all q&a programs are available on our website or as a podcast on c-span now. >> this morning the supreme court considers a case oth food and drug rejection of vape

products. we havth on c-span, c-span now orine at c-span.org. >> coming up on "washington journal" and skye perryman of democracy forward challenges legal efforts for the trump agenda. and taylor barkley, from the abundance institute will talk about oil and drilling policies of the incoming trump administration. "washington journal" is live next. join the conversation. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] >> this is the washington journal for december 2. president biden issued a pardon for his son hunter biden which

wipes away criminal convictions on gun and drug charges after the president previously promised in interviews he would not take that action. president-elect trump and republicans and democrats on capitol hill responded to yesterday's action. to start the program, you can respond to it, too. you can call us on the lines to let us know about this action by president biden pardoning his son hunter biden. 202-748-8001. 202-748-8000. 202-748-8002. if you want to text us your thoughts on president biden pardoning his son, 202-748-8003 you can do that or post on facebook.com/cspan. reporting by axios, it was done

after the family was together and the president gave broad protection to his son for crimes he has committed or may have committed or taken part in since january 1 of 2014. the president currently on his way to africa but before that, releasing a statement regarding the and reads in part is, the charges in his cas came about only after several of political opponents in congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election then a carefully negotiated plea deal agreed to by the department of justice unraveled in the courtroom with several of my opponents taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. had the plea dea, it would have been a fair, reasonable effort of hunter's cases. if you look at the facts can't reach any other hunter was singled out only

because he is my son. there's been an effort to break hunter aftere's been 5 1/2 years sober even in the face of unrelentin attacks and selective prosecution. in trying to break hunter, they've tried to break me. there's no reason to believe it willtop here. enough is enough. here's the truth, i believe in e justice system but as i have wrestled with this, i also believe raw politics has infected this process and led it to a miscarriage of justice. again, that's part of the president's statement regarding the pardon granted to his son hunter. "the washington post" this morning highlighting what he was facing, hunter biden, saying he was convicted in june by a federal jury in delaware for lying on a gun purchase in 2018 when he checked the box saying he was not using illegal drugs and illegally owning that weapon as a drug user for 11 days. separately, he pleaded accountability in september for nine federal tax charges, a last-minute plea that came just

before jury selection was scheduled to begin for that trial. both cases prosecuted by the special counsel david weis with a department overseen by biden. comment on the phone lines. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats and 202-748-8002 for understand. text us at 202-748-8003 and post on our social sites located on facebook and on x. earlier this year president biden was asked in a back and forth with reporters about if he would indeed at that time grant a pardon to his son hunter. here's some of that exchange from earlier in june. president biden: with regard to the question regarding the family, i'm extremely proud of my son hunter. he's overcome an addiction. he's one of the brightest, most

decent men i know. i am satisfied that i'm not going to do anything -- i said i'd abide by the jury decision and will do that and not pardon him. host: again, that from june of this year. to your phone calls to start us off on this action by the president yesterday. in south carolina, we'll hear from james. james on our republican line p. go ahead. caller: good morning. it's no shock to me at all that biden pardoned his son. it just shows the crook he is pardoning another crook. and he's using the same lines that donald trump used about how the justice department is being used to go after political figures. now, i'm no fan of biden at all but i can understand why he pardoned his son, but it just shows over and over again how many promises he has broken. he said he was going to let the justice department do what they do and stand by their decision and he reneged on that.

shame on biden. but, you know, it is what it is. thank you for listening. host: that was james in south carolina. linda joining us from mississippi. the democrats line. hello, you're next. caller: yes. i'm glad he pardoned his son. and any man would pardon his son because he was prosecuted. republicans did pull him down, investigated him for five years trying to pull his daddy down. and trump lies all the time and he voted for him. he got all crooks in his cabinet and he pardoned his son-in-law. i believe in biden. biden should have done it. anyone would have helped their child if they could have.

host: linda in mississippi. to her point she made her comments and this in the "washington post" this morning saying president biden is not the first president to pardon family members and others close to them as their term in office expires. president bill clinton on the day he left office pardoned his half brother roger clinton for cocaine distribution, convictions from 1985. trump pardoned charles kushner, father-in-law of jared kushner in 2020 after he lost his bid for re-election. kushner had pleaded guilty for making false statements, witness tampering and tax evasion. on saturday, president-elect trump said he'd nominate charles kushner as u.s. ambassador to france. yesterday's actions regarding hunter biden, a pardon from his father president biden. david is up next in indiana on this action. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. it seems the truth finally comes

out. just another way the biden crime family is sticking together. on a personal side, i get it to some but to use his same reasoning that is being used against president-elect trump during this last 2-3 years, it's really rich. and basically he just lied because of the re-election. he was going to do it anyway but this was the opportunity. i'll be glad to see that old son of a gun walk and trip into the sunset. host: anchorage, alaska. this is grace. go ahead. caller: i'm not calling from alaska, another state but i'm from alaska, a registered voter in alaska. i don't blame president biden for doing this to protect his

last living son. i mean, did he sell information to the saudi government that provided information for a journalist that traveled to extend his visa in the united states but got him killed instead to the saudi government? jared kushner did that. you can bark like a bunch of chihuahuas all you want but joe biden's son or son-in-law did not sell information to the saudis that got out the respected journalist. host: where do you get this information and what do you base that on? caller: news reports, "the new york times," "the washington post." jared kushner sold information to the saudis which eventually led to the death of a respected journalist who was trying to

renew -- host: you made that point. some of you acting off facebk. sheriene said she applauded it. and from scott, you know they can do what they want and get away with it. mr. trump got himself out of unjustified convictiereas hunter hadaddy. cookie from facebook saying good he pardoned his son. they attacd his son because they didn't have anything to say about biden. den is an extremely qualified president unlike th impeached security threat that pardoned individuals who betrayed america and brags about pardoning the domestic terrorists that attacked the capitol. good for biden. he should help his son. and bill from facebook when it comes to the actions of yesterday, making the comment, two-tiered justice system. if you want to post on our

socials, you can do that. facebook.com/cspan. or on x. let's hear from joann. caller: good morning. i watch the show obvious and don't have much to say except i'm a democrat and believe in biden. and i do think that this was a charge that was trumped up just to go after the biden administration, and in the end when things get imbittered as they have gotten in this election, you take care of your own and that's exactly what trump, lousy claims he's going to be doing. as far as lying, in particular, my son, he lives near scranton, pennsylvania, and trump in 2016 kept saying how he was going to bring back coal. well, the trees are growing on those mountains of coal outside

of scranton, p.a. nothing's been done. thank you. host: thank you, joann. when it comes to the president-elect, he's going to truth social to let his thoughts known of yesterday. two posts. one saying does the pardon given by joe to hunter include the j-6 hostages, january 6 hostages who have now been in prison for years. such an abuse and miscarriage of justice. going to the truth social site to make those comments. hank from michigan, republican line, you're next. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: we are talking about hunter biden and his pardon, correct? host: correct. go ahead. caller: i'd like to say here we have a president who stayed in his basement 90% of the time and

now he's pardoning his son who pled guilty to the laptop. people can't turn that away. i mean, come on. now he wants to pardon him. i think it's a double-edged sword and think both parties should do a lot of work to clean up their acts. thank you very much. host: the president's son is facing convictions on tax and gun ownership charges. that's reported by several sources. the president's son admitting and giving out a statent of his own yesterday after the events taken by his father saying this, i have admitted and taken responsibility of my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction, mistakes that have been exploited to shame me and my family for political sport. despite all this i have maintained my sent for more than

five years because of my deep faith and unwavering love and support of my family. in the throes of addiction, i squandered many opportunities and advantages. in recovery we can't be given the opportunity to make amends where possible and rebuild our lives if we never take for granted. those were the comments from hunter biden after receiving that pardon. suzanne from our independent line from florida. you're next. caller: good morning. i think the results of unfortunate actions by both parties. i think the american public has seen behind the curtain of our political system. i think that all of us need too

research more before we vote. not just to depend on the legacy media and not just to depend on other social media but to really research the issue and vote for candidates who we feel would do best for their constituents and for us as a public. host: how does this relate to yesterday's events concerning this pardon? caller: i think it is that the vote of the father. i think it is unfortunate that president biden spoke directly more than once that he was not ing to pardon his son. he wldave been showingore grace by just not answering the issue and said, i will consider it at the time i leave office or something more appropriate. he gave the political answer because he's a politician. so i think the only w that we

as the american public can get bett public servants is to rearch. and the american public has voted more on emotion rather than research p. host: suzanne in florida offering comments about yesterday. by the way, if you're interested in how previous presidents have treated the idea of pardons and clemency. if you go to the department of justice website, there's a section there listed "clemency recipients" where you can go through the previous presidents to see who they granted pardons to and commuted sentences if you'd like at the justice website if you want to see how previous presidents have treated this issue. let's hear from linda in new york, democrats' line. caller: good morning. i think the president did the correct thing. he's letting out his son.

everybody makes mistakes. everybody makes mistakes. and he was really looking out for his son and his son's family, the whole family. and i love joe biden. thank you. host: that's linda there in new york. let's hear from adam here in washington, d.c., republican line. caller: hey, good morning. i wanted to say two facts. fact is the president has the ability to pardon, implement clemency. that's one. and two, we've seen just a massive uptick in the political season. i expected this to happen and expect many more to come forward before the end of his term through january and i will say that the second fact or the second point i want to make here is i hope donald trump also comes into office and doesn't wait until the end of his next term to take a look at all of the folks that are still sitting

in jail without any date in mind for the january 6 events. thank you. host: adam in washington, d.c. here's the response from the house oversight chair jim comber yesterday to the actions of presiden biden saying joe biden has lied from the start to sh aut his family's corrupt influen pdling activities. ly has he falsely claimed that he never met with his's foreign businessiates or that his son did nothing wrong but also lied when he said he wot pardon hunter biden. the charges hunter faced were just the tip of the iceberg in th blatant corruption that president biden and t biden crime family have lied to the people. it's unforth that rather than come clean about their wrongdoings, president biden and his family has done all they can to avoid accountability. that from jim comer. you can comment on the lines by

president biden offering his son a pardon. for republicans, 202-748-8001. one for democrats, 202-748-8000, and one for independents at 202-748-8002 or send us a text at 202-748-8003. stedman in detroit, independent line. caller: hi, i have two points. i think this was just a continuation of joe biden's double standard as it pertains to his family and his son concerning the rule of law, especially in matters of bills and laws that he's passed, for example, the crime bill, the disproportionate sentencing for crack cocaine over powder cocaine which his son is a user of and we see how he's been treated and the chances he's gotten and the grace he wants to be given. also, i'd like it to be kind of an example for both parties to see that in many ways they are mirror images of each other.

the democrats frequently consider trump a threat to democracy. they say he will use his powers to act unilaterally to disrupt the rule of law but we see joe biden frequently has a history of lying to the american people and doing things in his own party's institution. you see it so his family can have seats of power. host: mary ann from the democrats line. caller: it's rich to hear from the victor family of the world that trump say a damn word. what a joke! please, you put him in office. you put a criminal and a rapist in office. enjoy it, folks. host: first of all, former president trump was charged with sexual abuse.

that's one. what did you think of the actions of president biden yesterday? caller: i think it's wonderful and what he should do is put guantanamo bay should be the next president. host: christine in michigan, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm commenting, i saw last night on the little runner that president biden had pardoned hunter and i was praising the lord because it makes you think of the prodigal son that you can come home to your father and be forgiven, you know. that's what we all need. i'm just praising the lord and i thank you for taking my call. host: christine in michigan. "the wall street journal" this morning had some democratic reaction to president biden offering his son a pardon saying some democrats expressed those concerns including the colorado

governor jared polis who said that the president put his family ahead of the country and said it could be a bad precedent. and greg stanton saying, i respect president biden but think he got this one wrong, it wasn't a politically motivated prosecution. hunter committed felonies and was convicted by a jury of his peers. this announcement comes as democratic lawmakers are returning to washington hoping to keep the focus on president trump's controversial choices for the administration posts. that from "the wall street journal." this from thomas in florida. the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. what a great move. donald trump 10 steps ahead of everybody or what? he charged him with a gun charge and some other charges.

