♪ host: good morning. former congressman matt aids has

been nominated by the president elect for attorney general of the united states. the house bipartisan ethics committee has been investigating mr. gates since 2021, probing allegations of sexual misconduct involving a 17-year-old girl, illicit drug use, and accepting improper gifts. he has denied any wrongdoing. the committee meets today behind closed doors on whether to release the completed report. this morning, we are asking you for your thoughts on the nomination. should the ethics report be made public? should senators who will vote on confirmation have access to it? give us a call on our lines my party. mike ross, -- democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. include your first name and your city and state. you can reach us on social

media, facebook.com/cspan and x at @cspanwj. before we get to your calls, i will show you this from abc news. ethics committee to meet, but it is not clear if a vote on the matt gaetz report is on its agenda as the bipartisan house ethics committee will meet wednesday behind closed doors to discuss its report on its investigation of former representative matt gaetz, who resigned from office last week after president-elect donald trump shows him as nominee for attorney general. the debate is in the hands of the committee, which has a reputation for being tightlipped. it is not clear the committee will vote on whether to release the report. if there is a vote, a majority of the five democrats and five republicans on the committee must approve public disclosure. in other words, at least one republican must break party ranks to join democrats to force its release.

speaker johnson was on fox news sunday talking about that ethics report and arguing it should not be released. >> i do not know anything about the contents of the report because the way the rules work the speaker of the house cannot be involved in an ethics committee report. what i know is that comments about this being -- a precedent for releasing reports is not accurate. there were two breaches of tradition in the past under extraordinary circumstances. i do not think this meets that criteria. matt gaetz is a colleague of mine. he is one of the brightest minds in washington or anywhere and he knows everything about how the department of justice has been weaponized and misused and he will be a reformer. that is why the establishment in washington is show -- so shaken up about this pick. there is an important reason for

the tradition and rule we have almost always followed. that is that we do not issue investigations and ethics reports on people who are not members of congress. i am afraid that would open a pandora's box because the jurisdiction of the ethics committee is limited to those serving in the institution and i think this would be a breach of protocol that could be dangerous in the future. host: delaware senator chris coons was talking about that. he is a member of the senate judiciary committee and he was asked about his opinions of the ethics report. >> to the house ethics issue, you have called for it to be released. you are not the only one. there are republicans as well saying he would be open to a subpoena. do you think there would be bipartisan support from the committee to do what you needed to do to get your hands on the report? >> yes.

the ethics committee loses its jurisdiction to discipline a member when they are no longer a member. on several occasions, the house ethics committee has released a report when someone, as matt gaetz did commit resigned at the last moment to avoid the release of a report. some might say wise irrelevant now? it is relevant because the senate has a constitutional role , called our advise and consent role to make sure a president elect mostly gets their nominees but does not get to put people and who are unqualified or who lack requisite character and capability to lead an important agency like the department of justice. >> we are talking about that report on matt gaetz, former congressman from florida, who is up for attorney general, getting your calls. we are going to start with david in clinton township, democrat.

caller: we should have full disclosure. this man is going to be attorney general. how can the senate do their job without the report? we should not let republicans to a cover-up. it is simple. host: here is john in idaho, a republican. caller: i think we should release the reports and maybe the reports on all the hush money paid out for the house and senate for the sex stuff that they do. thank you. host: let me get that for you. i will pull that up. there is a tweet by representative marjorie taylor greene, who said, my republican colleagues in the house and senate, if we are going to release ethics reports and rip apart our own that trump has appointed, then put it all out there for the american people to see.

yes, all the ethics reports, including the one i filed. all your sexual harassment and assault claims that were secretly settled, paying off victims with taxpayer money. the entire jeffrey epstein file, witness interviews, but not just those. epstein is not the only asset. if we are going to dance, let's all dance in the sunlight. i will make sure we do. this is deby in wisconsin, independent line. >> it should be released and it is funny that you talk about jeffrey epstein. it seems to me his involvement with political figures former and past -- i am not going to name names but you know because you have probably reported the facts. it does not make any difference, democrat or republican. if a -- it were a democrat, it

will be public. everything should be released. i am not a big fan of marjorie taylor greene, but i think she is right. >> here is carmen, south florida democrat. >> i believe it should be released. i feel we vote and elect people to do a job. i don't necessarily think needs to be released to the whole public, but every congressman now should see the report and -- sorry, i have a chest cold. with the speaker of the house is saying, weaponizing the doj, that is why. because they are keeping up with this facade like they were attacked. the doj, what they do is they go after unlawful acts. people doing unlawful acts, the

doj is going to come after you. they do not come after you because you are a republican or democrat or independent. they are coming after you because you did something wrong. for him to quit right before the report, it is not suspicious. it is admitting the truth. it is him saying to the country this is a bad report, i did it, i have to quit so you do not see it so trump can get me in. not only see the report but stop the nonsense. stop the lies about the doj. host: this is the florida sun sentinel editorial from matt gaetz's former district. it seems highly doubtful a sena mority will confirm gaetz, butis selection lays bear the depth of trump's contempt for our law enforcement apparatus and his determination to use it as a blunt instrument

to seek revenge on opponents. matt gtz is a provocative or whood at delivering rhetorical red meat on the maga speaking circuit. trump puts a premium on performative skills. matt gaetz has long been a critic of the justice department was investigating him. that is from the florida sun sentinel. >> i have been calling c-span for over 30 years. you do a super job. i want to say my county went 81% for trump, as did most north georgia counties. i have confidence in donald trump. i think matt gaetz ought to be approved. if you start releasing all these reports, we will never get trump's cabinet approved. go ahead.

he was elected in a huge landslide, so the american taxpayers deserve to have the people trump wants to put in office. i am certainly supporting matt gaetz and all of the trump nominees. host: sarah, and independent in maryland. caller: i think they should release it so we can all see who this person is in private life. that is all i have to say. host: mary is in the bronx, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. you do a wonderful job. i love your show. i love your show. i'm calling because matt gaetz's file should be released and the white house should be changed from the white house to the celebrity house because he has all these celebrities now coming out.

and i never heard of such a thing and all the years that there was a president. i never heard of such a thing, of all these people -- all these actors and actresses to be in office. i never heard of such a thing. anyway, thank you and have a wonderful day. host: we are taking our calls on the matt gaetz ethics report. if you think it should be released, should it be public, should it just go to the senators, should it not be released at all, the numbers are (202) 748-8000 if you are a democrat. it is (202) 748-8001 if you are a republican and (202) 748-8002 for independents. the senate majority leader -- the current senate majority leader is mitch mcconnell. he addressed the process for confirming president-elect trump's nominees.

>> should centers have access to all the information, including everything the house ethics committee found in its investigation? >> the constitution gives us a role in personnel, called advice and consent. my view is that is exactly what will unfold here when these nominees are actually sent forward and we will treat them like we have treated all others, with proper vetting. >> you were quoted over the weekend as saying there would be no recess appointments. can you clarify what you said and meant? >> we will see. i do not have to address that issue. there have been all kinds of rumors floating around, but i have not addressed the issue. we will see how this unfolds.

we have two months. >> would you oppose efforts to do recess appointments? >> do you think president trump would force the senate to take a recess and what do you think about the idea of appointing these high-level cabinet positions during a recess and circumventing the senate advice and consent role? >> you are asking basically the same question i just got my answer remains we will see what happens between now and the new administration. at that point, nominations can actually be sent forward and we will figure out how to handle them. i am confident we will engage the same kind of vetting process that we have historically done under both parties with these nominees. host: that was senate minority leader mitch mcconnell from yesterday. here are a couple things we have

gotten from facebook. ann says, what is the point of an ethics committee if they are able to st hide the results, good or bad? jeff says the report is needed for the senate to fulfill their role of advise and consent. however, it will not be released ande should not be confirmed. karin says if you weren this position you would not want information that has not been confirmed in a court of law to be released about you. greg says, for once marjorie taylor greene is correct. released the results of all background and ethics reports. let's talk to marjorie in pennsylvania, republican. good morning. >> good morning. i am with the other lady. for once, i would agree with marjorie taylor greene. if we want to release it, go ahead and release it, but release them all.

this sexual assault thing seems to have become the third rail, so to speak. everybody heard the comments and things about clarence thomas and he was still confirmed. also, brett kavanaugh was still confirmed. i feel it is a last ditch effort thing. i am 87. i am not naive. but let's be honest. if some girl or her parents were in a party realizing the power of her shall we say sexuality among drunken men is taken advantage of, and i do not think she probably was -- host: in this case, the

allegation is a 17-year-old, which means she is not old enough to give her consent. do you still think it is ok and that it is her fault? >> i will not say it is her fault. i think she was using her newfound powers and four days shy of her 18th birthday. you know. all of a sudden, she gets religion 10 years later? you know, i am sorry if i offended people that are actually assaulted, but in this case i imagine it is just somebody who should not have been at a party at her age, regardless of how close she was to 18. a few days being close 18 is just silly.

>> glenn in virginia, independent line. >> i would say not to release it because it would more than likely hurt his chances of getting confirmed and i think the basic effort trump is putting forward is he indicated before the election he wanted to terminate the constitution. he felt he needed retribution and he wanted to go after his political enemies, so by bringing in people like all these folks to be part of the cabinet, it is going to hurt trump's chances of essentially becoming the autocratic dictator that americans voted for. they want someone that is going to be the strong man who has total control over all the

different departments and social and political and military issues that come forward. people want that, so releasing this would hurt our chances of someone that is going to follow trump right down the line. host: here is may and florida, democrat. go ahead. >> i think they should leave it alone until trump is in. let this man be there too. host: do you want to see the report or are you saying it should be -- caller: the report -- they got all the trump folk report out so they all do the same. i do not see why this because any difference. trump is in, so let this man be in. let the rest of them be in. host: here is ronald in north

carolina, a republican. caller: hello. i think that this witch hunt the democrat party started way back keeps on and on and on. it is all fake. it is all made up. that is what i think. host: do you not believe the allegations against former congressman gaetz? >> no. it is all a witch hunt. they are seeing if it sticks on the wall. that is all it is. the democrat party is sick and they do not have common sense. they are sick. >> this is tony in new jersey, independent line. >> i would say it should be released. it does not seem like the trump administration is interested in doing serious vetting of candidates, so someone has to

look at it. >> margo in highland, indiana, democrat. caller: absolutely, it should be released. the fact is why would a criminal and assaulter go ahead and choose all of his likes for a cabinet? it should be released because we already know and there is no innuendo. the fact is this matt gaetz individual is unqualified to be the head of the to parma justice. >> here is house minority leader hakeem jeffries on the need for transparency on the house ethics committee report. [video clip] >> meeting tomorrow to discuss

whether former representative matt gaetz -- do you feel the public should be able to see all of the details or at least members of congress for consideration to be part of the cabinet? especially leading the doj? >> yes. host: that was yesterday. this is hattie -- patty in florida, a republican. caller: good morning. do i think it should be released? yes. is it going to make any difference? probably not. i think he should get confirmed. i am so sick and tired of hearing this person did this and this person did this and they seem to come out of the woodwork typically when a republican is running.

why are they going to parties and being 17th? why are they there? what do they look like? what are they doing? host: let me ask you this because another caller had said something similar. if these allegations proved to be true, and they are just allegations and he has denied any of this happened, but if this is true, that these parties did take place that the sexual misconduct took place and the illegal drug use took place, would you still be in favor of him being the attorney general of the united states? caller: illegal drug use -- they smoke pot. >> i do not think it was part, but go ahead. it was illegal. caller: illegal drug use -- it would not surprise me if most of

the people in congress have done illegal >> drug use. does that make it ok for the attorney general? caller: well, do i wish he had not? yes. host: but it does not disqualify him? caller: i do not think so. we j walk. we speed. we do stupid things. does that mean it is going to continue to do stupid things? who has not done really stupid things? caller: cocaine -- host: cocaine is a little different than jaywalking. are you >> making an equivalent? of course it is different. i have never tried cocaine. i do not want to try cocaine, but i am 70. how old is he? host: 42. caller: this was so common.

