelphia and pittsburgh and other smaller cities between 50000 and 100,000 people. we have a very large agricultural and rural state. people think that it is philadelphia and pittsburgh but we have a large rural community who tend to vote republican. all of these things are changing in the last few years. it is very much like the country and it is close and it is hard for people to win big. josh shapiro one by 14 points come almost historic. i won a reelection by 20 points and that was historic. but most elections in pennsylvania come down within a point or two. that is why it is an important prize to host: win.

the former governor of pennsylvania and the former democratic national committee chair. thank you for your time. host: democratic party begins the roll call to officially nominate vice president harris as the nominee for the presidential ticket. it will take place over the next few days. at sea and and reporting the vice president is expected to announce her running mate on tuesday. her schedule says on that day she will be in the state of pennsylvania for a rally. she is expected to make than a blitz across seven swing states campaigning together. that is also on the table in open forum. steven in arizona, republican. caller: good morning governor of the democrat party and why i can never vote democrat. when harris ran for president

she did not win anything. she had 1% of the vote. she had no chance, but here we are the whole democrat telling their people that this is who you need to vote for. on the other hand, and the republicans, the people want donald trump. nikki haley got in and made her case heard but the people want donald trump. we like low taxes. we don't like an open border. the world is blowing up. lebanon is now involved in the war. we don't think that would have happened under trump. all the left has to think about is you have to vote for this person and they all walk life step into it. i can't even tell them why i want to move republican. it is amazing how the media has ruined this guy for half of the

country. and he did a great job when he was president. host: as we told you, breaking news, a multicountry prisoner swap slated for later today, including the two americans -- and the wall street journal journalist who was arrested in 2023 and sentenced to prison and the marine paul whelan who was also sentenced to 16 years in along with a portion american included in this prisoner swap. paul whelan was arrested in december 2018 when he was traveling to attend a friend's wedding. he was sentenced to 16 years in and in 2020. ronald in cambridge, independent. caller: good morning.

i will make my question fast. it is on the immigration that everyone talks about. we get reports that every month we have new jobs opening up while the unemployment stays steady. how can that be, except that immigration must be doing those jobs. host: chris in san antonio, texas, republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wanted to mention about the supreme court. there are three branches of government. maybe the "washington journal should teach a civics class. you have to have an independent supreme court. the guest you had on earlier,

who are you going to go with the founding fathers who created 250 years of the greatest government ever are some guy unit on 10 minutes ago trying to change in the supreme court's. for client thomas, everyone should leave him alone. nobody likes him because he is a conservative black. i remember his confirmation hearings when i was a kid. they had anita hill. the supreme court should be left alone, period. host: bric is in boston. caller: want to -- rick is in boston. caller: i want to talk about the vice president, no one questions him when he goes back to new

york, nobody asks him. host: jim is an independent in new jersey. caller: good morning. you had the gentleman who spoke earlier, mr. shackelford, and he is complaining that the democrats want to change the court. i like the idea of having more accountability. it is ridiculous to put out there that you can't make the supreme court affected by politics, particularly when you have donations where money or gifts or whatever. the founding fathers did not design a document that would last necessarily 250 years.

it has to be changed and there has to be improvements. if there are guardrails, center mcconnell refer to it already, there -- they are not working. people are disappointed with the supreme court and how they are operating. host: happening today, a memorial service will be held for representative sheila jackson lee, the late texas congresswoman served the 18th district for three decades peered she passed away earlier this month from complications due to pancreatic cancer. vice president kamala harris expected to attend and deliver the eulogy. live coverage of the service starts at 12:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and you can watch on c-span now, or online at c-span.org. david in virginia beach, republican. caller: i wanted to ask this

question of your previous guest but i will pose it to your listeners. with respect to the question of whether a president is immune from his official acts, the crazy nonsensical hypothetical of whether the president could kill his political opponents and get away with it, would a better response to that nonsensical hypothetical be, with only a militant leftists not impeach a president for ordering a kyl? host: andrew, spring -- for ordering a kill? host: andrew in springhill. caller: i hear a lot that the media basically tells most people how to think.