and his father pardoned him. lying all the way through. i would never pardon. lied all the way through his administration on everything. you see, they got set up. he's going to be pardoned from the gun charges and all that little stuff. when it comes time to russia and taking money from the mayor of russia and china and taking money from china and treason, all that money sent to his family members, they're in big trouble. host: thomas in florida. this from "the new york times" this morning about hunter biden's charges that were laid against him in these two cases, these two separate cases. this is by barrett reporting president biden blamed political pressure for the collapse of a plea deal for hunter biden but it was the judge overseeing the case who questioned the agreement. hunter biden's plea deal fell apart in dramatic form last year

but after the judge raised issues about its unusual construction involving two separate agreements meant to work in tandem. that construction violated one of the basic tenets of federal guilty pleas that any agreement not have any side deals. that the plea agreement fell apart once it faced basic questioning from the judge and was an embarrassment to both the prosecutors and defense lawyers who negotiated it. but it's a far cry from the president's suggest that the deal for hunter biden to avoid prison time and a felony conviction collapsed because of political pressure. "the new york times" taking a look at some of the leadup to the events of yesterday regarding this pardon from the president. make your comments online or text us if you wish. let's hear from steve from the independent line from indianapolis. go ahead. caller: with any other normal situation or any normal

president coming in, i would think that biden would not have pardoned his son but who could blame him for leaving his wrath to trump and the incoming mob and look at the people he's appointing and all they said is they would politically come after biden and his family. i don't blame him at all. in any other normal times i would be disappointed in pardoning his son but in this case i'm not at all because of how unnormal trump is and his behavior. host: do you think this denotes specialrement then? caller: yeah, itoe obviously. but like i said, i would use that special treatment with trump coming in. he's abnormal and bringing in a bunch of family and nepotism type people he's appointing to all these offices and his staff. they said they were coming at

him. and i don't blame him a bit in this case for pardoning his son, not at all. host: ok. george is next. george in texas, republican line. caller: good morning. this one said he didn't do nothing a normal father would do in his case. i knew that once he was not going to go for re-election it was a matter of time before he would pardon his son. but what he needs to do is make sure he pardons the rest of his family so we don't have to live the next four years of people trying to come back and get him and his family. also, i wanted to know if this would clear up the cocaine case that was found in the white house? notice that everybody i think was involved in that should clear up that case, also, so it should go ahead and and be

announced whose cocaine that was if they're honest about it. host: that's george in texas giving us his thought. one person giving us his thoughts as well is elon musk on x. this is the post earlier that starts off saying community notes slays he writes and positioned right above a previous x from joe biden which read, "no one is above the law." and community notes reading partonning hunter for not just a single crime but all potential crimes he may or may not have created over an 11-year period. joe biden made clear some people are in fact above the law. again, the thoughts from x, courtesy of elon musk. let's hear from steve from alabama, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, america and pedro. joseph biden was a democrat senator in delaware in 1972 has been a habitual liar his whole

career. truth can be found on the internet 1987 when he ran as president. what he didn't pardon was his crime family, the joe biden criminal cartel. they have evidence on him. and i look forward to this being pursued when donald trump is in office. the nonsense they pulled on donald trump is a two-tiered system in the united states. the democratic party is the democratic communist party. this is the new world order. globalization takeover and they lost. america spoke on election day. it was mandated. trump won the popular vote. he won many races, the hispanic vote, the black vote, christians, catholics. host: how does this pennsylvania specifically relate to the pardon from yesterday?

caller: he lied. he lied. he exposed himself to the world. the world now knows. the american people are awake, to use the left's word, "woke." the american people are now woke. host: harvey is next in wisconsin, the democrat line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i think president biden could have just not put himself in position as a liar and said we'll wait and see when the time comes. but each one of us as a parent, if we had the power to do what he'd done, he didn't do anything any parent wouldn't do for their child facing a long time in prison. i think he only did a parent thing. i'm not condoning right or wrong but would have done the same for my child. host: do you think this is special treatment then? caller: well, if you're in that

echelon bracket you can do certain things, you do certain things. if you're on the bottom side where you can't do things, you can't do things. you can only do what you do. host: ok. harvey in wisconsin giving us his thoughts this morning. you can add to the mix. 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. you can text at 202-748-8003. we mentioned some of the other presidents and some of the people that have received this same treatment when it comes to pardons and the national constitution center has a list of some of those famous names, so to speak, who benefited from it. we mentioned it before but it was in january of 2001 president bill clinton pardoned his own brother roger and pardoned marc rich and susan macdougal and former housing secretary cisneros. in 1992 president george h.w.

bush pardoned six men in the contra affair including weinberger. in 1979 george steinbrenner was pardoned for charges related to illegal contributions made to richard nixon's campaign. regarding richard nixon he was granted a pardon from gerald ford for any crimes he might have committed during the watergate scandal though nixon wasn't charged or convicted of federal crimes. going back to october of 1978, two actions by former president carter, it was in october he officially restored the full citizenship rights of former confederate president jefferson davis signing an act in congress that ended a century long dispute. also, he commuted the sentence of g. gordon lidy that related to the 1978 watergate burglary and more from the national constitution center if you're interested in seeing how

previous presidents have dealt with this issue regarding so-called famous people. let's hear from willie in north carolina. the republican line. hi. caller: good morning. yes. it doesn't surprise me, not at all. host: why not? caller: like the previous guy spoke, he said any parent would do the same. i'm not sure about that but know for a fact that -- can you hear me? host: yeah, you're on. go ahead. caller: i know for a fact this is just a demonstration of pure raw power and also a demonstration of why the democratic party lost the election. all he had to say was i'm not sure, we'll wait and see how it plays out. him and his vice president seem

to be wacky whack liars on several things and will have an impact on the next decade or longer because there's no question now that any crime that any trumpites or people associated with trump that share his political views, the weaponization of the party and department of justice and all the courts is on full force now, i sincerely believe. i think it could have been handled better. i knew he was going to do it. a dad would do it if you got the power. host: let's go to john in florida, independent line. hi. caller: hello. i really think it's something this guy has been since 1972. he's a liar. the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. i want to say the democratic

party is full of trump derangement. listen to the hate. host: you said the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. react to that in relation to the pardon granted. caller: look at joe, he's been a lawbreaker. look at his son. he's now been caught and what they're going to do is do what politicians do, they're going to take care of their own. i wonder if the incoming president will have an option to pursue it farther as the biden crime family because they're crime-ridden. host: ok. caller: i want to say to the democrats, keep it in mind when you call in and bash this guy trump. let's give him a chance. host: ok. got your point, john. thank you. politico takes a look what was done yesterday on pardons and has reaction from people and constitutional scholars who

study pardons saying those experts say they can only think of one other person who has received a presidential pardon so sweeping in generations and was richard nixon given that blanket pardon by gerald ford in 1974. quote, i've never seen language like this in a pardon document that purports to pardon offenses that have not apparently even been charged with the exception of that nixon pardon, that was margaret love who served from 1990-1997 as the u.s. pardon attorney, a justice department position devoted to assisting the president on clemency issues. she goes on to say, even the broadest trump pardons were specific as to what was being pardoned. the story adding joe biden's full and unconstitutional parton of his son was deliberately vague. the trump allies long fixated on the president's son and trump has repeatedly pledged to use his second term to prosecute and investigate members of the biden family. conservative commentators have

engaged saying hunter biden could be charged with bribery and illegal crimes stemming from his drug addiction. that's politico. if you want to read the events from yesterday. a caller from green belt, maryland on the pardon by president bide ton his son hunter. goorni. caller: good morning. thank you for accepting my call. host: go ahead. caller: i'm happy and grateful president biden pardoned his son. because if he left the chair while his son was in prison the whole world and country would be oh, he didn't pardon his son, that's a shame. all the criminals are supposed to go to prison. biden gave it to his family. only because he pardoned his

son. [indiscernible] biden rescued the country when it was sinking in covid. that's hard to forget. they're begging for somebody to come and rescue this country. people were dying. that man came and did his best. people are so pitiful calling him a bad president. they're so ungrateful. i'm happy he pardoned his son. thank you. host: north carolina next, republican line, we'll hear from tom. caller: good morning. we all knew he was going to pardon his son. the problem we have is he lied about it multiple times and the press secretary lied about it. i issue you would play how many times he said no and how many times she said no. that would help the callers a lot. and number two, in biden's statement, he blamed politics as far as why hunter was charged and convicted. trump has been saying that for

years. biden lied, lied. play it how many times they said they weren't going to do it. please play if for us. we have plenty of time. host: we showed one time the president in june made the statement and there are others people could find if they wanted to search our video library. go ahead and continue. caller: let's see the press secretary and how many times she said it. host: we invite to you go to the website. c-span.org is where you can find the video library if you want to check out the events regarding hunter biden. go to our website and type in those words, 28 instances on this show where we looked at hunter biden over the years, issues with him. all that is available on our website at c-span.org. john in wisconsin. independent line.

hi. caller: good morning, pedro. and all the viewers of c-span. thanks for taking my call. as i sit here with the constitution in my hand, article 2, section 2, it is very broad as far as the presidential powers, basically what it says, i'm reading in here, it says the president shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the united states except in the case of impeachment. so joe biden said he was not going to pardon his son, and i penned a letter to the editor of my local paper. i think the week after he said it in june. an said the point was going to co through which just did, he granted him a pardon. what a broad pardon with the nixon thing, itovs so much.

it's rul f me but not for thee. if i was guilty of the same things or if my cld was found guilty of sng, i would not pardon them because, you know what,hat does that tell them and teach them? it t them to continue the same behaviors if you're not going to be pun for the what's the point?mitted, then i just think, you know what, joe biden i think is going to pardon himself before january 20 or january 6 when he leaves office because if he doesn't, when he's out of the presidency, he's going to be next and is going to have charges against him. host: john there in wisconsin. some of you texting us this morning. dennis from michigan saying, it appears now we have two back-to-ba presidents who claim we have corrupted justice systems polluting our nation. perhaps they have a point and then this is dwayne in minnesota saying joe bid was

correct in pardoning his son, especially after the former president, the president-elect, was pardoned by the supreme court. texting us, you can do that at 202-748-8003 if you wish to share your thoughts that way. the social sites are there as well, facebook.com/cspan and@cspanwj. the bronx new york, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. host: i'm going to ask you to call the correct lines. republicans at 202-748-8001 and 202-748-8000 for democrats and independents, 202-748-8002, if you call back on the correct line, we'll get you in. this is from ohio, republican line. bill, go ahead. caller: yes. i think that the best thing for joe to do is just to go ahead and pardon donald trump and that way as they take all the rest of

this off the table for the incoming president. thank you. host: how so? he's gone. this is from lavell in maryland. i hope i'm saying your name right. caller: oh, yeah, don't worry. you're saying my name right. and yeah, i agree that joe biden definitely pardoned his son is one of the greatest things that he's doing because as a parent, you do want to be able to be there for your kid. and seeing what trump did, yes, i don't side with trump or the republican party. and even with my husband being a republican, used to, and now an independent, we both see things very different, and can still agree what joe biden did for his

son is the best thing for him and his family. host: la fell in frederick, maryland, sharing his thoughts and just to separate the terms of what we're talking about, the "atlanta journal-constitution" has the story saying this it comes to a pardon, a pardon is a complete forgiveness of a crime and restores full rights of citizenship. people who have been convicted of a crime forfeit certain rights such as to hold public office or vote. because a pardon wipes out a conviction, those rights are restored. as the previous caller mentioned article 2 section 2 clause 1 of the constitution says that the president, quote, shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the united states except in cases of impeachment. it goes on to say this it comes to the commutation of a sentence, saying it is a reduction of a sentence to a lesser period of time. the president can commute a sentence if he believes the punishment is too severe for the crime, while a pardon deletes a

conviction and a commutation reduces the sentence to a lesser period of time and the president can commute a sentence. we showed you the justice department site which shows you by president how they dealt with the issues of pardons and commutations. justice.gov if you want to see that website to check those out for yourself. let's hear from new york, independent line. this is william. you're next up. go ahead. caller: yes. i just wanted to say the president did not know -- they had not yet begun to use his son's records against his administration yet when he said he will not do that. but then they began to do that. and that's why he changed his mind. and i think he's got a right to