it is just what you did. you were not thinking back then that you were going to be doing this kind of thing. you were just stupid. does that mean he would not hold the line and continue to do stupid things because you did a stupid thing even several times? does that make you a stupid person for the rest of your life? trump has been through so much. i mean, from spying on him, listening to the fbi and the tapes and the russia gate. it has just been unmerciful. host: let's go to eric in new york, democrat. you have to mute your tv.

dale in north carolina, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to stress my view that it is important to release documentation like that but we are playing games when you do not need to play a game. just get the job done. trump has already started doing that, so i say go forward and accomplish what needs to be accomplished now. if that means eliminating more to do the job, we have to do that. i'm sorry, but the bottom line pays bills for everybody cut no matter if you are republican or democrat and if we worry about that we are never going to get the job accomplished again. i appreciate you listening and

have a good day. host: let's talk to mark next in maine, independent. caller: hey. i think the guy should not be in there. trump's person, i do not think he should be in there. he has done a lot of stuff. i do not know what he done, but he done a lot of stuff. he should be hold accountable. host: a previous caller said he was just doing stupid stuff. maybe that he was young, only 42. what do you think of that? caller: i think he should be punished. host: ok. he was investigated by the justice department and they did not press charges. caller: oh. host: robin in tennessee,

democrat, good morning. what do you think? caller: i'm pretty disgusted by the whole thing. i have a couple different views, like number one we have a president elect who has been repeatedly accused of sexual assault. of course he would pick and attorney general who has done the same thing. it is becoming more and more clear to me as i listen to these people cannot two kinds of people exist in the united states now, which is causing is a problem. number one, these old white women who think that young girls

are asking for it. and if they were at a party they should not have been, then that is their fault or their parent'' fault. it is not the adult's fault in the room. the other kind of person is like your last caller who is just like, boys will be boys. and we let them get away with stuff that women would never be allowed to get away with. and i think we are currently supporting sex offenders as the leaders of our country. don't you guys think that is going to encourage other pedophiles, saying it does not matter that i screwed kids, i can be president? i mean, i do not understand how you can do an ethics report when there is no more ethics.

and i do not know what to think about the majority of our country saying women do not matter, women's rights do not matter, little girls on the boys , their sexuality starts whenever men say it does. i am just disgusted because people think it is ok for a 37-year-old to screw a 17-year-old or even an 18-year-old. and they are at parties with cocaine and whatnot and they are not even 21. they are not even allowed to drink yet. i think our country has priority problems. i think the ethics is out the window. i'm so sorry that people allowed this kind of hate toward women and girls. i just hate it. i am so sorry.

>> this is republican senator tommy tuberville urging his senate republican colleagues to get in line. caller: -- [video clip] >> americans delivered a mandate to every senate republican. they want president trump's america first agenda now. as a result, senate republicans should embrace this mandate and support every single one of president trump's cabinet pixie -- picks. you would think this would be a no-brainer. not one democrat broke from their's party in supporting joe biden's -- their party in supporting joe biden's nominees. i have heard some of my senate republican colleagues expressed concerns about who president trump is picking for his team. i would expect this from my colleagues on the left, not on the right. what is surprising to me is that i'm hearing rumblings from

republicans. my pfister them is get on board or get out of the way. >> we got this on x, who says they should release allhe dirty laundry on all members of congress. anhi rumored or outright lied about should be fair ga. was there funding that paid accusers? bring it all out. and she says, should the victims of sexual assaulget justice? judy sent a text from pennsylvania. release a report so matt can point out his errors and get rid of rumors. here is the -- dee, a republican in illinois. caller: good morning. i want to respond to the topic of matt gaetz being approved. i believe he should. i do not believe it is a necessity to open up the file.

he was accused of this years ago when he was already on the scene on behalf of the republican party in the state of florida to support donald trump's presidency. this was in my mind, if people do their homework and look at it, he was found innocent. ok? you want to go and bring this up, that is fine. you want to talk about cocaine at a party? and there was a 17-year-old there? that is probably accurate. however, we have just endured how many months of finding cocaine at the white house? and nobody has done any homework. nobody cares. that has to be critical too. to the previous caller's point, i am not saying it is acceptable , but it happens. if a party happens and there is drugs there, yes.

you want to open the file, fine. find out what happened to paul pelosi. there are some incidents that are shoved under the rug because it is another party other than republicans. >> mary in pensacola, florida, democrat, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do feel matt gaetz should be exposed. i have followed since trump came into office and i have been listening to everything every day. another thing i wanted to say, they may put a man on the moon or mars or wherever you want to put him. go to mars or the moon or whatever, but i will tell you one thing. you cannot buy a ticket to heaven. if you are religious, christian person, you know who is right

and who is wrong. you have seen too much on the tv to shut your eyes and say it is ok. all these things that are coming out, all these people put in all these offices that trump is going to put them in, we know they are not qualified people. we need to wake up. this is crazy. other countries are going to take over us, like russia. they are playing trump like he is a puppet. i think elon musk is really going to get rid of trump. i do. i hate that. host: how would elon musk get rid of trump? caller: i think that because he is a very intelligent person or else he would not be where he is. look at trump. you know he is really not that intelligent at all. he really is not. and i think all these votes --

that is how they won the election. host: this is ruth now in indiana, independent line. >> it used to be that we help people in congress to higher standards, but that is not the case anymore. they should release whatever they know about any of them because we need to know. matt gaetz got up there -- i do not know why he is lying about it now. he talked about this party and what he had done and the fun he had had, so if that is not true why is he denying it? a few weeks ago, you had a question as to whether morals or policies was more important. i was really stunned and upset

that three quarters of your callers called in and said that morals did not matter anymore, that policy did. that is how low our country has fallen. host: tell us why you think morals are important. caller: it makes people do the right thing and serve their people. we have self-serving people up there now. i am still stunned at the results of the election, that people would elect this man who has been involved in every criminal activity he could be and he is going to get away with all of it. you and i would be in jail if we had done the first thing that this man has done. i would like to see us get back to some moral standards and help one another and so forth. i am thoroughly disgusted with the people we send up there. when you vote, you should look into who you are voting for instead of just pulling the are

-- r tab or d tab. we do have good people, but it seems like the morally bankrupt are winning out. it is a shame. >> here is tom, a republican in ohio. caller: i think anybody who does stuff like this and that is proven -- it has to be proven -- should not be in office. bill clinton -- they make a hero out of him and that was a young girl. it was not 17, but it was a young girl he took advantage of. it is like making the white house a whorehouse. host: the new york times has this article. hackers are said to have gained access to files with damaging testimony about matt gaetz. it says the file is said to contain testimony from the woman

who said she had sex with matt gaetz. when she was 17. it says that the unidentified hacker has gained access to a computer file shared in a secured link among lawyers whose clients have given damaging testimony related to matt gaetz. it says the file is said to include sworn testimony by a woman who said she had sex with mr. gates -- mr. matt gaetz when she was 17 as well as corroborating testimony by a second woman who said she witnessed the encounter. that is at the new york times and this is carol in iowa, a democrat. caller: good morning. trump has certainly picked the bottom of the barrel with his appointments and matt gaetz is definitely at the top. i think the records are going to come out, whether he likes it or trump likes it or not.

but most of it has already been on tv. a hacker has already put out some of this stuff, so i do not think this is anything new. all these people that go into office in high-powered places, it is the money and the sex. when it comes out, they went to stand up there and deny, which is what trump has done his entire life. this did not happen appear look at me. i am ok. so he is going to fix it. he is going to fix us. and the rest of the country for the next four years and all you republicans who voted for him, you better watch out for your social security and medicare and anything else that you think you might have been getting from trump because it is not coming. all he wanted was your vote. he got the vote and now you sit there at your table and try to

figure out how you're going to be going on for the rest of your life. host: here is a net, and independent in new york. let's try david in minnesota, republican. caller: when everybody says all this, it surprises me. it seems to me that all presidents had sexual scandals in the white house and then if you go back beyond the white house -- how many times has he done those stuff? i think that people should actually wake up and look at the allegations. if matt gaetz was -- they

already had reviews on him, so has he actually been convicted? they should have convicted him back then instead of having all this stuff come out now. like everything else they have done. when everything comes down to it, there is not as much to it as they say, so thank you and have a good day. host: ann in new york state, democrat. you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. tommy tuberville, it was reported when he got into the senates that he cannot even name the three branches of -- coequal branches of government. that stunning level of ignorance should disqualify him. two, trump barely won the popular vote. he did not reach 50%. he came close, but it was not over 50%, so he hardly has a

landslide or mandate. i am old enough to remember when not paying taxes on your nanny or excepting a car from a donor was enough to disqualify someone from being a cabinet member. how far we have fallen. thank you. host: we will talk to jack next in florida, independent. >> i call in about once a month now and this situation is just -- when i was growing up, i was taught you do not bring shame upon your name. you would step aside and wait until whatever this commotion is over. i am 87 years old. it is a shame how this country

has gone from what used to be to what it is today. it does not matter what you do today. everything is fine. in my observation, not opinion, but observation, this country is in real deep trouble. with the people that is going to be running our country on january 20. thank you. that is all i have to say. host: this is fox news, that says matt gaetz is working the phones, speaking to gop senators despite difficult confirmation odds. it says matt gaetz is dedicated to winning the support of senators for his nomination for attorney general. you can read that at fox news. here is david in sacramento, california, republican.

caller: i would like to say one thing. let he who is without sin cast the first stone. i think you will find there is a lot of people who cannot cast a stone. host: do you think that biblical principle applies to confirmation hearings or cabinet positions? caller: i think we should quit playing pin the tail on the donkey. that is basically what it is saying. you do not playpen the tail on the donkey. there are a lot of donkeys out there, not that many people who can throw a stone neither. >> here is tommy in virginia, democrat. >> can you hear me?

my comments are a couple callers referenced president clinton. first, monica lewinsky was of legal age and he was impeached. matt gaetz, whether he committed a crime or not, what he did is unethical. he should be held to the utmost standards and he did not. he should have an investigation around him. to whom much is given, much is required. host: this is chris in philadelphia, independent line. caller: i am driving to work and what i have been thinking in my head is i want to compare it to george santos. when i look at the actions of george santos, they all voted to

get him out and who knows where he is at now? hopefully he is writing a book somewhere. let's speak about that. is there any comparison to matt gaetz's actions? when i look at george santos, there were no accusations. there were no minors. there were snow -- there was no drugs involved. he just clearly lied and there was mismanagement of funds, but i'm sure if they look hard enough under matt gaetz's funding, i'm sure there is mismanagement of funds there as well, but my point is they are selective on who they turn on and who they want. that is part of the problem as well. and i have given up on this election. i voted for kamala harris, but i have a lot of respect for kamala harris but i also feel biden

should have resigned and gave her the throne before this all happened. it would have shown more unity and things like that, but hopefully a third party will emerge, not that -- whatever. that is ridiculous. anybody that lives in the south, i ask them to go to atlantic city. walk the streets of atlantic city, new jersey and look what that gentleman did there. anybody that is -- i worked for companies in that area that were bankrupt. he owes thousands of dollars for seafood and linens and he did not pay a penny on the penny. if that makes any sense. my point is you have all been misled. you are all drinking the kool-aid.