i would reject that. i would reject it with my friends and the other side. i don't think that we are being guided. i think we all are capable. i find that very troubling to hear and i think that is a narrative they push probably on both sides. secondly, in terms of that we are supporting kamala harris, she was joe biden's pick in the -- half of the country voted for that ticket. she is obviously well respected and well regarded and accomplished. so we are not being -- no one is

being forced. what we don't want, we are blessed with a ticket or a candidate that we can support and obviously there is tremendous excitement. we are not being forced. she is -- i lost my thought. host: we are following you. this is a headline about the arizona primary yesterday. kari lake who ran for governor is now running for senate and she won the gop primary and she will now face of against the democratic challenger in that race. for more arizona results, you can find them on our website.

the clarksville tennessee, democratic polar. -- two clarksville, tennessee, democratic caller. caller: i am going to be quick. democrats don't brag on themselves enough. they need to talk about their accomplishments to this point. tennessee is not a red state, it is a four state. don't forget that we had al gore as a senator. thirdly, i am all for having term limits for the supreme court. nobody is questioning those people's senility because some of the things they have come out with don't make sense. i am all for it as well as increasing the supreme court. host: paul in new hampshire,

republican. caller: i have a problem with judges in general. we just had three convicted people, 9/11 killed over 1500 people and they are going to pleaded guilty to the charges and we all know they were guilty. why would judges allow that to happen that they would allow three convicted people who killed over 1500 people on 9/11 and going to give them some kind of a plea deal. it is utterly ridiculous. all of those people who had loved ones get killed and it is ridiculous. host: franc, staten island, new york, independent. -- frank, staten island, new york, independent. caller: the supreme court is find the way it is. i wouldn't want to reduce it. the thing that gets me is the

way the vote, down. anything that comes down that is 5-4. it is the topic voted on by one human being. the fifth person. it seems like the whole wall then is based on was the one human being made. i think we need something very serious that should be a-14 7-2 or unanimous. it if it's going to be 5-4, go back to the drawing board. host: talking about president biden's proposal to change the supreme court. we heard opposing views. if you missed the conversation and are interested, go to our website. you can find it there. brenda in illinois, democratic caller. caller: i would vote for a republican or a democrat. i would just want someone who is going to be concerned about the

country, not their own political aspirations. i will not vote for someone who is a convicted felon who wants to get rid of the constitution, who stands up in the street and says that if he kills it from and in the middle of the street and that he will get a bite with it. i would vote for liz cheney, a republican. i think she would be a great president. i think we need to stop calling people by terrible names and be a little more civil when we talk about the election. host: david in baltimore, independent. caller: i am barely independent but lean more toward republican. but i wanted to bring up at two points that some people may have missed. there are already term limits described in the constitution for one element of our government and i think that is a good place to look for guidance

on term limits from other elements. the founding fathers what we have noble or smart enough to include it in the constitution. host: barberton walbridge, ohio, republican. caller: i am calling in because i don't like the way trump treated those three journalists that were on tv. they had the right to have their jobs and live in the usa. that is just what i think. host: barbara talking about the on the black journalists

conference. frank in michigan, democratic caller. caller: you are doing a great job. i am so disappointed in our traditional supreme court. they are not following rules and they are supposed to report. they have rules like anyone else. as part as the president, he cannot per the finish a sentence. he doesn't answer questions. he accuses everyone else about being rude but he isn't really a rude man. he does not like women either. he is disrespectful. host: james is an independent in akron, ohio. caller: i hit a couple problems with the supreme court. -- i have a couple problems with

the supreme court. it should be a limit on how long they should have to take a case up. there is no reason for it to take long. i think there is -- we need supreme court justices, all judges like the border judges and all of that to be comparable to the population. we have judges from when we had 100 million plus people in this country. there should be some type of agreement as to how many people can handle these cases. host: raymond in pensacola, florida, republican. caller: one quick comment about

the supreme court and judge robert who was the one who wrote about the affordable care act, he was appointed by a republican but the democrats approved that. they said yes, we won the case. but now that roe v. wade has been turned over, the democrats want to change the supreme court. any time either party seems to lose a case in the supreme court, they tend to want to change all of the judges. host: do you agree with having some reform for the court? caller: well, it's all depends. if you don't like the outcome, complaining. if they like the outcome of the don't say nothing. leave it the way it is. we need a 90 quilt justice

system supreme court like nine 411. when the one judge passed away, the supreme court came out with a lot of a 4-1 side and for the other. host: got it. mike, las vegas, democratic caller. caller: i am very concerned about what is going to happen in the election in nevada. our six electors, that case got thrown out also. i am very upset about that. first it was postponed and -- host: i'm going to go to dylan -- make it quick if you can. caller: i was just going to talk because