do so because they pulled quick things like that all of a sudden out of the hat. and so i just want to leave you with that. host: ed is in philadelphia. republican line. good morning. you're next up. caller: hey, good morning, pedro. thank for you taking my call. you know, i find this whole conversation very interesting. i'm a registered republican but i did not vote for donald trump in the last election. i cannot put myself behind what the supreme court decided to do in terms of basically, you know, not just pardoning the behavior of a president like nixon but trump himself. and i guess i'm incredibly curious right now about how this is going to proceed. because i don't understand, if i were a democrat, i'd be mad as hell because this is small ball,

for a lame duck president who has a supreme court that's ruled any act he does in his official capacity is free from legal prosecution. and if i was joe biden, i'd be trying to hit a lot harder. they're going for a grand slam, man. because as soon as trump gets in there, dude, it will be all bets are off. you want to talk about the weaponization of the justice department. just you wait and see who they'll try to cook up some sort of actual legal case against based on specious stuff. it's important to keep in mind this should never have come to this. a lot of this hunter biden stuff aside from the gun charge and tax issue, all of which was pretty much on its way to being adjudicated fairly and properly, for what it's worth for a nepotism kind of thing. all that stuff on his laptop is based off someone stealing a hard drive. it wasn't a laptop but a hard drive and stole it. what they did was illegal and this whole thing was bogus and

we shouldn't talk about that. what we need to talk about, people in my party about to enter the seat of power again, we talk all the time about this obsession with law and order but we don't enforce any of the laws that we don't like. you want to talk about justice for thee but not for me as one of the last caller said, how about all the anti-trust laws and gun laws? host: let's hear from thelma in the bronx. the democrats' line. caller: yes, good morning. talking about liar, that's all trump did was lie. and trump has 34 felon convictions for sexual abuse, talking about hunter biden, hunter biden only has a gun charge and a tax charge. trump is a felon, 34 felon and a rapist. joe biden did the right thing. host: just to clarify this it comes to the president pardoning

that, what did you think of the pardon itself? caller: joe biden did the right thing, as a father dethe right thing. i'm happy he did it and the republicans should look in the mirror when they're talking about the crime family. the only crime family is trump and his family. joe biden did the right thing and i'm very happy he did it. thank you. host: thelma in the bronx. we've showed you some of the things when it comes to how previous presidents have treated this issue. it was a pew research poll that lays it out president by president, going back to former president trump in his term of 2017, the 2021, 143 pardons, 94 commutations. when it comes to former president obama, 212 pardons, 1715 commutations. george w. bush, 189 pardons, 11 commutations. when it comes to former president bill clinton, 396

pardons, 61 commutations. president bush the sr., george h.w., 74 pardons and ronald reagan, 393 pardons and former president carter, 934 pardons. if you want to check out that information to see how previous presidents have dealt with this. las vegas, independent line, you're next up. caller: good morning. i don't think the public would be this divided on this if the news would just cover the news. for instance, the washington journal, one of your funders, if i'm not mistaken, is directv, isn't it? host: we're funded largely by the cable industry, satellite companies and the like. caller: yes, it's on your website, you're funded partly by directv. did you know your funder banned

the news organization that first acquired hunter's laptop which was one america news? they were the first ones to authenticate hunter biden's laptop. and your funder actually banned them. anybody can look that up. our law is going to say because of their conspiracy network and this and that but you have to be the person who watched them yourself. i'm a lifelong democrat. host: hold on. i'm going to stop you right there because you're calling on our independent line. you got your statement out. again, we're funded by cable, funded by satellite companies who contribute to this cause of bringing you information, particularly this it comes to the events of washington and everything else. we're proud to have that support from them and over the years their consistent support when it comes to the issues regarding coverage of the news and issues of politics, especially as the

way we do it here at c-span. but also, as you know, we have been asking you, the public, over the last couple days and weeks and months to publicly assist us if you wish to do so. and because of that, giving tuesday as it's known, coming up this week, and you have a chance to give us some assistance directly if you wish. in fact, your chance goes twice as far. a generous supporter told us they'll match the first $10,000 in donationsdoubling the impact of donations on that giving tuesday. again, by supporting us, you can help ensure transparent and no spin coverage of the government. if you care to do that yourself, click the q.r. code there and go to the information that will lead you to that and visit our website at c-span.org/donate to make that gift as well. on this giving tuesday coming up, we appreciate any assistance you'd offer this network. let's hear from don on our

republican line in california. go go ahead. caller: hi, yeah. this is one more nail in the coffin of the democratic party that he was pardoned just because he's the son of the president, not because he was unfairly convicted, not because he lived the good life, because he sure hasn't, not because he was worthy of a pardon because he wasn't. he was pardoned merely because he was the son of the president. and i'll guarantee you this, every staffer, every appointee and cabinet member will walk out of that white house with a pardon because they're all scared out of their shorts about what trump is going to do to them. this is ridiculous. please, democrats, don't chant nobody is above the law anymore because obviously there are people above the law. you just got it rubbed in your face with a pardon. i mean, this is ridiculous,

pedro. this should be an outrage but everybody will say he's a drug addict and we should feel sorry for him. no. he's lived a horrible life. he's a mean person. he's done crimes, abused people. he's a bad person. host: carey in texas, the democratic line. caller: thank for you taking my call. real quick, i wish you'd do away with the independents' line, you can clearly hear these folks that call in are using it as a overflow line and not really independent. that being said to address the question at hand. president biden was absolutely 100% correct to pardon his son biden. he is also correct that it was really all political. anyone else facing those types of charges, yes, they probably

would have been convicted and there definitely would have been some punishment there but nothing to the degree that was done with hunter. now, before you ask me the next question, was it -- i'm sorry, was it because he -- host: special treatment? caller: absolutely, yes, it was. but i think the other side kind of loses the moral high ground in being upset about that and claiming that when you look at the people donald trump pardon pardoned. he pardoned his own son-in-law father, jared kushner because of his association to him. he pardoned michael flynn. he pardoned steve bannon and pardoned desouza. he pardoned people close to him in his orbit that had supported him. and you can only look at that as payback. the other thing i'd like to say, too, to those that say oh, now

that opens the door for trump to pardon whoever he wants. trump was already going to pardon whoever he wants. he already said that. he'll pardon the people from january 6. in fact, he wanted to throw them a party at mar-a-lago. let's kind of stop with all this and be factual in terms of what we're talking about here, people. he was correct and that's it. thank you. host: ok. david is up next in maryland, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. and i thank you for taking my call. i just want to say there is scripture that says when jesus confronted the people, he said who among you has not sinned? i'm saying to the american family, i love you all, but all of us have done something we need to be pardoned for. perhaps we need to take this

time and examine ourselves, not as democrats or republicans. host: let me ask how that particularly relates to the president's action towards his son? caller: any loving father -- god pardoned us. any loving father is going to look out for his family. his son. what have you. god forgave us. we need to examine our hearts, all of us. number one, we need to examine ourselves with the hatred and vitriol. we need to take this time and stand up. we all have done something we need to be pardoned for. host: joe is next in woodbridge. republican line, i should say. caller: thanks for taking my call. lifelong republican.

i'm not surprised of the pardon. i really don't have a problem with it. you know, i believe anyone who receives a pardon who has been convicted of a crime is special treatment. so in a way you could flip-flop the question about special treatment. i'm not surprised. i guess the point i want to make is, i don't think it was constitutionally legal and would have the trump team send that to the supreme court. i think the pardon on convicted crimes are valid but the blanket pardon on crimes he's not been charged or convicted of, i think that's something that the trump administration can investigate, find new crimes, charge hunter biden and let it go to the supreme court. hunter biden was not the president and doesn't have presidential immunity and is just a private citizen who

committed crimes. the laptop has been proven now to be real. it wasn't russian disinformation. there's a lot of things on that laptop like child prostitution and drug use i believe hunter biden could be charged with. i don't believe giving him a blanket pardon on crimes he hasn't been charged yet is constitutionally illegal. host: ok. one more call. albert in new jersey, the democrats' line. caller: yes. i think i pardons should be eliminated because everybody and his brother is getting pardons now. i think by the time the midterms turn up, in two years we'll see who donald trump is and hopefully we can survive after the midterms. god bless america. host: albert finished off this

hour of calls. thanks to all who participated. here's what to watch out for on the networks today right a this program if you're interested in the tis of the supreme court. the courtonsiders a case from the food and drug administration's rejection of flavored vape products a concerns about their use ang children and teens. that oral argument set to start at 10:00 on c-span, c-span now and our mobile app and later on this afternoon at 1:00, the russian-ukrainwar examination. it will feature the former ukrainian president petro poroshenko and talk about the war at c-span w and c-span.org. coming up next, joe wilson, republican of south carolina at the hudson institute will talk about the state of the middle east with an examination there at 2:00 this afternoon. and then you can follow along on c-span 2 if you wish. and then the 250th founding of america, its birthday in 2026,

also. a lot of activities coming up. coming up next, a discussion of how democrats are binding together after the election to see what happens during the trump administration. skye perryman from the group democracy forward joins us for that discussion later on in the program. we'll hear from the button institute taylor barkley discussing oil drilling and policies with the incoming trump administration. those discussions coming up on washington journal. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] >> there is something for every c-span fan when you let your fingers do the shopping during our cyber monday sale. going on right now, our online store, save up to 35% off site wide. save on sweatshirts, flatware,

mugs and more and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop c-span cyber monday going on now with up to 35% off, or scan the code on the right. attention middle and high school students across america. it is time to make your voice heard. c-span studentcam documentary contest is here. this is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness and make an impact. your documentary should answer the question your message to the president, what issue is most important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics, the environment or community stories, c-span is your platform to share your message with the world. win $100,000 in prizes including the grand prize of $5,000. this is your opportunity not

only to make an impact, but also to be rewarded for your creativity and hard work. ter your submissions today. scan the code or visit studentcam.orgll t details on how to enter. the deadline is january 20, 2025. that house will be in order. see spread celebrates 45 years of covering progress like no other. since 1979 weaken your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. taking you to where the policy is debated and decided all with the support of america's cable company. c-span, 45 years and counting powered by cable. washington journal continues. host: our first guest this morning is with democracy forward, president and ceo of

the organization talking about the incoming trump administration. guest: thanks for having me. we are a nonpartisan legal organization founded in the wake of the 26 teen election last time when it became clear that the first trump administration, there were a range of things they were pursuing that were really harmful to people and communities. our organization, we go to court and we represent people and communities defending their rights. host: the new york times said was describing a group and those affiliated, they called you a liberal legal group. is that a correct description? guest: people give us all kind of labels but we are nonpartisan. we work with a diverse array of people and communities across the country. teachers, parents, doctors, researchers, conservationists, all across the board. host: is that a conservative or

progressive viewpoint, how would you break that down? >> on a continuum we are going to be a bit more on the progressive side. but we have seen, though, is that there is a lot that is uniting traditional liberals and conservatives, traditional progressive. a real commitment to democracy and the rule of law. so we find ourselves in really interesting positions with people who are much more conservative on the spectrum and at times representing people much more liberal. host: overall how would you characterize those concerns? >> i think we have a deep concern that the president elect campaigned on a platform where he really distanced himself from some very extreme proposals such as the heritage foundation project when he 25 because the american people really rejected that type of extremism. now we are already seeing a number of appointments coming

right out of that project 2025 playbook, so we are very concerned for all people in the country that this administration may accelerate the very thing's that the president-elect and vice president-elect thought to distance themselves from in the campaign, so we have been working on preparing to respond to that on behalf of people and communities across the country, using all the tools the constitution provides to do that.and host: give me a for instance, something that is a possibility. guest: we've seen a lot of headlines about plans to hollow out the united states civil service. these are individual that's where a note to the constitution to protect ants to do the work of the american people. everybody wants government to work more efficiently, we all do. but what we know is that in countries like ours with a robust civil service, it actually much more efficient and prone to corruption than countries where civil servants are for the size or swear loyalty. if that type of policy were to be implemented, we believe there

are legal problems to that, and we would intend unlikely taking legal action if they ignore the law and try to undermine the ability at our government to work for the people. host: what is the main legal problem in your mind? guest: there are multiple problems. we don't know exactly how they will go about doing it there are existing protections in place for civil service that congress has put in place including additional protections that the biden administration put in place in april. in addition, having outsiders in government, billionaire outsiders advising the government is something that you have to follow a lot of processes in order to be able to do. we have transparency laws in this country that really require that if people are influencing government and policy, that there be certain disclosures and certain policies that it is not clear the administration will abide by. those are the kinds of things we are watching. host: the department of government efficiency, not a

full-fledged department within the government-created. have there been issues with the existence of the body itself? guest: first of all, that body doesn't exist and they are saying that it does exist which is a problem on a range of issues. but certainly if there was an attempt to create some type of body that was going to influence government, a number of corrupt and unlawful commissions that the first trump administration set up that people were able to successfully sue and challenge in court. host: if you want to ask her questions about her group you can call us on the lines (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003.