where is jd vance? nobody voted for elon musk. host: republican senator mark wayne mullen was on the -- meet the press over the weekend and says senators should have access to the report. [video clip] >> there's no question that matt gaetz and i have had our differences and that is no secret. moving forward, i do respect president trump's right to appoint these individuals, but under article two congress has to advise and consent and matt gaetz will go through the same scrutiny as every other individual and i will give him a fair shot like every individual. at the end of the day, the senate has to confirm him. i think it is a tough role. i have to set my personal opinion and personal situation to the side and look at the facts. if he is qualified, he is qualified. i did not even know he was an

attorney until after he was appointed attorney general and i had to do my research on him. i know that is crazy because i served with him, but i never did the dig to find out his actual degree. >> the house ethics committee was about to release the findings of the investigation into allegations of misconduct by former congressman gates. he abruptly resigned before that could happen. i number of your colleagues have said they would like to see that report. should the house ethics committee release the report? >> absolutely. i believe the senate should have access to that. should it be released to the public? i guess that will be part of the negotiations but that should be part of our decision-making. host: we are taking your calls for about another five minutes. a previous caller asked about jd vance.

here's politico saying that he is bringing some of trump's controversial cabinet picks to meet with republicans on the hill. the meetings will take place on wednesday and thursday, today and tomorrow. here is kelly in north carolina, republican. caller: i am -- first i want to say before i address the question, i was really surprised that with the hearing they had yesterday in the house on sex trafficking and we had found out that our health and human services and our government has been in cahoots with our -- with cartels down at the border, and doing sex trafficking of children, the 320 something thousand children that are missing that they cannot find

because they did not do any dna tests to find out if the people they were with or even their parents and they are not doing dna on the sponsors that are picking them up and some of them were found out to be ms 13. why that is not on this morning instead of matt gaetz i do not know, because that is most -- much worse than matt gaetz. host: what is your comment on matt gaetz? caller: i do not think the ethics report should be out simply because the doj did not find him guilty of anything. they dropped the charges. why would they drop the charges? because they cannot find evidence. you can put rumors out about him. you can do whatever you wish. and people go he is guilty. how do you know he is guilty?

did god come down and tell you he is guilty? i do not think so, so leave the ethics report alone. and i feel like this gentleman who said that those without sin cast the first stone, who are we on here? we all act like we know exactly what happened and what went on. we do not. we do not have a clue. we are just going by what we are being told. you do not know if these people are telling you the truth or not because this country is so divided. how do you know you are being told the truth? the only entity that we should trust is god and jesus and that is it. there is nobody left to trust anymore. host: events in florida,

democrat. good morning. >> i have a couple opinions. for us to be going around saying we are a christian nation, it is about time our politicians and leaders started acting like christians. i noticed a lot of people talk like how you doing and all that kind of stuff. they are the ones messing this country up. they are the ones always quoting god and all that kind of stuff. if you listen to jesus on the sermon on the mountain, you will find it that jesus christ, what christians are supposed to do, act like christ. that is why you are a christian. this country is divided because the billionaires are taking over the world. i always thought it was a bad idea to allow a man or woman a

billion dollars. it is ridiculous. after the second world war, what was the interest rate than on those kind of people? 80%? 90%? slowly but surely, republicans kept chipping away at it and you ain't got squat and social security. think about that. why is it the billionaires do not have to pay social security on all their income like you do, like we all do? why? because they buy their way through everything. it should be illegal for a man to have that much money. look at what is happening now. elon musk steps in front of donald trump, who was supposedly our legitimate president. i disagree with that. that guy has been cheating people all his life. he cannot even play a game of golf without cheating. this is what we are taking into

our capital? this is who is going to run our country? we have a big problem here. i think the people in this country ought to stop hating each other and start loving each other. host: coming up, congresswoman harriet hagemann of wyoming joins us to discuss house republican priorities and the incoming trump administration. later, a national security reporter discusses what president-elect trump's second term can mean for u.s. defense and national security policy. we will be right back. >> visit c-span.org/results for coverage of the 2024 campaign results.

get the final electoral college breakdown of the presidential race and see which states each candidate carried. dive into our interactive map to explore outcomes in the senate, house, governors race, and the balance of power in congress. plus, watch acceptance and concession speeches on demand y time. with c-span, your unfiltered view of politics at c-span.org/results. >> attention, middle and high school students across america. it is time to make your voice heard. c-span's documentary contest is here. this is your chance to create a documentary that could inspire change and make an impact. your documentary should answer this year's question, your message to the president. what issue is most important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics or community stories,

studentcam is your platform to share your message to the world, including a grand prize of $5,000. this is your opportunity not only to make an impact would also be rewarded for your creativity and hard rk enter your sions today. scan the code for details on how enter. the deadline is january 20, 2025. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now at c-spanshop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: we are joined now by

representative. hagemann -- representative harriet hageman. you serve on the house judiciary committee. what you think about your colleague in the house ethics committee? do you think they should release the report on former congressman matt gaetz? guest: we should follow the rules. so if his resignation means the report is not typically released, i do not think it should be released. i think the same standards should apply to everyone. host: there is precedent for the house ethics committee releasing reports on members who have resigned. do you think senators should be able to see that? a lot of senate republicans are saying we should at least get access to that report. guest: again, they should follow with the president and rules are.

i am not involved in that process. i think we need to let the process play out. host: how do you think those allegations should be handled? what do you think should happen next? guest: one of the things i'm troubled by is we seem to get where there is an investigation done, no matter its result, and then we move on. then something like this comes up where he is nominated for a position and people want to drag them through the mud. i worked with matt gaetz for the today sherry committee. -- judiciary committee. he is an incredibly brilliant legal mind and someone i think would stir upwe have uncovered l amount of information on how the department of justice and fbi have been weaponized against the american public and matt gaetz has been instrumental in exposing matt and holding people accountable for the decisions made. that is why they are attacking him and trying to derail the

nomination because i recognize that he is someone that will go into the department of justice and do what needs to be done which is to clean out a lot of the deadwood and root out the corruption that has been going on. what we saw with the hunter biden laptop and in terms of how they treated hunter biden, the amount of money they gifted to him by refusing to prosecute him for the tax evasion they gifted him with the money received from foreign countries. matt gaetz will expose this and i think that is why they are attacking him. host: do you have any qualms about his character for the position of attorney general? guest: i do not. there are senate republicans who are rejecting a proposal floated by some advisors to take the job of conducting background checks, away from the fbi and give it to a private investigation. what do you think of that? guest: again, i think there is a reflection of the idea that we

have lost faith in these hallmark institutions. again, because of my work on the judiciary committee and weaponize asian committee -- weaponization committee when we brought in christopher wray and the effort to cover up the hunter biden laptop even though the fbi had had it for almost a year. when we look at the russia hoax and the nonsense that the fbi engaged in with all of that, what you are seeing is an effort to try and hold agencies accountable. and if we cannot do that, find an alternative in their ability to engage in this nefarious act. host: there is an article that -- on "the hill" trumps vows for events takes on new seriousness. it says that "trump routinely calls for adverse actions against his perceived enemies and makes veiled threats.

a dynamic president during his first term in office that accelerated as he battled for reelection." i want to get your reaction. guest: as an attorney who practiced for 34 years words matter and when i hear the terminology they used, that article is can vended to them -- to convey a certain meeting. he is doing something wrong by attempting to hold people accountable for engaging in bad acts. i will go back to mary garman and christopher wry and mayorkas . they have failed the american public and that is why the american public threw biden and harris out the window. they do not trust these institutions and they do not trust these agencies. donald trump has been given a mandate to come into washington, d.c. and clean out a lot of the corruption in these agencies. the hill will refer to that as revenge. i will refer to that is accountability.

no one is above the law or being held accountable for the decisions that they make. so whether it is mayorkas and his failure with the fentanyl and illegal aliens flooding our country or merrick garland and his efforts to perfect acute -- to persecute serve certain individuals or i could go on and on. depending on how you want to describe what president trump is doing, the left side will see that that is revenge. i am going to say that he is coming into washington, d.c. and holding people accountable for violating the law and undermining the security of the american public, for using the fbi to go after political enemies which is what we saw in the russia hoax. do you realize that in august of 2016 the fbi was well aware that the steele dossier was a hoax.

they knew before they ever went and applied for the first fisa warrant that that was political dirty tricks from the hillary clinton campaign. they knew that in august of 2000 16 and they continued to pursue the russia hoax for another three years after that despite knowing that it was a hoax. when donald trump comes into washington, d.c. and holds people accountable, i do not see that as revenge, i see that as being held accountable for their bad decisions. guest: do you think -- host: do you think former congresswoman liz cheney should be prosecuted? guest: i think she should be investigated. host: she was on the -- for what. guest: because she was on the january 6 committee. they deleted files, the actual videotaped depositions of people. as an attorney the evidence is a videotaped deposition. the other thing she did was that

as an attorney she met with a witness she knew was represented by an attorney and she went behind his back and she was meeting with cassidy hutchinson and not informing the attorney and that is a serious ethical violation. she has no right to do that and talk about a conflict of interest. they were covering up information about what president trump had done prior to january 6 and orden to harden the security in washington, d.c.. host: do you believe that she broke the law or are these ethical violations? guest: i think they are potentially both. we need to have the investigation. i am not going to prejudge other than i know that if you are meeting with a rip -- with a witness represented by an attorney and you know that and you are going behind his back to meet with the person and you look at what happened during that june hearing when she came before the january 6 committee, june 2022, cassidy came out and

number one it was hearsay upon hearsay. which no attorney worth their salt ever would have presented that evidence to anybody, let alone something anything that significant and serious. do i think she merits being investigated, i do. that is not about revenge at all. that is about holding her accountable. host: if you would like to join our conversation with harriet hageman you can do so. the numbers are 202-748-8000 if you are a democrat. 202-748-8001 if you are a republican and 202-748-8002 if you are an independent. i want to ask you from this quote from michael bromwich who says this and i will get your reaction. he says "i have heard from a number of organizational clients and some indivuaclients who are veryd that they might be targeted even though their conduct has been entirely lawful.

they fr being targeted for their views, their statements and for the causes and people they support. they are very scared and i think for good reason. they are concerned they could be audited by the irs. they could be thect of a bogus congressional investigation. there may be even a way to bogus criminal investigation, and all with the goal of ironically for the first time actually rep knives and the department of -- weaponizing the department of justice." guest: i would respond that the person does not know what he is talking about in terms of the history. i would encourage him to watch the hearings of the select committee on weaponization and the investigations we have done over the last two years of how the department of justice conducted themselves during the lead up to the 2016 election from 2016 until 2020 while

president trump was the president and then since then. he is either naive or being very disingenuous to say that the department of justice has not already been weaponized against people. number two, again i will come back to, if you engage in bad behavior, it is appropriate for our law enforcement agencies, if you will, to investigate that. again, words matter and what he is attempting to do is he is trying to associate a stazi with donald trump. i have not seen anything like i have seen before with the biden administration and the department of justice and the fbi during the four years of the first donald trump administration. host: we will take calls but before i do there will be talk that president-elect donald trump wants to take the fbi out of the justice department and

make it a direct report to the white house. what was your initial reaction? guest: first of all, the fbi we need to fundamentally change the way it has been operated. prior to 9/11 you had the field offices with much more authority in terms of what their responsibilities were and what they investigated and how they conducted those investigations. after 9/11 under mueller they got most of the power and they stockpiled it in washington, d.c. and that is when you have seen the nefarious actions we have seen. the investigations against conservative catholics and the people at the school board meetings. host: congresswoman not to cut you off, before 9/11 that was a massive intelligence failure. guest: absolutely. host: so maybe the offices were not doing what they were supposed to be doing. guest: washington, d.c. was not doing what it was supposed to be doing. that was a washington, d.c. failure.

they stock powered more power -- they stockpiled more power and then they turned it on political enemies. that has been established over and over again to the select committee on the weaponization on federal government. i would encourage people to watch the videos where we brought in people not only from the agency but the victims and whistleblowers who have been victimized by the fbi in their effort to try and hold that agency accountable. host: all of the videos are on c-span.org. let us start with britney in washington, d.c.. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, i just wanted to ask, you keep mentioning being held accountable. but, do you not think that donald trump has not been held accountable for any of the things that he does? i do not know what is going on in the republican maga party, it

seems like this man can do and say anything and he has never held accountable for anything that he does. everything is a liar except for him. my second point with the map get -- with the matt gaetz ethics investigation, the report should be released to the american people. first of all, we paid for that with our tax dollars. secondly, he needs to be vetted in the traditional way so that we can feel comfortable with him being in one of the highest -- the highest power of the justice department. that is ridiculous to me that -- host: let us let the congresswoman respond. guest: first of all, i do not think there is any political official who has been persecuted the way that donald trump has over the last eight years. what we saw in the new york case in terms of -- they listed the statute of limitations on a 20-year-old allegation so they could turn around and try to

find some way to allow a woman to bring a civil suit against him who could not remember the year or date of the incident that it allegedly happened. you have the situation with alvin bragg bringing a lawsuit for alleged fraud in all of the bank said there was no fraud and you had a judge who excluded evidence that was not only prevalent but -- relevant but highly proven of the issue at hand. you had a judge exclude expert testimony on what should actually be considered an election type of fraud. the judge excluded the expert testimony that would have demonstrated that nothing that donald trump did in relation to stormy daniels or in any of these allegations had anything to do with the election. in terms of holding him accountable, i do not think there has been any man more investigated or more vetted than donald trump. i think to argue otherwise is not reality.

the graft associated with georgia and the fact that she is hiring her boyfriend and taking trips. all of the efforts to destroy donald trump is something that i have never seen in my life against any republican or democrat. so when you say to hold him accountable, what your frustration is is that they cannot actually prove the allegations being made. the only way they can do so is by cheating and by having a court case that we know will be reversed on appeal because of reversible error is absolutely off the charts. again, i was a trial attorney for 34 years. watching these cases play out and the judges make these decisions, it has been stunning to me the way they have been willing to manipulate the court system in order to railroad donald trump. host: britney asked about the gaetz reports that this is

taxpayer-funded and we have the right to see it. guest: the process has to play itself out. i have not been involved like anything in this before and i am not the expert. if they do not typically release the reports than that is a standard that should continue to be followed. host: george, a republican in florida. you are next. caller: thank you. representative, you are a ray of sunshine. you got rid of that clown liz cheney and i am glad she is gone and that you are in her place. i want to ask you about the trump cabinet choices. specifically pete, matt gaetz, and i cannot think of the fellow's name in transportation now. but overall, what do you feel about the cabinet pay? guest: i am very heartened,

optimistic, and excited. i think that he has bring in some professionals to address what needs to be addressed in the agencies. one of the things that i have worked on for decades is the way that the administrative state in washington, d.c. has expanded and exploded well beyond what was ever intended with the 1946 administrative procedure act and also the separation of powers. one of the most important things that donald trump needs to do when he talks about it is that we need to return power to the states. that is the framework of our government. we also need to make sure that the legislative branch is the one legislating. when i look at these various cabinet picks and i will not talk about any particular one. i am hoping that they go in and actually focus on what the constitution says. it is only the legislating branch that should be legislating, not the executive branch.

the executive branch is only there to carry out legislation. so when you look at things like the clean water act or clean air act or the land policy act are all issues important to the state of wyoming. but what has happened is that the epa, the fish and wildlife service, department of -- of the interior and blm have really moved to where they are ignoring the language of the statute and they are attempting to enforce an agenda that typically changes every four to eight years which is why we are seeing uncertainty and instability in the market and some of the things that we have to deal with in wyoming with the state that has 48% owned by the federal government. the impact of these regulatory agencies can be enormous in a state like wyoming and the ability to have economic development, for example. but i look at these cabinet picks what i am excited about is that we are putting

constitutionalists in place that will understand what the purpose of the agency is and understand that it is only the legislative branch that should be legislating. i am excited by the picks, especially department of interior and energy. a huge impact in wyoming and i think these gentlemen will be fantastic. host: dwayne, an independent. caller: listening to you i am throwing up and you know why? liz cheney has more integrity than you will ever have. host: let us stick with -- no personal attacks on the guests. what did you want to say? something about the january 6 committee? caller: i was about to say that but i have to let her know that she cannot just come in and i or anyone independent will listen to her to say things that are not correct. she mentioned mayorkas and gaetz

, and he has no integrity but you will defend him over the others. does that make sense to you? go ahead. guest: i do not know who grey is and maybe you are saying wray. having to had the opportunity to question both mayorkas and wray, as well merrick garland, i have personal experience in dealing with their dishonesty and refusal to actually provide information to congress and our oversight authority. as far as mayorkas, this is a gentleman head of the department of homeland security. just to give you a i -- an idea of the couple of things that he has done. according to border control -- border patrol, the official numbers is that there are over 12 million. these are not the accurate numbers but the official numbers. there is over 12 million illegal

aliens that have crossed the border in the last 3.5 years. mayorkas has been the head of the department of homeland security. one of the highest causes of death among young people in the united states is fentanyl, because there has been enough fentanyl across the border to kill the population over and over. when you look at the money, he created an organization where mayorkas has been giving funding to various organizations whose very purpose is to suppress the free speech rights of conservatives and people who are center-right. when you talk about christopher wray and the fbi. the fbi has been broken for some time. i will go back to the fact that they were obtaining from the pfizer court that were based upon falsified and perjured information. it is very difficult for me to take you seriously when you

attack me personally, number one. number two. the gentleman i am talking about i have on record as failing to do their jobs and not only failing to do our job -- their jobs but violating the constitutional rights of american citizens in the process. host: marlin in oregon. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. representative, you are such a breath of fresh air. always hold your chin up and do not like the people who are just like the one on talk down to you because it does not mean anything. half of this country have prompt arrangement syndrome and they will never get it. they will always hate him. and they continuously watch csa -- cnn, and msnbc and get gas let and that is all caused by the obama administration from the time he walked down the

escalator until now. all of these weaponization of the government against him are all fabricated. i mean, these people say to me that they are christians, but they are atheists or ungodly where they will be able to see the truth or the light. they cannot. host: any comments? guest: thank you for your comments. i think that what we have to see is we have an exciting four years ahead of us. i am looking forward to the idea of returning to the constitutional framework. and the folks who have been nominated so far, that is what they dedicate their tenures to do. host: donna in hanover, pennsylvania. democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a first time caller. i have a question and some comments. my question is does the

integrity of a person's character matter anymore? apparently not. apparently not though. and i say that because you are a lawyer, you said you were a lawyer and i am assuming you believe in the rule of law and if a jury finds you guilty then that is that and you should not have any opinions on the judges and things like that. this country, half of this country voted for a convicted felon. did we not? guest: no. host: donald trump is a convicted felon, right? guest: he has not. he is not because the case has not been resolved. that has been going on over the last couple of days. right now there is a delay and stay in place. so he has to be sentenced. host: technically convicted

felon. guest: until the court has ruled against him. the court has ruled against him but the reversible error is off of the charts and i could write out 25 different examples and way that judge committed reversible error. the reversible error was so egregious that i felt like he was doing it intentionally. they wanted a conviction prior to the november election, but they also recognized that the nature of the case being brought was so out of line in terms of the allegations made and under new york law that they knew that they also wanted a reversal on appeal. i watch this play out and it was like the basketball team throwing the game. when you exclude the head of the fec, the former head of the fcc as an expert witness as to whether the fundamental question at hand, whether donald trump committed some kind of election

fraud or failed to properly report something, when you can exclude the one person who gave the expert testimony you know that the game is rigged. host: this is a federal election commission. does that answer your question? caller: i was trying to finish up -- finish my comment. host: go ahead. caller: you spewed out all of the legal terms and i am not a lawyer. i have no initials behind my name, but i am not stupid. 34 counts, convicted felon. he was found liable for raping someone. and he is a horrible and vile man. now, half of the country, the majority voted for that.

it was not surprising to me that -- there was a time that if your reputation was blemished they would have stepped down. that happened to al franklin, do you remember that? host: any last comments? guest: there is nothing else to say. host: doug in maryland. independent line. caller: i just wanted to say why we do not want the paper to come out. and talking about holding people accountable, let us see if there is something to hold accountable. if there is nothing, there is nothing. you say you want to hold people accountable, so let's hold everyone accountable. let's answers callout. host: i think he said if you want to hold people accountable,

hold everybody accountable. guest: let the process play out. host: you are on the natural resources committee. talk about some of the energy policy priorities that you will be pursuing in the next congress? guest: very important ones. wyoming is one of the top energy producing states. we are the a floral -- largest oil and gas producers and eighth coal producer. wyoming has so much to offer in terms of powering the country and making sure we have affordable and reliable energy. i look forward to the opportunity to work with ahead of the department of interior, mr. burgum and working with the department of energy and hopefully there are some other folks appointed shortly that will be addressing these issues. we need to unleash american energy. i read an article where a gentleman was saying and it was probably 2014 or 2013.

this gentleman wrote the idea that the united states is going to be energy independent is crazy and will never happen. we are not going to be energy independent and people need to stop saying that. i thought that is a weird thing to say and then we get donald trump elected in 2016 and before he left office we were energy independent. not only were we energy independent but we were a main energy exporter. what has happened over the last four years with the war, the biden-harris war on domestic energy production, we have had to turn to some of our arch enemies, venezuela, russia and iran. iran has made $110 billion off of oil sales in the last -- host: from the united states. guest: we are because we lifted sanctions because the biden-here is administration lifted sanctions, $110 billion.

the leadership was on its knees when donald trump left office because of the sanctions. but the wonderful people of iran do not like their government. they do not like the repression. they want freedom and they were going to get that. but the funding of hamas and hezbollah is as big -- is because we allowed iran to make $110 billion in the last 3.5 years in oil sales because of these policies. having domestic energy production and unleashing that is not only good for the united states but good for the world. and a weak america leads to a very unstable and dangerous world. one of the keys is affordable and reliable energy that we can produce in america. host: representative harriet hageman, thank you so much for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: coming up more of your phone calls on open forum and as we wait for them to come in, we will show you yesterday from

fema's hurricane response. jim jordan question administrators on text messages instructing staff to avoid homes with trump signs while chant -- while canvassing hurricane ravaged areas in north carolina. [end video clip] -- [video clip] >> fema officials said that miss lysing -- washington likely received clear guidance from her supervisors and is that person lying? >> i have not received any evidence outside of the screenshot that ms. washington directed. >> so those people are wrong? >> we are investigating. >> you said isolated and has not happened. this is the only time and they are saying it is commonplace. >> i am saying that fema's mission is to help all people. >> the best evidence we have is the actual screenshot. let us look at what the text message said. the text message said implement best practices like this is the

best practices. and when they talk about going in pairs or with more than one person and avoid the trump homes, drink your water, take your towel, coconut water. day hydrated, walk with someone else and do not go to trump homes. it seems very common in the actual evidence that we do have the text message itself. are you still saying that ms. washington on this other person are not telling the truth? >> when i received this text message it is not in accordance of the way that we direct business in fema. >> even though it says stay hydrated and go in pairs even though it said bring a towel and make sure you cover up. it says coconut water and even though it set all those practical things, the thing about avoiding the trump homes is not a best practice and commonplace. >> that is nowhere in our policy. >> i am not saying the policy. >> ok, and her supervisor, have

you talked to him to find out if he knew that this was happening. >> i understand that he was in her chain of command and this is under investigation. >> there are 13 people. have you talked to all 13 people? >> this is under investigation. >> that is not how it asked. we know how investigations work. did you talk to the 13 people on this best practices text message. >> the office of professional responsibility has taken this and they are following proper appropriate protocol. and i have asked the inspector general to look at this. >> any idea when they will talk to the 13 people. how about you personally? >> i have not talked to them. i have an entire team that focuses on this investigation and that is what they are doing. >> it seems like it is a part of a mindset in government and i think it is broader.