how does the group get started, particularly with this last election, what was the strategy after the election going forward? guest: we really viewed what we saw in the first trump administration which was epitomized on january 6 as a deeply concerning threat. not just to policies that people care about, but to the american people as a whole. several years ago we started looking and monitoring this coalition of very far-right groups. many of them you see on that project 2025 heritage foundation plan, to understand what they were planning should they seek to obtain influence in the highest office in the country. that resulted in a lot of groups coming together with concerns that they would be deep threats to the american people on kitchen table issues such as

worker protections and wages, fair wages, education. we began thinking about the types of responses the american people would have. one is the voting booth. he saw that in this last election where when americans have rejected project 2025, it became this topic lightning rod as we saw the president-elect to distance himself on the campaign trail saying he didn't know who they were or what they were going to do and of course now we are seeing him go back on that word. so i'm really glad that groups have been thinking about how we would use the tools the constitution and democracy provide to enable people across the country to respond. host: what does the team you have look like at this stage? guest: we have a number of lawyers on staff for the last seven to eight years on behalf of the american people, and then

there are hundreds of organizations who are lending their efforts to this. there organizations are concerned about environmental and climate policy, concerned about individual rights and the ability of people to express views that may not be popular. so all of those groups are really planning their own strategies and coordinating this one and others to make sure that the ground is covered for people this time. host: so any action by the president that your group doesn't agree with your going to push back against. guest: i wouldn't say agree with, because there a lot of things we don't agree with. but we certainly don't believe that the incoming administration should ignore the law, and we certainly believe that the american people are entitled to leadership in this country that represents their values, including this last election cycle that the extremism of project 2025 is really not something that anybody, liberal,

conservative or independent wants. as we see an acceleration of those policies that ignore the law, you will see us in court. host: how complicated is the effort not only with a republican president in the white house of the republicans controlling the house and senate? guest: this is really a moment for the american people to make their voices heard. revolver to see the president have to back away from one of his nominees already as a result of the mandate for that. this is an important time for us as americans regardless of what political party you may align with or political persuasion you may align with really ensure that our elected lawmakers at all levels are hearing the voices of the people and holding the executive branch to account, should they violate the law or engage in activities that they promised on the campaign trail that they wouldn't do. host: how are you funded?

guest: we are funded by individuals across the country. we get a lot of grassroots organizations and individual institutions, foundations that also make grants for particular projects or issues. host: bath joins us from florida, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i am a lifelong republican and registered as a republican since 1972. both on presidential and other campaigns for the republican party over the years. i want to thank skye for what she does. she is an amazing woman. she is out there fighting for all of us. the republican party is going to have to ask for forgiveness from god for what they have done. host: ok. do you have a question for a guest? caller: you let me finish, you

hung up on me almost 90 days ago. host: you are on now, do you have a question for our guest, please? caller: i don't they have a question, i just want to thank her for what she does. honestly, republicans, think about what you have been doing. guest: thanks,beth. sorry, that question was a little hard for me to hear. host: she just praised your efforts. guest: thank you for calling in, happy to answer any questions going forward. host: north carolina, democrats line. caller: yes, i'm concerned about what it is this young lady and her organization can do to stop the folks from january 6 for being let out of prison. if i did it as an african-american or as a muslim,

i would be dead as soon as i entered the capital. there is no reason for these people to be getting out and walking around, and i would love if joe biden would look down and see a little action in his pelvis the way he has about his son's problem and do something about this because the supreme court gave him the power to do so. thank you. host: thank you, joe. guest: i will say i think we are all concerned about the incoming administration's disregard for elements of the rule of law and the fact that we've heard the president-elect say that he intends to pardon a number of the individuals that were involved on january 6. that is not a hypothetical thing. i know we all experience grave concern for our nation we saw what happened and we are sitting here in the shadows of the capitol which is very real and

we about that. so thank you for calling in, i think we are deeply concerned about how the incoming administration will use their pardon power or other executive powers. and it is important that the american people really make their voices heard including to members of congress. there are a number of members of congress who have not been active since king to hold people accountable for that day and i think that is going to be a really important lesson for people to ensure that they are for the talking to their elected representatives. host: a caller has mentioned it but when it came to the idea of what the supreme court has done when it came to former president trump and this idea of immunity, how does that impact in going into office now, and can you start by saying what you think the supreme court actually did? guest: the supreme court in the trump versus u.s. decision wasn't really concerning unprecedented decision in terms of the way it looked at

presidential power. but it did say that the president is not immune for unofficial acts, but for official acts, there will be a debate about what line various acts follow on, and that is deeply concerning because in our country, americans of all stripes when you look at polling across the board do not believe that any individual should be above the law, including the president of the united states. but one thing that is really important is that supreme court decision did not apply to people who may work for the president or others in the government. it is strictly focused on that executive office. and i think that is going to be a really important thing to bear in mind, and for us to be making sure that we are holding people accountable across the government in the executive branch or otherwise for ignoring the law to the detriment of people in communities. host: mike is in alaska, independent line.

caller: good morning. i am so glad that trump won and we are keeping people like you suppressed because you've ruined this country. you've weaponized the fbi, cia, nih, the who, the cdc is completely weaponized by people like you. and i'm sorry you have your point of view because you are so mistaken. you know that when a nation slaughters the unborn and scheduled them for execution, abortion has to be stopped 100%. i would say almost because only zero point 8% is for medical necessity. the rest is for convenience. so women need to close their legs -- host: let's stop you there. what question do you have specifically? caller: do you really know what the term progressive means,

because i don't think you do. i would like to hear your definition and i would like an answer. i would like to be able to answer this. host: we believe is fair. guest: what the term progressive means, fundamentally in this country we've been on a project of moving forward. this is a country that was founded on a lofty ideal that happiness and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be accessed by everyone, but we've fallen short over the years about ideal and so the project work, the people in the citizens of democracy, i am not a member of the government, i am a citizen here. it should be the be on that project moving forward. i think we are able to epitomize what we would call a progress oriented progressive in this country. host: john is next in texas, go ahead. caller: there are so many issues i don't know where to begin.

is it progressivism for a boy to walk into a girls bathroom and take a bath and everybody because he thinks he is a girl? i would hope not. and my main point here is that you want to talk about the right to protest the government. we just overwhelmingly voted against your agenda. the people have spoken. so you need to take a hard look in the mirror and understand that we don't like what you want to do to this country. you can put lipstick on a pig but the reality is people do not like your agenda. we are against it. we don't want boys in girls bathroom. i don't want illegal aliens crossing the border. if you don't like it, get over it. you lost. we want. guest: the one thing i would say following what happened in the last election, appropriately and all of the ballot is that we saw any number of states, states

like florida and missouri and arizona, we saw a number of issues on the ballot, including in a red states. you saw the majority of people that voted in florida vote to protect reproductive rights access. it did not pass because there is a 60% threshold the last time i checked, that got more votes than ron desantis and donald trump on the top of the ticket in the state that he carried. that is the same in deep red missouri where we saw people protect reproductive health care access. we saw issues like climate and wind in louisiana, we saw issues like public education win. it is important for us to separate the candidates from the issues. what we saw was no evidence that there is a mandate for this extremism in terms of issues, and we actually saw the president elect have to run away from the association with project 2025 and that extreme agenda. i think this is a good time for americans to reflect on what we believe on the issues and how we

are going to build a government to get us there. host: when the caller says things like we thatw gives us the mandate to do it. on, guest: we actually saw a presidential candidate win only after he had to go around and distance himself from an extreme agenda on issues like abortion access, and we saw all the issues including in deep red areas. i'm from texas, and including in the red areas, we saw the issues of the american people. there is a lot more that unites us on the issues than what divides us. i think we need to look at the election in that way. certainly we have a president-elect that did win the popular vote and the electoral vote, we have a vice president that accepted those results, there were no allegations of tampering or any type of them that we had to deal with in prior elections where he didn't win the popular vote, and now it is really about making sure that the american people can make their voices heard.

so i don't believe there is a mandate for extremism even with candidates who did win by margins and certain states. host: she serves as the president and ceo of democracy forward. we have a question about servants in government. is there any room for a civil servant? guest: i think everybody says that. you've even seen the biden administration and this congress put things in place to enhance the agency and various agencies and across the federal government. what we know is that systems that rely on civil servants, that owe a duty to the american people and the constitution, the way they get their job is not there kissing up to some fancy office somewhere, but through our civil service process. in societies who have that independent civil service, our government functions with less corruption and with more

efficiency than where the parties that are doing that work are ones who may have gone through a political favor, who may be swearing in owe of loyalty. so i think we need to really think hard. if you are truly concerned about efficiency, the answer is not to politicize our civil servants and to create what was called of the foil system, something the u.s. moved away from the 1800s as a result of these concerns. host: john in washington, d.c., democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you so much for the work that you do. i think you are a testament to what it means to be a true american. i just have a quick question about what democracy now is doing to prepare for the trump administration threats of mass deportation and any legal challenges that democracy now is pairing for. guest: we are of course seeing a

deep concern all of this country including immigrants who are lawfully in the country and documented as well as those were undocumented. there are a number of organizations that have made it clear that they will take legal action and i building those cases -- cases. a variety of immigrants rights and immigrant justice organizations. in the last administration, we had to take a range of legal actions because the administration was relying on people in positions like the department of homeland security that were not correctly appointed, and they were instituting a range of policies that were invalid and we had to invalidate those because they were ignoring the rule of law. i think that you will definitely see work from a range of organizations and you can go to democracy2025.org to see more

about the plans and the organizations involved. host: delaware, republican line. caller: good morning. i'm just wondering where this organization was when the biden administration was raking all kinds of laws, some of which have been shot down by the supreme court. the corruption in this government, this administration is going to stop because we finally have the word of the people. we have spoken. we want to get rid of the administration and start a new way of running the government where we can trust that things that are going to be done will be done legally and through nothing that this organization or any democrat is going to say is going to dampen the spirits of the american people who want a new government. and i appreciate the fact that

you are letting me speak, thank you. guest: i mean i would definitely agree that nothing should dampen the spirits of the american people who i believe have spoken and have set on a range of issues like i said on those ballot issues and elsewhere that there are not mandates for this extremism. in terms of your question regarding biden administration policies, i would refer you to our website where you can look at the ways we've engaged in the courts on the first trump administration as i was current administration. we have maintained a range of lawsuits that the federal government under the leadership of president biden continues to defend from the prior administration. across a range of issues, whether it is on a variety of

health and welfare or kind of regulations. and i will also say that we proudly -- on behalf of people and communities, major medical associations, teachers groups, legal scholars defending this administration's actions, with the far-right legal movement was in court challenging the government actions. so for instance, lawsuits like the one we saw in amarillo, texas where there was an attempt to undermine the fda the to approve and regulate medicated abortion. we were there alongside the administration defending the authority of the fda on behalf of that company, on behalf of the drug manufacturer. with respect to a range of other policies such as minimum wage and fair wages for federal contractors, we were there on behalf of the range of workers groups defending those policies against far-right attorneys general.