take what people have said. this reminds me, we talked about this many times. let us go back. the same person who said that this likely received very clear guidance and this other female officials said that, i have heard from other entities serving in north carolina that there was clear guidance to be mindful of the types of people who are in western north carolina. that is pretty derogatory stuff is it? you know what it sounds like, it sounds like peter strzok who said i just went into walmart and i can smell the trump supporters. it sounds like joe biden when he said all the garbage i see is a trump supporters and it sounds like the guy that the democrats had testify back in 20 in the impeachment conservatives and very conservative people tend to spread out because they do not even want to be around themselves. this disdain and mindset in the

government where everyone is deployable and everyone is garbage and they are smelly people at walmart and be mindful of those people in western north carolina. that is what it sounds like and the best evidence is the text message we have which reinforces the mindset we have seen from so many people in the government. >> the actions directed by ms. washington are unacceptable and when i received the text message i directed her termination. [end video clip] >> washington journal continues. host: we are in open forum but before we take your calls we will speak to representative glenn ivey who is a democrat of maryland and member of the judiciary and ethics committee as well as homeland security committee. representative welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. host: i wanted to ask you since you are on the ethics committee about the gaetz report. i understand that you are

meeting behind closed doors today. guest: yes. i cannot go into the details but the committee will have a meeting today. host: are you going to be voting, is that how it works on whether or not to release the report? guest: i cannot go into the details about that aspect of it. what i can say is that the senate has requested the report. and the supporting documents in respect to any investigation regarding former congressman gates. you know, i think it will be important for them to get that material because it is relevant to the constitutional decision they have to make on the advise and consent requirement under the constitution about nominating. and there is no nominee more important than u.s. attorney general. i think that is where the larger picture stands. host: congressman, the ethics committee has been investigating mr. gaetz since 2021.

why hasn't it been since it was completed, why wasn't released before he resigned? guest: i cannot get into them at -- the internal mechanics. the way that works it is like a grand jury, essentially. you will have an investigation going on that could take days, months or years that you cannot talk about what happened internally until after the material has been released. so, i am restricted for speaking about the particulars of what has happened with that investigation or the report for that matter at this point. host: some advisers to president-elect trump have been encouraging that the job of the background checks job be taken away from the fbi and go to private investigators, what is your reaction to that? guest: i am not sure that makes sense. the fbi has been doing background checks for decades and i do not think there have

been complaints about lies on their part. i know sometimes they are concerns about whether they are invested -- aggressive or not. there were complaints during the cavanaugh hearing that the fbi did not go deep enough, but overall it makes sense to let the investigators at the fbi take care of this and provide the information. by the way, my experience while in private practice is the private investigators end up being former fbi agent's, so i do not know if you are changing all that much by trying to make it private. what it would do is potentially undermine the opportunity for the senate to get all of the information that they want from another government agency relevant to the decisions that they will have to make on the slew of nominees that president-elect donald trump is sending up to the senate for confirmation hearings. host: what there be information that the fbi would have access to further investigation that a

private investigator would not have accident -- access to? classified information or anything like that? guest: i do not know how the private piece would work. the fbi background checks gets access to everything that the senate needs especially from the executive branch. sometimes they might need to issue a subpoena or something along those lines. what is unique about this is that this is the senate requesting information that the house might have reservations about providing based on speaker johnson's comments. there might be some resistance for the house and providing the information that the senate wants which is a unique dispute. you frequently have disputes between congress and the executive branch over information and documents. we saw a slew of those in the last congress with a republican house demanding information from the department of justice under president biden. those have been worked out over the years. frequently they go to court most

of the time not, they get resolved informally and hopefully that will happen. host: you serve on the homeland security committee and on the ranking member on the subcommittee on oversight and accountability. i want to talk about the nomination of tulsi gabbard as director of national intelligence. guest: i do not know much about her and what i have heard so far suggest that there certainly would be more experienced candidates out there who could hit the ground running in a way that apparently she cannot. i think there are a lot of nominees that president trump has put forward that may be passed the loyalty tests and have good personal relationships with him. but they do not seem to have the experience that we want to have major agencies like that, the things that go to national security or the national defense from the standpoint of the department of justice,

prosecution of spies and prosecution of national or international cartels. criminal cases and arguments before the supreme court. there are a lot of important things in these cabinet positions that they are responsible for. it will be good to have people who have the experience and can deal with that upfront. there is a managerial piece. the department of justice for example has 110,000 plus employees and is a huge undertaking. it is good to have people who have run something at some point in their careers so they have some managerial experience that they can use going forward. host: congressman, regarding tulsi gabbard, "the guardian" has headlined a russian asset. democrats slam trump's pickup tells a gabbard as director of national intelligence. this it would be wasserman schultz using that phrase.

guest: i have heard those accusations and i know there is some evidence to support those claims. it will be very important for the senate to take a close look because, again, this is the national security position. we do not want anyone compromised with relationships to some of our adversaries and russia is one of them. and the decision-making process and the policy input mentation process because the safety and security of the united states stands in the balance. i think it will be extremely important for the senate to really hash that out. by the way, it would be useful for president trump to send nominees who what i say just on the whole better qualified than most of the ones he has sent so far. marco rubio is one where i saw that nomination and i do not necessarily agree with his policies but i get the background experience that he brings to the table.

governor burgum from north dakota is another one of those. most of the rest of them are falling short of the mark from the standpoint of picking people with experience and expertise and skill set to really manage these entities in the right way from a conservative perspective or whatever the president wants to do. i talk about a policy difference and i'm talking about expertise and experience basis. host: just about your priorities for the next congress and what you will really be working on and hoping to accomplish. guest: we will have to see where the republicans want to go because they control the entire government at this point. they will have control of the white house, senate and house of representatives and the trump appointees are basically giving him control of the supreme court to the republicans as well. that is a 6-3 split. it is clear that the republicans will drive the agenda of what will happen.

some of things at the president is talking about i find to be very concerning. for example, potentially putting loyalty tests for the generals and admirals. i think that is problematic. it is important for them to be loyal to the constitution, not to any individual particularly, including the president. i am worried about abuse or misuse of the military and an approach like that. the department of justice and rule of law is another important aspect that i need to be sure we can defend going forward. talking about using the department of justice to get payback against some of his " enemies" and rolling back cases that he does not like, particularly those against him and i think willy-nilly issuing pardons to january 6 convicted felons, i think that is a bad way to go. and it is not the way -- the right way to start his presidency off.

we will see where he goes. host: his supporters will say it is not revenge or retribution that he is asking for or accountability. how do you respond? guest: we will see. some of the names that he has put on the "enemies" list, i do not know what the accountability is talking about other than doing things that he does not like. it is a big list and a long list and we have not seen anything like this since richard nixon, and even richard nixon would pale at the extent to which that president-elect trump has gone targeting these folks. he has been pretty explicit in his suggestions about how he wants to use the department of justice and the appointments and nomination so far are concerning as well on that front. again, we will see how it plays out but it is not off to a great start. host: last question about the

government efficiency departments headed by ramaswamy and elon musk. when they say that they want to close entire agency is, and agencies will be "deleted," how will that work and what is congress' role in that. guest: i have no idea what they have in the mind. i will note the irony of creating the government agency and reduce the size of government and having two people run it instead of one. it seems a little counterintuitive. and how they want to eliminate the department of education which plays a key role in the united states and has been for decades and in some instances since the founding of the republic. i do not know what they have in mind. i am not sure they really know what they are doing and i think it could cause real problems with respect to the government rising -- running efficiently

and providing the services that americans need and making sure that america is safe from its adversaries. host: representative glenn ivey a democrat from maryland and a member of the judicial ethics committee and the committee for homeland security, thank you for joining us. we are in open forum and happy to take your calls. we start with harry in alabama. democrat. caller: good morning c-span and mimi. representative hageman talked about returning things to the state net needs more exploring. if you look at a lot of these states, some of these constitutions back in 1901 like in alabama so going forward if you look at that, some of these would have never been elected because they never drew that district. it is important when they look at returning things to the state because of the history of that

country, that needs to be explored about what they mean like returning something to the states. host: dennis in new york. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. am i on? host: yes. caller: a few things. january 6 was avoidable. she was offered 10 to 15,000 national guardsmen. she declined, knowing that trump had a rally down the road and that that will happen. that is one thing. the gas lighting as far as biden's mental acuity and the withdrawal from afghanistan. people have ptsd and people go to the stupid democrats. the gas lighting and the lies are why they are out of office. another thing. you say trump is a felon. who is a bigger felon, the

administration under may orca's -- mayorkas and garland have lost children and even the mention of sentinel, how do they sleep at night. trump got in and i hope that it is not too late for america to come back from this. thank you for taking my call. host: kathleen in texas. independent. caller: anyway, i wanted to ask a couple of questions if i may because i was talk so long and get cut off. the question is what our american supposed to do? we have to get the illegals out. and i have one other message. i need to get a hold of president trump and let him find

me in texas. very important messages from god , the almighty. and if we do not do something, i mean every time i call i get cut off. it is just bad for all of the american people. and nobody is listening to us. it is all everything about everything -- everybody in washington. everyone in washington are sinners. everybody in the world are sinners. ok. we all sin. i do not understand about god, it is not our war and i do not understand why our american troops are over there. president biden put -- and nobody questioned his actions on anything that he did. did you see it last week? when he asked everybody, i do not know what program he was talking to, the middle east

people over there and they had the program on and all of a sudden the camera started going crazy. they took that man out that was speaking and then president biden walks up and he says you know after a couple minutes and says everybody can have everybody's house is. you can take over the white house, but do not touch my house. host: this is carrie in atlanta. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i am ok. caller: i have a couple comments that i would like to make, first about harriet hagerman. representative is not telling today that she was once a good friend of liz cheney. she supported liz cheney's campaigns and she also in 2016

supported ted cruz in addition to that, she was not for donald trump. i think after donald trump won as so many people dead in politics, they had to come over to his side and drink the trump kool-aid, which she did. at that point in time, she completely abandoned her support for liz cheney. and then she also supported the fact that the 2020 campaign was not fair or that it was rigged. so now that she has become the representative, she has done a total 180 and she is all in on the trump side. so, i think if you are going to be fair and if you are going to be honest, you know, tell the

truth about everything. do not be afraid or ashamed of your history. also, i would like to comment about matt gaetz. he served as a lawyer for two years and then he went into politics. so, he is that she had a small law firm. and i really do not think that gives him the experience to be able to be the attorney general. he has not tried any major cases , any government cases. once again, i think president-elect trump is doing a repeat of his first term with his appointments. he has a couple that i will give a pass to. the rest of them are clearly loyalty appointments. people who are loyal to him. and i just want to say everybody, the election is over. the election has to be accepted

for what it is. if you are happy or not move forward, that involved in your community and get involved in the political process. know the people who are representing you and know who will represent you and pick people who represent what you stand for and your values. i hope at some point in time and this is my last comment, the republican party will return to having people with morals and scruples, dignity and respect because they have fallen short of that and they are morally bankrupt. host: let us go to diane in florida. republican. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i am doing ok. caller: i just wanted to say that we are all americans and as much as we do not like it, donald trump was elected. i am glad that he was elected, but i just pray to god that he

puts aside any anger and animosity and is a real leader. i do not like the picks for the cabinet except for marco rubio. the rest of them are basically loyalists. and they are not experienced enough or trustworthy enough to be holding those high positions, but that is his choice. if we do not have any republicans with a spine, then they will be confirmed. and we just have to pray that the country is not destroyed as a result. i pray to god for my leaders whether they are democrat or republican every night. that god will bless our country to come together and put aside the hate and one party stabbing

the other. and just be one party. i mean, we argued the united states of them -- we are the united states of america, which is one party, technically. that is about it. host: here is johnstown, pennsylvania. the democrats. ron, you are next. are you there? caller: can you hear me? host: yes. go ahead. caller: i want to talk about the afghanistan withdrawal. you hear so many stories but here is fact checking. donald trump negotiated with the taliban terrorists and excluded the afghan army. trump not biden drove down u.s. forces from 13,000 to 2300 making them vulnerable to attack. trump wanted to invade -- to invite the taliban leaders to

camp david on the anniversary of 9/11. trump not biden ordered the release of 5000 taliban fighters from prison, and one would become the leader of the afghanistan people. trump not biden agreed to may 1 as a withdrawal from afghanistan. and said he did not need an exit strategy. trump refused to brief biden's incoming team on the situation in afghanistan. trump not biden shut down every airbase in afghanistan except for one crippling the u.s. ability to extract asset safely. like paul harvey used to say, that is the rest of the story. thank you. host: brandy --randy in alabama. independent. caller: i think present trump ought to do the reset on gas just like they did on eric holder and do the same thing

with do the reset deployment. if the democrats can do that with eric holder then trump should be able to do it. thank you. host: here is robert in raleigh, north carolina. republican. hello. caller: good morning and good morning my fellow americans. i do not like to wear labels and i do not live -- allow anyone to identify me. for the sake of my graphics i am an african-american male and i do not want other people to speak to me on how i voted or should have voted. there are people that i see all the time and they are talking to me like they speak for all black men. i am one, let me speak for myself. i was a registered independent and i decided to vote republican.

i proudly voted for donald trump and let me take a moment to tell you why. i did not like kamala harris going to so-called traditional black colleges and universities and telling our young people that abortion is ok. and i did not like how that when people try to talk to her about the suffering of the economy that she would find everything funny. it is ok to have a laughing personality, but this is our lives and our economy and life is hard. one other thing why i voted for donald trump is because he seems to be a family man and he says what he means. a lot of his policies i did not agree with. but if there is one thing i did know, if he said he was going to do something and he did those things. and i can always appreciate a man who would do that. and so, i do not want no

comedians and all of these or steve harvey and everybody in all of these people and buffoons trying to represent me as a black man. i did not like kamala harris going to a barbershop and hurting her sides that -- laughing and pandering to black men like they are stupid. host: thank you. george in oak harbor, washington. democrat. caller: how are you doing. i just want to make a comment. i tried to call the other day when we were talking about social security. and during the pandemic we lost one million americans. of which, three quarters were over age 65. if the average -- if they averaged $2000 a month from social security, we saved $1.5 billion a month and nobody talks

about that and the fact that president trump at the time downplayed the covid pandemic. thank you. host: kevin. lancaster, south carolina. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. don't cut me off, it's been a while since i've called. i would like to talk to the black americans. vice president harris once stated i'm not can it do anything specifically for black americans it wouldn't be fair to other races. and like the previous caller said, she paid al sharpton $500,000, like the previous gentlemen it is insulting but they talk about security of america, you just read the

report, president joe biden took 12 million illegal immigrants from around the world put them to america without any background checks. in providing housing, cash money , food stamps to people who aren't even supposed to be in this country. you still there? host: yep. caller: i don't want to -- now they want to criticize president trump's nominees. matt gaetz there's a lot of ethics problems in the senate and congress hurried -- host: menendez is gone. he was convicted and was forced to resign. caller: that's the second time, the first time he got away without. -- host: in george santos he was also pushed out. caller: well i'm glad, but i'm an independent. but the people have spoken, all your callers today -- the price

of groceries, they don't want to talk to rump. of the -- and afghanistan, they got that russian collusion for hillary clinton. people need to read and stop listening to cnn and talking heads and do your own research. host: up next, national security reporter lara of the wall street journal joins us to discuss what president-elect trumps second term could mean for u.s. defense and national security policy. we will be right back. ♪ >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio is easy. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to washington journey daily read important public affairs events throughout the day and weekdays cat washington today, listen to c-span any time. tell your smart speaker play

c-span radio. powered by cable. since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span's provided plea covered from the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, a 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. if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage you can find any time online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you interesting and

newsworthy highlights. they appear on the right side of your screen. this timeline makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and 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 1970 nine we've been your primary source for capitol hill. providing balanced unfiltered coverage of government. taking you to where the policy is debated and decided with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back we will discuss the defense of national security policy in a trim -- second trump turn, the national security reporter, welcome to the program.

>> thank you so much for having me. >> let's start with ukraine it was confirmed yesterday ukraine did fire those american-made long-range missiles into russia for the first time. can you talk about those missiles and what that might mean for ukraine's capability? >> sure. the background is ukraine with the long-range missiles with the permission to use them in russia for a long time. president biden has resisted for many months i merrily because of the risk of escalating with russia. and the pentagon has argued policies would have little military value on the battlefield. finally president biden gave the ok this week it seems that may have been driven by the presence of north korean troops on the battlefield with russian troops fighting in kursk. ukraine used them for the first time to strike and ammunition storage facility in russia.

so as expected, russian officials immediately condemned the strike as an escalation that they did not give specifics in washington the white house look to these comments as saber rattling. you asked whether this will have an impact on the battlefield. i say yes in the short term there are certainly some targets that are more enriched now in range of these which they can fly about 200 miles. but in the long term there is still the challenge that the russians have moved many of their main targets out of range of the -- and did that months ago as soon as biden provided the long-range missiles to ukraine. the other issue is ukraine didn't have many of these missiles so it will have to preserve them. there's going to be a limit to how much we can provide. so that's what i say would be there battlefield impact. >> are the ukrainians limited in using those only in the kursk region where you mention the

north korean forces are and where that counteroffensive was launched from. >> that's a little unclear right now. it seems like that is the case that they would be limited to using them for these cross-border attacks across the border. but the biden administration has not come out and confirmed the policy change so right now that's a little bit unclear and again it's likely to move further one way or another in the next couple of months. you saw with the initial policy on long-range munitions the biden administration initially did not allow ukraine to use them. then slowly they allowed them to use them for cross-border attacks and then in the different regions. that's been kind of a moving target this whole time so i think we will find out more in the days ahead when the biden administration comes out and gives those details about policy change.

>> a portion of the pentagon spokesperson addressing the issue yesterday, a reporter asked about whether the lifting of restrictions on those long-range missiles would amount to escalation. here it is. >> we are not at war with russia and the party here that continues to escalate that is russia. by bringing in another foreign country into the battlefield, by bringing in over 11,000 soldiers into the fight that is in escalatory action. and you've heard the national security advisor say yesterday this administration told russia if they escalated the conflict by deploying dprk troops we would help ukraine respond. again, the parts of the war that have been escalated directly stem from russia's choice and decision to invade its sovereign neighbor. >> given the joint u.s. nato escalation of attacks with

ukraine against russia and with china and north korea joining russia to form an alliance against the west but now you say world war iii has begun. >> that is not the characterization that this building assesses. host: your reaction to that? >> i think this is what the pentagon has been saying all along and is a message they are really hammering now that the u.s. is not at war with russia. the u.s. is supporting ukraine in its conflict to try and drive russia out of ukraine so the message has been we do not want an escalation with russia. we do not want any kind of war with russia between the u.s. or with europe. so that's why the biden administration has been using -- moving very slowly to change its policies on these weapons. you saw in the beginning of the war the biden administration did not want to send the rocket

launchers and eventually they did send those weapons and they sent the missile defense system. they sent on armored vehicles and tanks. as the war has gone on the administration has slowly been pushing that line a little bit further and further back in order to prevent this kind of escalation with russia. so far it seems to have worked. you certainly see russian officials talking about making threats but they have not used nuclear weapons, they have not attacked american or european troops aside from ukraine. so right now we are in this very fragile moment where you do not want to push too far for russia to think we are escalating and some kind of incident but you also want to supply the ukrainians with what they need to fight russia. >> one of your articles in the wall street journal is u.s. struggles to rush weapons to

ukraine before trump takes office. america's election outcome jeopardizes the arms pipeline that's enabled ukraine to keep fighting. what is happening right now with arms shipments to ukraine and what are we expecting come january 20. >> right now the biden administration has billions in drawdown authority which means it allows the pentagon to transfer weapons and munitions to ukraine from its own stock. that billions of dollars, the biden administration only has so much time until the january 20, the inauguration to spend that money and also to deliver those weapons to the battlefield. the concern is president trump might stop that authority and might then stop the equipment from getting to the battlefield as well. so officials are racing not just to use the authority but also to ship the weapons as fast as possible. it is going to be extremely

challenging for several reasons. there is a logistical question of shipping weapons from the u.s. and from stocks in europe to ukraine. that takes a long time it is a complicated process. there's also the concern among u.s. officials the u.s. does not have enough of the stocks of weapons including the long-range missiles we talked about earlier in order to support its own inventory. there is a lot of concern around whether ukraine will get all of the military equipment it needs by the time the new trump administration comes in. and the question is what will the trump administration do. will they stop these shipments there is some concern the president -- the president-elect may try to use some of that military equipment as leverage to get a deal between ukraine and russia. so i think it remains to be seen whether that effort will be successful. >> we are talking to laura solomon of the wall street journal if you've got a question

about the policy you can start calling now. the lines are democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. is it possible that the new trump administration would revoke that permission to use those long-range missiles or other american weapon systems? caller: it is certainly possible. it seems unlikely the trump administration would pull any of those permissions back, but it is something they could do. i think it is more likely they try to hold up the weapons shipment again as leverage to get some sort of deal between ukraine and russia as that's one of the things the president-elect has said he wants to do quickly in his term is put an end to the fighting which has dragged on for almost three years and has been a brutal war which both sides have lost hundreds of thousands of troops. but at this point the situation

is not looking so great for ukraine on the front lines in ukraine and in the kursk region in russia where they are seeing those 10,000 or more troops alongside the russian troops. it remains to be seen whether president-elect trump have any more luck getting a peace deal than president biden. >> let's talk about the picks for defense secretary pete head seth. what has been the reaction among the people you talk to in the national security and defense field to that nomination. >> certainly it was seen as a major surprise. he was not on anyone's list to be secretary of defense in terms of the national security community so that did surpri people. he is a longtime fox news host and an army veteran who deployed to iraq and afghanistan. he has military experience but no government leadership.