you can look at our website to see more but we are in court frequently both to defend positive policies that are the result of the democratic process that we believe are lawful and consistent with the law and need that defense, as well as to challenge overreaches about authority at the state and local level or even at the executive level host: i want to ask about these possible new pix, pam bondi possibly becoming attorney general. what is your impression of for in the position? guest: we seen a trend with the appointee's name so far which is that there is definitely a real focus on loyalty. we have a deep concern around the range of things that we saw in project 2025, where there are plans to weaponize the department of justice against the american people to reverse the way that rights and other things are enforced force in this country. i'm going to be listening very carefully at her confirmation hearing to understand what she would purport and may have

interest beyond the independent institution, but i will be listening. host: what is something you hear that red flag? guest: she acts as if she didn't take action considered in the political alignment, but we will be looking at these confirmation hearings to see how she answers questions today will be important that senators really ask those tough questions if this is an administration that has not been shy about their plans now for what they intend to do to the department of justice. i think that this is another place for the american people, not lawyers, not politicians, but the american people have a real role to make clear what is acceptable for an attorney general. host: what about the possibility of cash patel committed -- become director of the fbi? guest: that is another highly concerning appointment as well as the way that the incoming administration is talking about and sort of seeking to play

games with the fbi. there's been a range of concerns about their desire to politicize the fbi, so again we will have to watch that. i think cash patel is another place where it's going to be very important that the american people make their voices heard. we've already seen the president elect have to walk away from his first nominee for attorney general, so people are not without power to make their voices heard and in this moment to demand more and i think it is going to be really necessary for that appointment. host: does your organization specifically reject the senders at this time expressing your concerns? guest: we typically do not get involved in the appointment process, there's a range of organizations that do a lot of and legacy around that. we are the lawyer they go to court. we are watching these. from our experience, we know the importance of the independence of these institutions.

we know about the harm that can occur when they are not independent, and so we are watching from that perspective and we are certainly able to educate but that is not the major focus of our work. host: john is in illinois, independent line. caller: i am very sorry to say that this is some of the greatest hypocrisy i've seen in my life. talking about the fda and the antiabortion drugs, the pro-abortion drugs, whatever you want to call them. what about the 60 million chronic pain patients who have been denied fda approved medications, the support act which pays doctors to take people off of these medications and put them in a non-fda approved but clear procedures, giving them full price and a 6% bonus, and why states like mine in illinois have to try to pass a bill in order to get actual

medical care? i have a terminal illness because i was poisoned by america's most profitable drug and yet i've been forced to suffer ever since donald trump opioid condition was created to manipulate cdc guidelines and establish prosecutorial justification -- host: all that said, what would you like our gas to addressed specifically? caller: i just want to know how it was ok for these people to ignore 50 million votes. host: got your point across. let me expanded to the health care space. guest: let me say i am so sorry to hear of your illness and i hope you're able to get the care that you need and can get as well as possible, so thank you for sharing that personal story. i think the health care space,

this really high-stakes here. just to go back to the prior question, the health care space is a space for your currently right now defending alongside the department of justice that we represent a lot of doctors groups. we are defending the medicare drug price negotiation, provision of the inflation reduction act which of course enables medicare to negotiate directly in order to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. not just for those on medicare, but the overall market. this is a huge achievement and one that has been challenged in court by a range of special interests. right now the biden administration has won those challenges and we will have to see what the department of justice continue to defend this monumental policy which we do believe in many federal courts have agreed is lawful? that is something that we are watching. and if they will not continue to defend that, there may be legal action that needs to be taken in those cases to make sure that

those defenses are there. i think that abortion access, reproductive health care access, access to health care across the board is something that is deeply troubling when we look at the incoming administration's record and we look at how that record compares to have voted, including conservative people in deep red states to understand that medicine is really beyond politics. as much as people seek to politicize it. a lot of the work that we have been fortunate to do has been on behalf of doctors and health care professionals or patients who need care and we are working to make sure that people and communities have the resources they need if the incoming administration ignores the law and reverses course and billy seeks to undermine health care access for all. host: maryland, democrat line, this is deborah. call: good morning. my question is it seems like the trump administration has a lot of power, and it seems like they

are fighting all the time. do you think you have enough power -- the problem they have, will you be able to fight these problems with all the power that it seems like this ministration has? i think the house and the senate is republican. that is my question. guest: i think that is a great question. if you take one thing away from this discussion today i hope that it is that we all need to be looking at the power we have as individual citizens and is people who have really inherited the system of government and this democracy. i think it's going to be hard in the days ahead. you not have rose-colored glasses about what is ahead of us. within just a few weeks we saw a president-elect that was saying he wanted nothing, didn't know

anything about projects when a 25 now seeking to appoint people who were the architects of it and could accelerate it. but i will say that i do think there is a real reason to have hope, and that has been the work of the american people have to do. we've already seen this president with the understanding that he is moving into an aligned congress have to abandon one of his major appointments with the attorney general. we saw any prior administration, this administration lost nearly 80% of the time in court because they ignore the law across a range of issues. i'm not saying that people didn't get hurt and i'm also not saying that there are some policies that an incoming administration gets to implement that are lawful and negative temperament them even if congress doesn't agree with that. but our -- there are a range of tools they can be used and it is going to be very important that people not give up hope because what we know about countries like ours and about movements

like the far-right movement in the united states is that there is a real focus to try to get people to say the die has been cast, there is nothing that can be done. and we know that people are so strong that even in the election he had to distance himself from these extreme policies, so we are going to part host: the senate returns this week taking nominations. what are your concerns about the future of judicial nominations? guest: first of all, it's really important the senate confirm as many nominees as they can. they actually did that in the prior ministration as well so it is important, important that the they need to do, holidays, overtime, whatever needs to happen. but judicial nominations are really important focus. one, i will just say president biden have been able to appoint

nearly 220 pro-democracy judges to the federal court across the country and the federal judicial landscape looks a lot at her for those that care about democracy, the rule of law and progress from that sort of perspective. they look a lot better today than they did on the first day of the biden administration, and that is an important thing to remember. but we did see president trump appoint a range of very extreme judges to the court. we saw that with respect to the supreme court and we also saw it with respect to lower federal courts where we see district court judges in places like amarillo, texas. they've issued decisions that the supreme court would not know has been 9-0 in the last term not based on law and did not belong in the courts. so i do believe that that confirmation process, the nomination process when

president trump takes office, that is going to be another place where it is going to be important that people are making clear today senators and to their lawmakers what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in terms of the people who hold the nations trust in our federal judiciary. host: we will hear from mark in maryland, republican line. caller: good morning. there was a call or a little bit earlier, she asked for the definition of progressive. and you get a very misleading answer. progressives actually want to progress on the constitution because they actually have the hubris to believe that they know better than the founding fathers. and you keep mentioning the word democracy. i don't really understand why you keep doing that. it seems like you are spreading misinformation or some other orwellian word when you call america democracy. the word democracy doesn't appear anywhere in the

constitution and yet you seem to try to be hiding behind this idea that you are protecting america in some way from donald trump, who the narrative is that he is a usurper or something. you kind of took a talking point from woodrow wilson we started calling america a democracy. we are not a democracy, not even a little bit. host: what is the question? is gone. guest: i love president lincoln to finding our country and our democracy as a government by and for the people. that really represents what america is striving to do. we are still on that project. whatever anybody wants to use, whether you call it progress oriented, democracy, a constitutional republic. that is really the project that we are on his people, and i think there's a lot of work to do there.

dark out this is from patricia in new york, democrats line. caller: my question is 52% of americans voted for president trump. does that mean the cabinet that he is picking, will we be living in a dictatorship, or what is going to happen to the country with the cabinet people that he has appointed? guest: i will make a few comments there. one, that cabinet has to be confirmed by the united states senate. so there is a role for the american people. if there are individuals that are being appointed or being nominated that you believe are a threat to american values or to your day-to-day life, there is a real importance in calling your elected members to ensure that you are making your voice heard. i think it is important people remember that.

the cabinet positions, the president doesn't get to snap their fingers and all of a sudden have the cabinet of their desire. there is a process. i do think there is a reason to be concerned about some of the people he has said he has the intent to nominate, in particular because of the promises and the statements made to the american people during the election where he distanced himself from people in project 2025 and is now pointing them to the office of management and budget one of the core architects of that project. but it remains to be seen what cabinet he ends up with, as well as what they do. and i think that there is another piece that we just heard there, as well as the work in the courts they could table some of the things i have said they seek to do through cabinet positions are things that ignore the law and that would be using the legal process to push back on that as well.

as we saw in the last administration as well. host: the possibility of recess appointments to get some cabinet members, do you think that is off the table now? guest: it is hard to read this tea leaves. i do think there is a range of problems with recess appointments, and it seems like he started backing off a bit of that, that we are watching that as well. i think there are a range of concerns, essentially legal concerns. host: tell me about your organization between now and january 20, what is the action? guest: we are working every day as new policies and proposals are announced to understand where the new administration will act in ways that are a violation of the rule of law. we are looking at what they are proposing and there are a range

of really important systems being heard in the next few weeks, so we have clients and some of those cases we are working on. and then we work in state and local communities. it is not just washington looking for a change in this next year, but a range of state legislative sessions will begin and in the last range, there were some laws that really did exceed what states are able to do that violated individual rights, so we will be watching those in working with communities on the ground to make sure their legal rights are represented. host: what do you think the future is of the neck administration when it comes to the makeup of the court? guest: people are saying they may anticipate some retirements. we will have to see. i do think that this is now an area where it is important that the american people be paying attention, maybe we could claim

in the last administration that people didn't understand the full power of the supreme court or the importance. we are now living in a post-dobbs reality and we are living in a world where many people's rights are less than they were just a few years ago because of the way in which the last trump administration shaped the law of the courts. i think this is going to be a real area with the american people need to be focused and stay focused, and where we need to be focused as well. i've not seen any evidence that the president-elect would back off extreme appointments. i think actually we've seen just the opposite. host: democracyforward.org is the website. thanks for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: later on we are going to hear from the abundance institute's tyler barclay as he talks about the future of energy policy in the united states but

first, the question we started with this morning when it comes to president biden offering that pardon to his son. you can get your comments. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when washington journal continues. > are you a nonfiction book lover looking for a new podcast? this holiday season try listening to one of the many podcast c-span has to offer. on q&a you will listen to interesting interviews with people and authors writing books on history. learn something new on book notes plus through conversations with nonfiction authors and historians. afterwards brings together best-selling nonfiction authors with influential interviewers for wide-ranging, hour-long conversations. and we talk about the business of books with news and interviews about the publishing

industry and nonfiction authors. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now at or every yu-gi-oh podcasts. -- wherever you get your podcasts. >> live and on-demand, keep up with the days biggest events with live streams and floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download for free today or visit our website. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere.

>> the c-span bookshelf podcast makes it easy for you to listen to all at c-span's podcast that feature nonfiction books in one place so you can discover new authors and ideas. each week we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events and culture. listen today. you can find the c-span bookshelf podcast feed and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now mobile video at forever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. washington journal continues. host: it was yesterday that president biden announced he had offered a pardon of his son hunter biden, the president

currently heading to africa but before that, putting out a statement. thges and hunter biden's case came onlyft my political opponents and congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. a carefully negotiata deal agreed to with a number of my political opponents and congress taking credit for bringing political presre on the process. that plea deal would have been a fair asonable resolution with no reasonable person who lookse fact of hunter's case can reach any other conclusion than hunter was singled out ly because he is my son, and that is wrong. there has been an effort to break -- even the face of lenting attacked and collective prosecution and trying to break hunter. he tried to break me and there is no reason to believe they will stop here. i believe in the justice system, but as i have wrestled with this i also believe that raw politics

has infected this process and this is a miscarriage of justice. part of a statement released by the white house yesterday, president biden on the offering of this pardon. saying that he would not take this action, but in june when a reporter asked him. >> with regard to the question regarding family, i'm extremely proud of my son hunter. he has overcome an addiction, he is one of the greatest, most decent men i know and i am satisfied that i'm not going to do anything. i stand by the jury decision. i will not pardon him. host: tell us what you think of this pardon. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. independent, (202) 748-8002. nancy in ohio, republican line. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning.