there's been questions about whether he is actually qualified to be secretary of defense, it's the largest federal agency, more than 2 million employees and more than $800 billion budget. this is one of the biggest jobs in the cabinet so there's been a lot of questions about that. there's also other red flags in his past, for instance he's expressed a lot of the same views about the military the president-elect has which raises some concerns from some people he wants to roll back having limiting -- roll back women in combat roles. he wants to potentially fire a bunch of generals he believes have benefited from diversity and inclusion programs. another issue that's come up is he was accused of sexual assault . although he was never charged he did pay the woman as part of a nondisclosure agreement in 2020 so there's been a lot of red

flags in his past and people have to see how it shakes out. >> one of your articles from the wall street journal says how his tattoo got him barred from working at biden's inauguration. and you talk about that tattoo, i guess this is a picture of it. i'm not sure we can really see the tattoo. >> he has two tattoos that could have been considered problematic. one of them is the jerusalem cross and the other one is the more problematic one which is an inscription that says deus vult which is associated with white nationalist extremist groups. one of the protesters -- a lot of the protesters were using that call. so this was raised as a potential "insider threat by one of security people ahead of biden's inauguration in 2021. at the time he was in the national guard and was supposed

to be called up to help guard the inauguration but his superiors flagged this picture of the tattoo and his superiors decided to limit him from duty. that's another thing that could potentially be an issue in confirmation. >> we will go to calls now to rachel up first in colliers ville tennessee, independent. >> yes, can you hear me ok? >> yes, go ahead. >> i have a question. what is your opinion of the purpose of this escalation during a transition period, especially when donald trump clearly ran on ending this war and he overwhelmingly won. why -- is this what the democrats consider a peaceful transfer of power is potentially escalating the war against

russia? in order to box in donald trump and want to make a comment. i wish the press would be more clear to the american people that these advanced systems rely on u.s. intelligence, u.s. personnel so we have in fact declared war against russia and it's a war that we definitely provoked when we overthrew the government in 2014 in ukraine that set off a horrible civil war and we've been arming and supporting building up their military forces which obviously if russia was doing that in canada or mexico against the united states, i have no doubt that washington would respond. host: let's get a response. caller: so i would disagree with your characterization that the u.s. overthrew the government in

russia. what happened was russians sent people to crimea and they were the ones that were the aggressors in that war and ukrainians have been fighting along more since 2014. to your question about the attack comes and the missiles that would potentially provoke russia right before the transition. i think what happened was the biden administration figured the trump administration would do that anyway and so they figured they would just do it first and take the credit for it because a lot of folks in congress and ukraine and u.s. allies had been pushing biden for a long time to make that decision and make that policy shift so i think they decided to make this change so they could take credit ahead of the trump administration. host: here is kathy, a democrat

in pennsylvania. go ahead kathy. >> thank you for taking my call. i am with the previous caller. if you had 2.5 years with which to produce these weapons previously, why did he wait to do it? president biden at this time and stage of the game? you know, we can clearly see from the american people it's a great escalation. russians someone not to deal heavily armed with and i believe this was a tactical move that should not have been made. >> talk about the timing, why now of this approval for the attack,. >> this isn't something president biden is -- this is something that he has been pushed to do for quite a long time and we talked about how the biden administration has taken this incremental approach so in

terms of the timeline i do not find it surprising that he would choose this time to change the policy in terms of the attack. host: i was just can ask do we know of any impact. i guess it is still early but any impact of those weapons and of those north korean troops that are in that region. host: the weapons were used to destroying ammunition storage facility so i think they have had some battlefield impact already. and again russian officials have condemned this step and said it is escalatory but they did not provide any specific response on what they would do in response and in d.c. the white house says this is just saber rattling from russia. part of the reason they actually did take the step was because of russia using north korean troops now.

u.s. considers that an escalation and you're pulling in a different country that many consider an adversary and is clearly an aggressor to the united states and its allies. north korea coming in to help in this proxy war. i think many would consider that the first escalation by russia and i think that was part of the reason it was driving the fact the biden administration change their policies. i think there's a lot of factors that went in. but i don't think it was deliberately to cause an escalation with russia just before the trump transition took over. host: republican in dewey, arizona. stephen, good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is interesting that when putin took over crimea in 14, biden and obama basically did nothing about it. they took over the strategic port in the black sea and didn't

even give them weapons. it was trump who gave them weapons when trump became president 16, 17 and 18 and that call with zelenskyy that nancy pelosi impeached and the democrats impeach trump with. was ridiculous. a lot of us feel that there is no way a war would've broken out if trump was president and it's funny how easy they took over crimea with obama who is clearly a stronger president than biden and a soon as biden gets in office they start a war. in ukraine. and for a lot of people don't realize for hundreds of years russia controlled that part of the slavic regions. ukraine has never really been a country till maybe 1990 give or take.

>> let's get lara's response. caller: given you are absolutely correct that the obama administration when biden was vice president did not really arm ukraine with significant weapons. they did provide them some things like nightvision goggles and training hope troops but you are right that president trump finally approved sending ukraine javelin missile weapons. but then it wasn't until the invasion of ukraine that the pentagon started sending ukraine lethal weapons en masse with the javelins and the stingers and the patriots. so you are certainly correct about that. but i also think it is worth saying the biden administration has taken a very incrementalist approach to arming the ukrainians and they have sort of done it very slowly pushing this

redline. and to your point about this essentially wouldn't have happened if trump had been president. i think there is an argument to be made that the reason russia went into ukraine was because putin was afraid of the westernization of ukraine and the growing strength of nato which did happen under biden so i think there is an argument to be made that perhaps he might not have been as aggressive but on the others he's also made a lot of statements making it clear he wanted to go into ukraine and take over anyway regardless and that was always one of his goals. i think hindsight is 20/20 and it's difficult to know what would've happened if trump had been president. >> i want to ask you about this wall street journal article, trump draft executive order would create generals. you alluded earlier about a it's called a warrior board to review three-star and four-star officers and fast-track their

removal. can you tell us what's happening with that, if that's going to happen, what do you know about it? caller: this is a draft executive order that would establish the warrior board. its former military personnel appointed by trump outside the normal pentagon promotion system that would get essentially reviewing the performance of three-star and four-star officers and potentially firing them. this would be a pretty drastic step that would bypass the normal pentagon process but it is in keeping with trump's statements he made on the campaign trail so it's really not unexpected. trump has spoken about the woke generals referring to officials in the pentagon. as a -- he sees as a promoting diversity, equity and inclusion at the expense of military readiness. this isn't something completely unexpected but it could create this chilling effect on the top

military brass who are now facing having their futures decided by people outside of the pentagon process that were appointed by trump. and then again, the nominee is also talked about firing the woke generals so it seems likely something like this will be signed if not this exact memo then something like this will certainly happen. >> can you talk about the relationship of president-elect trump with the military at large and with generals and admirals specifically and how it might differ in the second term versus the first term. >> that is a good question. it started out in 2016 that president trump was speaking about my generals and he appointed a lot of former generals such as jim mattis, john kelly, h.r. mcmaster to his administration. but his relationship with those quickly soured and he fired all

of the people i just mentioned and by the end of his term he was even on the rocks with the current military personnel such as general mark milley who is now retired and was then the chairman of the joint chiefs and since then trump has actually said general milley should be executed. he has a difficult relationship with the top military brass. it still seems like he has a good relationship with the lower ranking folks and the ncos and that kind of thing. but i think it remains to be seen with his relationship will be like with the pentagon in this administration i think certainly he's going to come in and try to fire some of the top brass. but i think it remains to be seen whether that relationship will be fixed. >> lucy is next. pennsylvania. caller: good morning everyone.

i wanted to ask the journalist there, donald trump promised everybody that if we voted for him that he would end the war in ukraine and you said he wouldn't even wait until january when he took office. but that he would do it right away when he was president-elect. and that it would only take one phone call from him and that is it. the war against ukraine would be over. so i was wondering has your guest or any journalist from any paper asked donald trump why he has not made that phone call yet? why is vladimir putin still killing those ukrainian people? he's been president-elect for

like two weeks now. he should have made that phone call by now, could you or your newspaper ask him why he doesn't stop the war in ukraine like he promised? host: ok lucy. >> certainly i think he has made some inroads in terms of calls. he has a call with president zelenskyy for example, one that elon musk, the billionaire that he joined. it's an interesting choice to have someone like elon musk on that kind of call. but he has not ended the war yet and i think he is just running against against his power as president-elect instead of president and the fact the biden administration of most three years of trying has and ended this war. so i think ending the war and getting peace in ukraine will be much more difficult than donald trump realizes.

and it probably won't be for lack of trying but i do not think he will be successful. immediately. host: mike in -- good morning. go right ahead. caller: good morning. first of all in regards to ballistic missiles, i'm not acquainted with what damage they do, they start fires? how damaging are they in the second thing in regards to trump contacting putin, as our guest have any evidence that president trump or president-elect trump is contacting putin in the last three or four days? thank you. >> i do not have any evidence of trump contacting putin in the last few days and i think that would certainly, it's something he said he would do and i think

there is a possibility he will do it but i do not know that at the time just yet. in terms of your question on ballistic missiles, i think -- the u.s. hasn't provided ballistic missiles to ukraine. they provided these long-range ones which is the army tactical missile system so that's a different kind of weapon. obviously both cause a lot of damage. host: before i let you go i want to ask you about the concept of using the military for the mass deportation plans president-elect trump is planning to carry out once he takes office. can you explain about any precedent for that, how that might work and the difference between using the military for deportations and the military that is at the border. >> certainly.

this is something that is extremely concerning to folks in the national security community that are worried about proliferation of the military and inappropriate use of the troops. it is very specifically written into law under posse, you taught us that they are not used in a law enforcement role. of course there could be an exception to that if trump declares a national emergency but that likely would be legal challenges. if it does happen it will be a very bad moment to have national guard troops putting handcuffs on migraines. it politicize the military inappropriately and it opens the floodgates to other uses of the military for instance against protesters, american citizens in american cities to do something that has not -- was not done before in the previous trump administration. i think trump wanted to do something like this at the southern border but the defense secretary at the time jim mattis prevented that from happening

and he made it clear the troops at the border would only be there in a support role in logistics role. it would not have any contact with the migrants. so this would be a big step away from that. host: laura, national security report for the wall street journal, you can find her work at wsj.com. >> thank you for having me. host: up next we are wrapping up washington journal with another open forum so you can start calling in now. the numbers are on your screen. while we wait we will show you more from yesterday's hearing on fema's hurricane response. represented of alexandria because io cortez questioned the fema administrator on this -- disinformation about fema disaster relief. take a listen. [video clip] >> fema assistance was only a $750 loan that would have to be paid back and if not, fema would

seize the homes of everyday people who may not be able to make that back in such a cash-strapped moment. is that correct. >> that is completely inaccurate. >> did you see a lot of people believing this on the ground or in the field? >> i was on the ground for over three weeks in north carolina and i did hear from people on the ground asking me is this real or not. >> another one that i also saw very widely circulated that fema did not have enough money to provide relief services because that al location of funds went to either undocumented immigrants, a to ukraine or even aid to the israeli government. is that correct, that fema funds were allocated away to those causes. >> completely inaccurate. >> on the record, completely false. other things we've seen as well

standing policy for fema to politically discriminate we know that is not true. >> correct. >> there was an incident we see but that individual was fired and this is not a policy at >> scale. >>correct. >> we know these are important pieces, a very large and influential pieces of disinformation that i want to talk about the harm of that. because if you are a fema worker canvassing door to door you need to knock on people's doors to see what help they need correct. >> correct. >> i know as someone who is a target of large amounts of misinformation and disinformation, people will sometimes and i genuinely want to separate this from a partisan accusation but it is important to say that if someone thinks a fema official is coming to their house away, that is a situation that could be as skillet tour he or become violent over something that is not true. correct? >> correct.

>> i have had people come to me in an escalatory way because they believe something about me on the internet that was completely false. and that's just me, let alone an anonymous fema official who does not have the same level of resources to be able to combat that misinformation. and on top of that when people do believe these things, what is the harm to the communities that then get convinced. >> one of the best stories i can share with you was in chimney rock talking to the leadership there and chimney rock is the area where there were accusations that there were physical threats to fema staff or we temporarily moved all of our staff. talking to that leadership team there they said this is not who we are. this is looking bad on my community. tourists may not want to come

visit my community. but we need your help, the people in this community need to register for assistance and now we have to make sure they understand the government is there to help them and encourage them to apply for assistance so they can start the road to recovery. i think that is a good example of how it not just impacts an individual but it impacts an entire community and the reputation and who they believe they are and the public writ large things they are. >> washington journal continues. >> we are in open forum now so interested hear your thoughts on anything public policy or politics related. if you are interested in disaster relief we have a hearing coming up at 10:00 a.m. in about 20 minutes over on c-span3 because president biden recently requested $100 billion in hurricane and disaster response. so today the heads of various federal agencies googling

transportation secretary pete buttigieg and fema secretary testifying about the need to pass disaster relief before the end of the year. you can watch that senate appropriations committee hearing live at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3, c-span now and c-span.org. also this afternoon at 2:00, hhs secretary javier becerra will testify on his deparent's office on refugee resettlement. and will likely face questions on the fast track released of unaccompanied children and saty concerns. that's the house judiciary subcommittee on immigration security a enforcement at 2:00 p.m. eastern live over on c-span3 also on the app and online. we will go to the calls now and start with john who was in illinois, independent line. caller: i've got a question it was for the person you just had on. why does anybody make the

correlation between january 6 and the russian invasion? that was my question for the person you had on earlier. host: how do you see the correlation? caller: think about it. it's just like the u.s. government has turned over in january 6 it's russia seeing it as an open invitation. they have problems of their own they won't bother us. host: ok. here is marilyn in georgia. democrat. caller: hello, how are you. host: good, what do you think. caller: i did not call to talk political. i called to give you guys a compliment. i hold you guys in the highest esteem. you get my adulation, you get my applause, my standing ovations. i cannot even fathom the fact

that you and your colleagues sit there every day and listen to all of this ignorance. anyway, i am hoping c-span is paying you guys the highest salary because you guys are center, you have this about you and you can be objective. i don't understand. if i had your position i would probably be on antidepressants, antianxiety medication. i probably would drink a lot because i admire you guys. i just admire you to the utmost. i wish i could be you, i really do.

c-span, you have hired some of the best people to host your shows and i appreciate that and i appreciate you. that's all i have to say. host: buford in middlefield, georgia, republican. caller: millersville. host: sorry. caller: i just wanted to call and say smile and have a good day. god bless america. i am an 88-year-old disabled veteran and i love my country and i love everyone that tries to protect it and god bless you and have a wonderful day. host: thank you, you two. this is philip in maryland, democrat. caller: good morning. i'd like it to take you back to the last two callers and just say good morning to america, thank you c-span for what it does because the information you

all give us it gives us a chance to try and figure out which way we go, we're getting information and if you didn't bring this information to us we would not have anything. a lot of things would happen behind our back and we wouldn't even know. thank you c-span for bringing the information to america so we can get a choice. i did not vote for donald trump, i like what he's can i do about the border because we do need national security. thank you. host: let's talk to bill in florida, republican line. caller: good morning, a great job you guys are doing there. i would like to see a couple of things happen. the border, they only built 500 miles of border when trump was in. the borders is only 2000 miles.

it shouldn't take four years to build the border wall number one. number two is whatever happened to term limits? i would like to see term limits on the next ballot. host: tell me a little bit more about the term limits, i'm assuming for congress? caller: yes for congress. host: how long should they be? caller: i would say for terms at the most which would be eight years? host: what about for the senate? do you think they should be term limited as well? caller: yes. i think we should have term limits just like we do for president, same thing. also we need a retinal scan or fingerprint on all of our ids so we can positively identify people. there are too many ways you can get fake driver's license and fake birth certificates. we need to change over to a retinal scan or something that

is full proof. retina or fingerprints. and term limits. that's what i would like to see happen in the next few years. host: here is benny in kentucky, democrat. >> it so good to talk to you. i call but i've never gotten to speak with you. i was just calling because i am really tired of hearing -- donald trump is our president. i did not vote for him, i do not want him, but if he can pull the rabbit out of the hat i am all for it. i doubt it. especially with these choices he is making and you can even see republicans bucking against him trying to hold him accountable. but there are just so many excuses they make. i heard the congresswoman earlier talking about they tried to get trump before russia.

for me it was nothing that the politician said, it was trump -- himself. i watch all the news channels and he put a target on himself by saying things like find those emails hillary clinton did and going to russia or wherever they went with putin and saying stuff like i don't think putin meddled in our election, he said he didn't do it and i agree with him. it is bizarre to me how many people can continue to kowtow to him and support him. so it is just really crazy to me. he is our president, i am all about our democracy and i hope -- i wish him well. but these pix are very frightening to me and that's what i want to say. thank you. host: here is michael in

california, independent line. caller: i think we should introduce minimum qualifications system so that people don't just run for office without some background, some civics. a poly graph. a resume check. donald trump would never have qualified for office if we had some minimum standards. host: like what? what needs to be on that resume? caller: he doesn't have to be a god but he has to be an honest person. he has to have worked diligently at something. he cannot be an heir. i do not believe in hereditary power like that.

but they have to have a basic understanding of civics. i do not think trump knows how it works yet. there's so much more we can do. >> rich in new jersey online for republicans. >> good morning. i want to say something about the john gates investigation. host: matt gaetz. caller: sorry. dear member john podesta, hillary clinton's right hand person. when his computer was hacked and the documents were stolen. and pelosi and hillary warned the media and everyone else including c-span that they released anything they would be sued and put in jail? do you remember when that happened and nobody released it. it was up for about 30 seconds

if that and then nobody else said anything about the computer stuff including c-span. so i hope you abide by that with the matt gaetz investigation, to denounce its hacked and stolen and because hillary and pelosi put out that memo to all the media and everyone else that because it was hacked and stolen that they could not report on it. so i hope you and joy the same game with them that you don't report on the stolen and hacked information no matter if it was bad or good. remember, the doj brought no charges against this man and they investigated thoroughly in the two women they said were not credible. so you know, i hope you play the same game now. i hope c-span doesn't go back to the last four years with donald trump. host: here is tabatha in

colorado, democrats. caller: good morning. i am on the opposite end of that spectrum. matt gaetz, just think about x represented coghlan who said they were having drug fueled or geez and that he himself was caught doing a menage eight wall cross-dressing after he came out against the republican party for doing that and matt gaetz himself. i also read liz cheney's book that talked about the normal republicans in the background trying to stop what trump was doing in the weeks coming up before january 6. they all knew what he was doing and the ones who actually believed in our system in the

background turning to stop it, that is why she went off on the road. and tried to stop him from getting elected again. they could see what he was doing before he was doing it. they tried to stop it for the rest of us and because there's strings on what we all see, half of the country knows what happens and the other doesn't. what do we do about that? host: vince in florida, line for republicans, you are next. host: good morning, -- caller: good morning i have a few comments to touch on previous callers. trump billed 500 miles of wall, yes he could've gotten more done if he was not railroaded and sidetracked by people who were

against him. now a couple of things people need to realize. all of these pix for his cabinet , we did not see the scrutiny on the democratic side when they picked their cabinet members. health and human services, the admiral, you had sammy, energy, nuclear waste. these people are all -- they did not have any experience. pete hag seth, decorated bronze star winner. he's been in the military, been in afghanistan and iraq. he knows how it works. the civil conviction of trump, people have to remember that is a civil trial. you can turn a misdemeanor into

felonies. so -- i mean there's a lot of things people say his country's racist, we hired a black president for eight years. condoleezza rice, remember her? very knowledgeable woman. so just want people to realize everything. host: we will take your calls up until the end of the program where we will take you over to the house for their session this morning, about another eight minutes and here is rick in pensacola florida, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. somebody has to help me with this. now the trump has complete immunity from the supreme court, what is to stop him from losing the entire country? i really need to know and the thing about it is if he can't be held accountable for what he's going to do and what he has done , and not only that but the

institutions we've got now that would be there to hold him accountable, he is going to burn down. now his picks as far as his cabinet, this is all a distraction. it's look over here and in the meantime i'm over here on the right-hand side looting the country. i want to know why he's allowed to turn our secret service test charger secret service agents 300% more at mar-a-lago and guard him and his place in new jersey and to fly on the trump plane and guard him. why are they being charged 20 times what it would cost a major airline to fly him the same distance first class. trump charges are secret service people 20 times more so if it costs $2000 to fly from mar-a-lago to the ufc fight he went to saturday night with all of his good buddies there and that is something to think about, our president going to a

ufc fight. if -- it would cost commercially 2000 dollars he's charging are secret service people probably 15 or more on the plane, 20 times that. why are we allowing this to go on. i hear these people call in and they call themselves republicans. there aren't any republicans anymore. it is over. look at the look on your face, you know it is over. host: christine in maryland, line for republicans, good morning. >> good morning and things for taking my call. a few quick comments. one with regards to a few of the comments by previous callers. first the fact that the president elect went to a ufc fight i'm pretty sure i don't see why that matters. i think that's just your hatred for trump. if obama went to a ufc fight people would be saying that is so cool. the other caller saying there should be a minimum criteria to evaluate politicians as

president-elect i think that is valid. but the claim that they should have never lied i think good luck finding a politician who never lied before. so you should be a little bit more realistic with your criteria. and then finally i want to say i am a former democrat turned republican. i think people need to look at facts more than who they hate and who they think they should hate. i am more than open to disliking trump if someone shows me that is not the best choice for the country against biden. i would say i'm a little concern for the cabinet picks but i have yet to do in-depth research into them. so hopefully once i see the real research about it i will be a little bit more calm down but thank you so much for listening. host: did you want to see that matt gaetz report? she's gone. germantown, maryland. caller: good morning.

i guess where i'm coming from is if i was to kind of take what i would consider the biggest concern or problem in our country as important as the economy might be your immigration, for me the absolute top you can call it a crisis is that we've simply lost the ability to talk to each other and the longer that goes on, the worse things continue to get and it's as if we feel that the more we attack each other and demonize each other, somehow we will come up with a different outcome other than what we've seen over the last 10 or 12, whatever numbers of years. it's crazy to me that somehow we've convinced ourselves to offload this responsibility on the federal level, the senate, whatever it is. we've taken this responsibility and said trump is this or biden

is this or harris is this, whoever it is and then we are all -- also not response over the way we communicate to each other and i do not see any type of scenario where any type of politician can come in, get elected and the problems in our country get solved if it is not first built upon the premise where we the people know how to communicate. the politicians do not come out of nowhere. they are elected from the people. so we find we have people, leaders in our country who are not talking to each other. one side as you're a communist, socialist, you hate america and the other side is you are nothing except a trump lover, nothing except a white fascist or a hit little lover or whatever it is. and it's like what happened to talking about the issues. maybe some issues for example i have where on some of the social

issues for example i have daughters and i would like to see -- again this is coming -- where female things are traditional to what they are biological females and if i say that to someone who agrees with me everything is great but in the second i say i support universal health care the table is completely flipped and i am some sort of extremist. there is no talking it's just we've lost that ability, in what world do we think any of our problems will get solved by shoving policy down people's throats who are not even able to talk. host: kevin in california, a line for democrats. caller: i was wondering if you guys were thinking about bringing blue sky in as one of your social media accounts. host: well i mean, tell me about it.