i wanted to say that there are many fathers whose children are in jail or in prison who would love to give their children a pardon, and it seems to me that this is a great power thing that president joe biden can do this for his son, but we the people cannot do this for our children. joe biden is a person like i am, like the people are who would love to pardon their children who are in jail. and remember that it was donald trump who instigated the first act which got a lot of minority people, black people out of jail for some kind of minute, stupid

thing to do with drugs. i also want to say that i've heard from the democrats on your show this morning that trump was indicted by all these charges. well, the democrats in new york created a new law to get trump. host: ok, we will go to virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning, thank the lord for answering my call. i do think by -- biden should pardon his son before he leaves at presidency, because if he is already in --, he deserves another chance. and i feel that he should do this for his son and let his son go to a private counselor, not a public, a private counselor. host: pardons specifically dealt

with gun charges, why do you think that applies to what you are saying? caller: because other people have done it and they have gotten by with it. and he is still a young man compared to me. and some older people are doing it and charges are not being pressed against them. just like bill cosby did wrong at his age. host: we believe that there, thank you. they caller says i like the fact that the question about the department his son has been a difficult one for the president both personally and politically, in part because one of the democrats central accusations about the incoming president is that he has sought to manipulate the justice system for his own benefit. the story going on to say that mr. biden has -- a life marked by family tragedy, injured in

the 1972 car crash that killed their mother and their baby sister. and beau biden died of brain cancer in 2015. ivan said publicly several times he would not pardon hunter and days after the gun trial when the president was addressing a group of seven in italy, he reiterated that he would not issue a pardon. that is reporting from the accident took place yesterday about the pardon of hunter biden by his father. asking your comments on that on the phone lines and the social media as well. let's hear from maurice in michigan, independent line. maurice, hello. host: good morning. i'm interested in this young lady who you had on before who was justifying everything biden

had done. the gentleman has been a consistent liar. of course, that is all politicians. but he says one thing and he does another. that is typical of the democrats. it is also typical of most republican politicians. so this pardon he has given his son is not a surprise. it is just par for the course. thank you very much. host: carol in new jersey, democrats line. caller: i think it is great that he is able to pardon hunter. i think the only thing that people really get mad at his they can't do the same thing for their children, which i wish

that we could when it is not that big of a crime. it seems to me that the only people that hard-core republicans don't want to have a gun is hunter. it doesn't seem like it is really that big of a crime. that is all i have to say. thank you very much for taking my call. host: the chair of the house oversight committee offer these comments afterhe information hunter biden saying joe bidening lied start to finish about his family's corrupt activity. not only has he falsely claimed he never met with his son's foreign ss associa that is send nothing wrong, but he also lied when he said he would not pardon hunter biden. charges hunter faced were just the tip of the iceberg of the blatant corruption the president biden in the biden imfamily have lied about to the american people. it's unfortunate that rather than come cln out their decades of wrongdoing, president biden and his family continued to do everything they can to

avoid accountability. that took place yesterday after the release of some members of congress. you can give your thoughts on the phone lines if you wish. if you called in the last 30 days, please hold off on doing so and when you do call in, mute or turn off your television, that way you will be ready to jump on. and you can also post a tweet if you wish, a post on x and send us a text. new york, buffalo, republican line. caller: good morning, c-span, pedro. this is an issue and i think most parents would agree that they would pardon their child in this situation like this. i don't know what the big deal is. if you are on one side you are against it, if you are on the others, you are for it. this time i am a bipartisan i guess. as a father i would definitely

pardon my child. no parent wants to see their child in jail, first of all. if i had the tools to do it, i would definitely do it. trump pardoned collins for insider trading. he was supposed to see some jail time. i mean hey, that is the power that they've gone and i'm sure most parents would do it. like the lady before from michigan said, they are just jealous that they can't. and i know, it is not fair, but that is the power that the president has. we've seen presidents pardon a lot of for a lot worse. kudos for being a good dad. host: that same washington post story highlighting the fact that indeed mr. trump pardoning charles kushner, the father of jared kushner in december of 2020 shortly after losing his bid for reelection. the real estate developer pled

guilty to making false statements to the federal election commitment for witness tampering and tax evasion, that mr. trump, now the president-elect said he would nominate charles kushner as a u.s. ambassador. some previous history bear when it comes to partisan commutations. we've showed you this website before but as the justice department website, if you go to justice.gov there is a section which lists all of the commutations of current and previous presidents. you can check that out for yourself when it comes to who these were offered to. florida, independent line, you are next up. the pardon offered by joe biden. caller: good morning. i would definitely pardon my child. but when he said he would not pardon the fact that he found cocaine in the white house while

president biden was serving. i don't think he should serve may be time in jail, but community service is very much needed. and i think that that should be taken into effect however you would see it. i would pardon, because i would do it for my son. it sounds great when he distributed horrific --. -- the principle was like, he's so good, how can i punish him? i was like garbage in, garbage out. i gave him the job of cleaning the cafeteria for one week, because that was garbage. i really think he should have community host: service. host:that was tonya in florida.

let's hear from elizabeth in new jersey. democratic line. hello. caller: i think that biden did the right thing, pardoning his son. because if he didn't, he would be aching. when your child is in trouble, you are right there in trouble with them. you are not going to the whole process of what they are going through, but you are feeling everything they are feeling. yes, in order for biden to have a clean conscience, knowing that his son is going to be home and not behind bars, yes, i think that joe biden should do that. even though he said he wouldn't, ok? people change their minds on issues, ok? so, he needs to pardon his son. anybody who says they shouldn't, they don't have a heart. host: dave, new york, republican line. caller: i don't think it's a big

deal that he pardon his son. anyone would have done the same on either side. really, that's it. trump will get revenge and pardon some of the january 6 people, which you should, and that's it. that's the way it should be. i would have pardoned my son. trump would have pardoned his son if it was him and any other politician, so that's it. host: this is a statement from hunter biden himself. "i have paid for my sobriety for more than five years because of my deep faith and my unwavering love and support of family and freight -- friends. i have squandered many opportunities and advantages to recover. if we take for granted mercy

that we have been afforded, i will never take this clemency for granted and devote the life i have to rebuilding and helping those who are still sick and suffering. that is the hunter biden statement from yesterday after receiving the pardon from his father. let's hear from travis in green bay, wisconsin, independent line. caller: hi. i believe that if you are found guilty of these actions, you should be held accountable, regardless if your father wants to do it, it's about integrity and ethics that define a man. you know, if you are going to free somebody or be able to clear them, like someone who has been wrongfully injustice and held as a political prisoner for how long and still not released? host: paul, richmond, virginia,

democratic line. caller: yeah, good morning. i like what the callers are saying, i just think that, you know, biden was definitely correct, there was a plea deal in place. he was going to serve time in there was a lot of political pressure exerted on the process. that he would continue to be cannon fodder after his father left office. that would be the only biden left to attack. whether or not i agree that he committed a crime or anything else, he did take responsibility for his actions and he did stand in front of a judge and was prepared to do so. that apparently wasn't enough. it's a little bit rich, with mr. kushner being appointed ambassador when he was in prison and pardoned. so, i think there's just a lot

of talking heads and political play going on right now. it will be for the best to just let everybody walk away and let things go. host: a statement from the president-elect on the events of yesterday, saying that the pardon given by joe to hunter includes january 6 hostages in prison for years, and abuse and miscarriage of justice. when it comes to the president, "the new york times" reporting that president arrived in cape verde on monday for the first stop of the only trip to sub-saharan africa that he has taken, overshadowed by his decision. air force one touched down for refueling at the airport on a sunday morning before continuing to angola and while waiting for the plane to be ready for the next leg of the flight, mr. biden met in an airport lounge with their prime minister, who

is scheduled to arrive by evening at the capitol, where he will visit a slavery museum and highlight a $1 billion rail corridor as a prime example of his administration's plan to help with the regional economy. those are the highlights of the trip as the president travels overseas. this is from doug in falls church, virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i'm pretty floored by some of the calls i have heard thus far. i consider myself a moderate republican. i voted for biden in 2020 and i think he's destroying his credibility with this pardon. these charges are not small. they are significant, right? he lied on federal paperwork to get it done. he has failed to pay taxes, i think it was like over a million dollars. this is not some small thing, it's a really big deal and the question is -- i'm a father of

two girls. it's not a question of what i would do as the average person, it's a question of what is the right thing to do. it's not to do this. it's not to do a pardon that just favors your own. the thing that gets me is when these politicians say something that is clearly a lie, clearly the opposite of what they are doing. i think that biden claimed in his pardon that his son was unfairly targeted. it's the exact opposite. he had this sweetheart deal where prosecutors were going to let things go and pursued something with no sentencing of any kind in it was reversed once it became public and script -- subject to scrutiny. he's doing the exact opposite in clearly favoring his own family. people mentioned kushner under trump, that is also wrong. we all really need to raise our standards here and stop accepting this grifter from these politicians.

host: hunter biden was convicted in june for lying on a gun purchase form when he click the boxes saying he didn't own illegal drugs. he pled guilty in september to nine federal attacks in charges. the last plea came just before jury selection was scheduled to begin for the trial. both cases at the time were prosecuted by the special counsel, david white, named to preserve independence in the case by hunter biden's father. as a caller highlighted, it went to court and then when the deal was announced, the judge dealing with that asked questions about the deal in question and as the times highlighted, discovering the deal given to hunter biden, saying it was the action of the judge, not necessarily political pressure. that is from "the new york

times," if you want to read that story there. david, north carolina, democratic line. caller: he pardoned his son for a crime that other people had done and are still in prison for. why not pardon all of them? host: ok. maryann, indianapolis, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. no one is above the law. whether you are a president or a single person here in the united states. i guess it doesn't really matter if your parent finds you guilty or not guilty. if you have the ability to pardon someone or get them out of the situation, from now one, everyone deserves a pardon. i think it's ridiculous. it's political. it's how big you are in this country.

you maintain your power that way. host: another resident of indianapolis. brian, republican line. hi. caller: i agree that biden should pardon his son. he really should. that's his son. he should pardon him. i understand that everybody is in jail for crimes like these, but that's his son. and i'm a republican. but everybody is missing here is -- the justice system is, like biden said, it is bloated, a bloated bureaucracy. who better to fix that then cash patel, elon musk, and people like those. host: in this case, do you think the justice system is two-tiered? caller: i think it is no matter who gets in office. who could fix that better than

cash patel? host: that was brian in indianapolis. caller: a convicted rapist talking about couldn't -- convicting, in the nerve of trump commenting on anything that has to do with unfair justice when most convicted of rock -- rapists can't get a job at mcdonald's. host: he was held liable for sexual abuse. caller: rape. stop mixing up the words. host: just saying that is what the jury found. caller: anybody else couldn't get a job at mcdonald's but he could run for president? that's a laugh, the comment on

unfair justice. he didn't use a gun and no type of crime. didn't shoot nobody, didn't kill nobody. he made a horrible mistake, was on drugs? my goodness. where's the empathy at. as long as america will allow a rapist -- host: you have already said that twice. moving on to scott, new york, independent line, hello. caller: i've been a caller since i was 90 eight. i called back when you were in denver and did that show out there in colorado. host: that was a long time ago. [laughter] caller: a couple of weeks ago they were trying to appoint an attorney general. the head of the legal department. he was doing cocaine with a minor but because she brought the cocaine to the party, it was no big deal. i'm a true independent. it makes me sick on both sides, these people calling in on a daily basis and i've got to bite

my tongue for 30 days, which is hard to do. host: what do you think specifically about the pardon? caller: specifically on pardoning his son? for sure, he should. and if we go by the republicans, what they did last week, how does he know if he remembers if he would pardon or not. they are having it both ways. host: you say that he should pardon his son based on what? why do you think that's the case? caller: it's his son, number one. and apparently the republicans have no big deal with cocaine. they wanted to appoint an attorney general who was doing cocaine with a minor. number three, the daughter of jeb bush got in trouble with cocaine, yeah, and stealing prescription pads in such -- and

such, but only got five days in county jail. host: ok. mike, illinois, republican line, hello. caller: good morning, pedro. i think this is an extension of the very corrupted biden administration and people are kind of missing the point on what i have heard in the news at least on this issue. that is not just that biden pardoned his son, which i kind of understand from a personal viewpoint? but he is a public figure. the important thing to me, from what i have heard, is that he is not only pardoning him for these past things that may have been prop -- may have been brought up and sentenced for, but for any future prosecution. that's the big issue and then my opinion that is totally corrupt. host: one more call.

this will be from david, new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for putting my call. everyone is missing the point. hunter biden shows the classic signs of chronic encephalopathy. i have worked in units with soldiers who have brain damage, drug use, poor judgment, these are all signs of a person with a severe at the head injury who was in a car accident where he and his brother were in the backseat. remember, the brother died of brain cancer, possibly related. both had severe injuries, hospitalize, these are signs of cte. thank you. host: how does that relate to the pardon, call her the caller is gone. that is it for calls. thanks for participating. before we let you go, at this time of the holiday season you will probably be familiar with something called giving tuesday,

where you give to an organization, especially at this time of year. at c-span we are also asking you to consider giving on giving tuesday. somebody has promised to match that first 10 thousand dollars ofonations to c-span, thus doubling your impact of a gift to c-span. as always, when you give to us, you support transparent coverage -- transparent coverage ofhe government. click your phone, click on the qr code and that will take you to the website where you can give your donation. if you want to go to the website itself, that is c-span.org/donate. thank you in advance for any help or assistance you can offer us. coming up on this program, the director of public policy at the abundance institute, talking about the future of energy policy in the next trump administration. we will take those calls when we return.

♪ ♪ >> according to the brown university professor cory brett schneider, the following president's in history threatened democracy. those are the words from the introduction of his book, the president and the people. john adams prosecuted as many as 126 members of the natural -- of the press who dared criticize them. james buchanan denied constitutional personhood to african-americans. andrew johnson urged violence against his political opponents. woodrow wilson nationalized jim crow by segregating the federal government. finally, richard nixon committed criminal acts with the watergate break-in. brett schneider teaches constitutional law at brown university. >> cory brett schneider with his

people, five leaders who the threatened democracy end of th citizens who fought to defend it , with brian lamb. book notes plus is available on the c-span free mobile app or where ever you get your podcasts. listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio is easy. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio and listen to us daily at 7 p.m. eastern with important public affairs events throughout the day. listen to c-span any time. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> nonfiction book lovers, we have podcasts for you. listen to influential authors on the afterwards podcast. on q&a hear wide-ranging

conversations with authors who are making things happen. these are weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews, industry updates, and a best seller lists. find all of the podcasts by downloading the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts, or on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: taylor barkley is with the abundance institute and serves as their public policy director, here to talk about what's going to happen to energy policy in the next administration. good morning. how do you describe the institute to other people? caller: -- guest: brand-new mission driven nonprofit focus on removing blocks to

technologies. host: what barriers do you envision in the energy policy world? guest: great question. there is a whole thicket of regulations we can talk about at the state and federal level. with artificial intelligence there is maybe pending regulation. it's a largely unregulated sector when it comes to ai. if you are using ai to misbehave or perform criminal conduct, you will fall under other laws that hold you accountable. there's also cultural barriers. societal barriers that prevent new technologies from coming to market. say, for example, fears about nuclear technology. host: what point of view does the institute take politically? guest: nonpartisan, governed by

research. a team of experts on ai and energy, everything that we produce is on our mission to prevent regulations and saddling barriers that prevent new technologies from coming to market. host: pro industry versus pro regulation, how would you describe that? right of center? guest: relentlessly focused on economic abundance. whatever creates a quality of life for americans, that's where we stand. we have friends everywhere, we make enemies everywhere, but our main mission is abundance and prosperity. host: how are you funded? guest: a mix host: of individuals and corporations. how would you describe the current administration's approach and what would you like to see done generally under the incoming administration? guest: the current

administration is dominated by a lot of policies, like the inflation reduction act, likely the landmark bill in energy regulation. the incoming trump administration here recently wrote an op-ed in the examiner earlier in november and made the point that the american public in this election, across the board, is sending a message to politicians everywhere. the elected republicans in the senate, the house, the white house. they believe they need a new approach. they want a new approach to unleash abundance in america. they are tired of the status quo. this is not just a biden administration, this is cumulative over the course of decades, rising costs and americans are feeling the pinch. higher bills, paying for groceries, housing, on and on we could go throughout the list. host: $10 billion in tax credits were given to build electric

vehicles. rebates for electric vehicle purchases. $20 billion in loans to promote electric vehicle manufacturing. money going to a home fits and things like that. would you see an elimination of those, a reframing of those? what's the best approach in your mind when it comes to that policy? guest: roughly a third of that is in the energy sector, the energy realm. it's all subsidy driven. our recommended approach is to lower recommended -- lower regulatory barriers to unleash prosperity in america. allow entrepreneurs to build new technologies that can build cheaper goods and services for all americans. one that we like comes from a politician in the 1950's who talked about having energy that is too cheap to meter. that's the gold star for us that we want to keep in mind. the inflation reduction act

according to the treasury report will be about $1 trillion over the course of the decade. it's an expensive approach that in the end will probably not bring about the goals that even the president and the politicians who voted for it wanted. trump should focus on letting innovators and entrepreneurs build, cutting the red tape, limiting regulatory barriers, submitting a positive vision for the country. host: you have probably seen these headlines around oil production in the u.s., currently when it comes to oil production, the u.s. is breaking efforts -- breaking records on that front. what other changes are needed if that's happening? guest: natural gas is actually the dominant fossil fuel for generating electricity in the united states right now. our approach is that we should, you know, continue on fossil fuel production with sound regulations that prevent

negative externalities from occurring, harms other people, particulate matter in the air. but at the same time we should also be ensuring that new technologies like advanced nuclear powerplants and smaller nuclear reactors and solar power , they continue to make these advances and we can do these all at the same time. if we have are the proper low regulatory barriers, we will seem fossil fuels edging out as new technologies become cheaper and more prevalent. host: in your mind is there a future timeline where the u.s. can handle and all of the above approach in weaning off petroleum products? guest: this is the crucial four years here, pushing hard now. we are at an inflection point where there seems to be appetite among the american people and politically to try new things

and unleash an energy abundant future. we like to say that the path to prosperity is through energy abundance. so, if we are going to make fixes, we should start them now. host: carolyn buckley at the abundance -- this is taylor barkley if you want to ask him questions. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent callers, (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us a question, you can do it that way using (202) 748-8003. you can post on our social sites as well. other types of energy that you talked about, at this stage of someone hears about nuclear reactors in their backyards, they will have concerns. how important are those concerns? guest: nuclear power has been very safe over the past 70 years or so. this is one of the cultural barriers i talked about earlier. people with nuclear weapons in

their mind, that's different from nuclear power. no nuclear reactor will ever have a mushroom cloud, that's not going to happen. there are also very prominent accidents like fukushima and three mile island. but even from those accidents, despite what happened, compared to other energy production and generation, generative technologies like coal power for instance, particulate matter also causes injury and death. with new nuclear power generation technologies, they are safer. think about the late 70's compared to what we have now. things are much safer. they are cleaner. scientists have done much more research into preventing catastrophic incidents from happening. even think about the u.s. military running nuclear reactors and submarines and aircraft carriers the world over and how relatively safe those are. backyard or not, we deal with

power lines. not even nuclear power plants. just putting electricity lines and can cause controversy. those are the kinds of barriers we will deal with with nuclear power, but on the whole it's a very safe technology. host: what are the regulatory hurdles that need to be crossed? how would you like to see the trump administration handle them? guest: the agency charged with safe nuclear power generation is one. the national environmental policy act is a broader law that governs all sorts of building, from electricity generation to housing at apartments. there are necessary reforms in both of those areas. ensuring that people don't get bogged down, entrepreneurs don't get bogged down in filling out these reports they can go on for

thousands of pages of compliance, making sure that certain animals and plants, it can be weaponized by some sectors. of course, common sense regulations, environmental impact analysis is required and helpful. but we swung too far overboard. i think the trump administration can right the ship by saying that we want to focus on providing cheaper, cleaner energy for americans through new technologies and having sound regulations to go with it. host: the argument being that you reduce the regulation, you increase the possibility of risk. those being the areas served by nuclear technology. how would you debunk that? guest: that's a possibility. there are trade-offs all over the place in life, as you know. we are using fossil fuels

because the newer, cleaner technologies are not available. that's the way to safety. there's been a sweet spot and regulatory policy where if there is zero regulation, that can increase risk but oppressive regulation can provide its own risk with new technologies not being developed or deployed. and we learn by doing. human beings, we learn by doing. the more new energy generation technology that we develop, i think that will be safer over time. host: this is taylor barkley joining us. ed is from michigan, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm just curious, how would you react to the idea of hydrogen cells for cars and thorium as an energy source? guest: that's a great question. we are focused relentlessly on new technologies. let's try that, that would be my answer. let's take advantage of cutting-edge research, see what

works and what the market dictates. from my understanding, that's cutting edge. in the nuclear space they are not ready to go quite today, but near the five to 10 year time horizon they will be deployable. similarly with the technologies that you just outlined, let's try it. let's let the market of consumers decide what's best. host: to that end, with certain aspects of the electric vehicle market, what do you think of the role of ev is in the future? guest: there is absolutely a role. it's exciting to see it integrated in surprising ways. for instance parking your electric vehicle in your driveway could allow you to power your home for short amounts of time. we are seeing this in texas, actually, a company that allows ev owners to sell electricity back into the grid or charge

their electric vehicles when the prices are lowest. it's a kind of adaptability. we can think about electric vehicles as more than just mobility, but perhaps powering residential units for future autonomous vehicles driving to a site where someone would be willing to pay the owner of the electric vehicle for power. host: the story highlights the fact that the shifting political landscape put at risk planned investment in the u.s., some of which has already been aided by state and federal subsidies. as far as going forward, how should the trump administration treat these subsidies? guest: subsidies have a costs. there are trade-offs all over the place. the better path is to make sure that entrepreneurs and innovators can build the new technologies and are making marketable, user-friendly vehicles instead of relying on government aid to produce their

products. it seems to be evident in the consumer market. tesla receives some electric vehicle subsidies, from my understanding. there might be more tesla's on the road than other cars, but there is increasing competition. new companies are constantly getting created and launched and i think they will be in some competition for having a vehicle that looks cool, is functional, and does what the consumer wants it to do. host: when it comes to infrastructure for charging and the like, how has that been? guest: moderately successful, it would seem. there might be a role for the government aiding in the charging station development. would that be more of a private industry thing? guest: it could be. with fossil fuel gasoline stations, like that, incorporating those stations

into their properties. of course, that relies on electrical grid infrastructure. not all charging stations are the same. some of them are kind of supercharged, some are slower. plugging my car into my home would be slower than a super charging station. this gets to another key point that the institute hit. we need to think much more creatively about how electricity is transmitted across the grid. we can think about microgrids. we are dealing with a 100-year-old regulatory marketing model for electricity and we need to think about a marketing deployment model for the 2050 framework. host: here's david in new jersey, republican line, hello. caller: hi, good morning. i had this idea about logistics, wondering if this has ever been researched or if you can explain it. basically, somehow used the

natural gravitational pull to produce energy through some sort of mechanism that would be constantly receiving the push of gravity. like in new york city, which is probably at one trillion tons by now, producing energy through the weight of their own buildings. guest: that would be fantastic. that reminds me of generators that use ocean tides and the movement of surf on the coastal areas to generate electricity. seems like we are pretty far away from just straight up gravity generation, but that would be great if it happened. host: mark, texas, democratic line. caller: i live in northeast texas. when they were building the keystone pipeline, it came near

my home. i keep hearing about the pipeline but according to the internet there are 700,000 barrels per day of oil going from cushing to port arthur. the maximum flow on the line is 800,000. it's a boon to cushing, they are sending it all down to port arthur. that's my question. what's up with that? guest: the first trump administration green lit the pipeline. when biden took office, he canceled it. there's a real chance that the keystone pipeline could come back under president-elect trump's next administration. that seems to be something that would make energy and fossil fuels cheaper for americans and it seems like have a local economic benefit. host: keystone xl, the extension there. you think that that is a working revival on the oil front or is

it better spent checking out those technologies you were talking about? guest: again, let's do it all. if we clear away the regulatory thicket, making it cheaper for americans and pursuing sound, regulatory laws that can eliminate risk and harms for people around fossil fuels and make sure that new technologies can charge. host: donald, michigan, hello. caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: ok. i don't know much about all this fancy stuff, but am i correct in saying that the nuclear is only used to heat the water that turns the generators to make the electricity? the nuclear really isn't used to generate electricity? guest: that's correct, the fuel

rods heat water that produce steam that then turned the turbine and that is what generates electric power. you can think of the nuclear rods as sort of the fire that produces the steam that generates the electricity. host: we have dealt with wind and solar for many years now. how efficient have they been? what's the end result for all the effort put in? guest: both rely on environmental factors. solar has become cheaper and more efficient over time. dealing with solutions, like clouds going over the solar production farm. one thing i really want to know, pedro, is solar, the interesting statistic is that four out of five new homes in the u.s. are built in hoa's and they prevent residential solar from being installed. if we are going to see this energy abundant future, we should truly be looking at the local level to unleash the

abundance. it's being deployed in residential areas and at the grid level. there are 2.6 terawatts standing by to get connected to america's electrical grid. it's waiting on interconnection approval, that's a new generation getting plugged into an existing grid of 2.6 terawatts. i think a lot of that is solar and wind. wind, about that i will click -- quickly say it is more hit and miss, from my understanding. we talked about powerlines in the backyard. wind, windmills are very large and often face local restrictions and objections. it can happen in the backgrounds or on the coastal areas where the wind is strongest. solar is providing more and more power. it could be a very viable component in our energy abundant future.

host: to what extent can it provide all the power to a home, solar? guest: the prototype is much less efficient and bulkier than the latest version and we have seen that hold true with solar power in particular. it can provide up to 100% with opportunity for providers to sell back to the grid. my parents did this in southern california, which is very solar friendly, giving the sunshine. they would see low positive electric bills. host: cindy, democratic line, hi , thanks for calling. caller: hello. i was a democrat. a florida native and i moved because of the overpopulation of the florida northern border.

i would like the moratorium lifted in florida and i would like the drilling to be done on trump land. what can we do to have the oil drilling, that moratorium lifted and have the oil drilled in trump land in florida? guest: perhaps where he lives is where you are referring to? oil drilling is one way to our energy prosperous energy abundant future. eliminating regulatory barriers there, as well as with, for example, geothermal, we haven't talked about geothermal energy production much, but that's another way to take advantage of the fossil fuel technologies being developed. geothermal, essentially going deep enough into the earth where you are heating the earth itself to then vaporize the water,

which again turns a turbine to generate electric power. theoretically, we could drill anywhere on the planet and find the heat from the earth's core and generate geothermal power that way, which is a much cleaner and more sustainable long-term energy production means than the fossil fuel production that we have now. even though we should not seek to do away with it immediately. host: how much of this new technology defense on fossil fuel to power it? if coal is needed to make electricity, if you want to go away from electricity, what happens to that industry? guest: coal is actually declining, natural gas has largely risen to take its place. that is the reason we have seen carbon emissions falling, because of the move to natural gas. again, this is a truism with all

technological advancements, industries become displaced and we need to be conscious of the human impact that can have an empathetic. but also realizing that this will create a much more prosperous future for everyone, improving the quality of human life. over and over again i think about the transition from horse and buggy days to the automotive days. that is -- you know, the buggy whip, the buggy manufacturers, there was a transition to the automobile. maybe again like with fossil fuel and oil and natural gas, maybe some of those skills with coal mining could be transitioned to geothermal energy production, digging into the earth. host: dan, florida, independent line. caller: i wanted to talk about lithium-ion batteries, which is what ev's use. in florida we have issues where it floods.

the battery catches fire in the next thing you know, your battery is on fire, and controllable fire in your garage. also, in a car accident the batteries explode. i used to make these batteries, i do know a little about them. also, the turbines, they degrade and fall apart. the things in them are toxic to the earth. and what about things like whales and all of that? i know it's all like theory, but i wanted to see if you guys wanted to talk about any of that. and when it comes to coal, ev batteries won't work. and if it gets too hot, ev batteries won't work. host: that's a lot for our guest. go ahead. guest: great thoughts. you bring up the common principle with all things in life, there are trade-offs. with lithium-ion batteries, i think a lot about the amount of energy that was required to mind

the rare earth minerals around the world and then transport them in order to generate, you know, to mine the minerals to create one of these electric vehicle batteries. i think about the giant home sized caterpillar drum -- caterpillar dump trucks out there that are running on diesel fuel for the most part to create these batteries. this is another reason that at the institute we emphasize creativity, options, and the clearing away of regulatory hurdles for entrepreneurs to create new technologies. i think we will continue to see improvements in batteries for electrical vehicles and continued improvements in gasoline powered cars. maybe integrating smaller batteries into hybrid automobiles. over and over again, you know, to bring up my favorite example from history, in the late 1800s there were severe concerns about them a problem in manhattan. this was a public health crisis.

the tons of manure generated by horses, it was rendered moot by the automobile and gasoline powered engines coming to the forefront. i think we will continue to see technological solutions being the answer to many of these problems but consumers as well, if an electrical vehicle is not the right choice for you and where your family lives, the market should be open to other options being available. host: texas, we have a viewer this morning saying -- can you describe the characteristics of the green new deal, affect, and the achievement and shortcomings of that deal. guest: from what i understand, multiple parts of the green new deal were in the inflation reduction act and characterized with subsidies and tax credits and from our perspective that is in the best path forward. the best path forward is to make sure that entrepreneurs, innovators, and manufacturers can create new technologies with

energy generation capacities instead of subsidizing old ones and staying fixed in the 100-year-old model of electricity generation and distribution, it's really about thinking towards the future. one of my messages here is to think outside the boxes. thus far, you know, the green new deal with a subsidy approach is probably not the best primary way. host: what is the approach of the institute of climate change? guest: we believe in carbon having the effect on the end -- an effect on the environment, but the main point here is creating more energy cheaply, much cleaner, and we can do all of that through the new technologies we have available now and on the horizon. on the policy front -- host: on the policy front, what do you

see coming from the next administration? would you support staying in the paris agreement? seems like guest: -- seems like -- guest: seems like trump will withdraw once again. our focus is much more on the technology side. it's not about the specific debate or discussion. it's making sure that new technologies can come to market. host: let's hear from rick in florida. democratic line, hello. caller: is it true -- true that the oil wells are already drilled? cap? thousands of wells capped and ready to go and we should concentrate more on just storing oil to counter anything that the persians do?

just store so much oil that we can wash them out every time they want to turn off the spigot? thank you. guest: i'm not sure of the exact number of wells not currently producing oil. you mentioned storing it as well. there's the natural -- national strategic petroleum reserve, which i believe president biden stopped filling up at one point. maybe he resumed it at some point. storing enough oil for how many years or decades, that will only get us so far. the path to true energy independence and abundance in the u.s. is through developing new energy generation technology. host: carmine, new jersey, independent line, hello. caller: i'm always into theories where it's good to have the solar power generating, but say

that you use solar power and solar batteries and then you wind it up like a starter, to wind up a giant rubber band, and then you burst back and forth with it, you would get generation for electricity. that way you don't use much of any kind of, you know, it would be just constant. i don't know, what do you think about that? guest: it's a fun idea. it reminds me of similar proposals to generating heat. we talked about lithium-ion batteries and relying on rare earth minerals to store electrical charges. some batteries have been designed by companies out there to store heat. in your example you talk about maybe when energy is cheapest, say in the middle of the night in your locality, using that energy to create heat that is then stored in a battery and released during peak hours, like 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., when everyone

is getting home from work and turning on their kitchen. these are the sorts of creative solutions that are a path forward, but to see that future, we need to get out of this mindset of -- there is one electricity generator provider. the utility in your area. not talking about microgrids at all, but your idea could be each home or local residential area that could generate its own power, store it and use it as they see fit and provide it to their neighbors when market rates are right. host: president elect trump has named a capital of people that he would like to see and energy positions. i want to get your take on them. lisa elston as the -- lee zeldin ? guest: i noticed that in that announcement, the under --

unspoken undercurrent of the discussion so far, one of the prime reasons we are talking about it across all aisles here, it's artificial intelligence and the needs that it will produce with data centers powering ai models. it was exciting to see a potential epa coming in to talk about emerging technology innovation in a statement at the agency that, you know, it's a good example to me of someone thinking outside the boxes and to the future. host: what about decisions on future environmental issues? guest: these data centers consume a lot of economic energy. ai, goldman sachs estimated that generative artificial intelligence will produce about 1.5 trillion dollars in global gdp over the next decade. what that means is $5,000 to

$10,000 for individual americans from generative ai. wherever the data centers are built, they will require more electricity, more generative capacity. some companies like microsoft and google, most major tech companies are partnering with power companies to create on-site or off-site new energy needs. microsoft, for instance, is working with a company to be open three mile island to generate power for their data. host: chris wright, with a background in oil, what do you think of an oil man working on energy? guest: i hope that he has and all of the above approach in his thinking about more than just fossil fuel oil production. this is our main message to the president-elect and incoming members of congress. the american people voted for them all because they were tired

of the economics they have been experiencing. the rising costs. my message, potentially, to any new energy secretary is to really try at all and not just focus on the areas he's most familiar with. host: let's hear from sam in maryland, independent line. good morning, go ahead, you are on with our guest. guest: my question is a two-part question. first, we hear that solar is the easiest energy to generate air the least expensive. but i wonder why solar has not gained greater use across residential communities in the united states. there is talk out there that the

big utility monopolies do things to frustrate solar becoming more widespread. is that perhaps true? some legislators, whatever it is that they are doing, may be lobbying, could your guests address those, please? guest: couple of questions i heard in there. the prevalence of solar, there are new solar generative technologies waiting for interconnection into current electric grids. that's paperwork. permits, essentially, preventing 2.6 terawatts from getting plugged into the grid. not all of those companies and technologies will wind up seeing the light of day, but it's out there. companies, innovators and entrepreneurs are creating these solar generative capacities to plug into the electrical grid. you talked about the role of

utility monopolies. this is a 100 year if not older model of electricity generation. when we think about how we get -- say broadband, for instance, we have often many choices. some areas don't, depending on wired or wireless, but we have seen satellite broadband, star link, you could be anywhere in the world and get wireless broadband connectivity, enough to watch netflix, for instance. could we see the same principle, the same competition and access in the electricity market if we are moving towards a new model like, where you said, it allows individuals to put solar panels on their roof if they want to? i mentioned to pedro earlier, some of those barriers are at the level of the neighborhood. sometimes it's a city level or a state level. these energy policy discussions run from top to bottom in terms of the politics involved.

host: a republican house and senate, how open do you think they are to the new model or new concepts idea of all of the above? guest: we saw a letter in august from 18 republicans, mike johnson, to not repeal parts of the inflation reduction act, subsidies that were helping their districts. the interesting part about that is these are red states and red districts where it is easier to build than others. there is a need to push members of congress to think creatively. i have even found this in my own thinking, being trained in the constant conserve, turn off the lights, a fixed pie. at the abundance institute we say that we can have a bigger pie, 10 times bigger. i think this will be the challenge, to wake people up, particularly politicians, from the status quo and old ways of doing things. again, this is what the politicians should take from the

election, think outside the boxing create an energy abundant future. host: other members of congress with that willingness to try new ideas? guest: we are still getting a sense. maybe someone like lee zeldin could carry that message back. host: ai is your specialty. there was a story not too long ago about the incoming president thinking of appointing an ai's are. when you hear that, what do you think? guest: it could be helpful. most czars are seen to be coordinating efforts. from the perspective of my colleagues and i, they're seized -- seems to be a need for that at the federal government level. we are paying attention to everything at that level. every agency has something to say about artificial intelligence and a missing component seems to be the centralized expertise to connect the dots between the different agencies, congress, and the

different parties at play. it all depends on the details, but if someone were there to survey coordinating effort in a limited regulatory capacity, it doesn't sound like there would be any rulemaking. someone who can kind of pull the right people together to make sure that the person over here knows what the entity over here is doing, that could help. host: i remember when the end -- internet was taking place, taking shape, regulation would have a chilling effect. you think it's the same for ai and that regulators could go that route? guest: i do, i'm glad you wrote that up. the clinton administration had a positive statement about the development of the internet, saying that the private sector will lead. president trump, his first day in office, he could have a similar statement and chart a path forward. we are kind of in a limbo right now where both parties haven't quite staked claims.

from what the president-elect has said so far, it's favorable to ai development and there could be a similar statement where the private sector leads. that is the reason we have next day delivery with amazon and i can share photos with my family around the world of our young children. instead of the internet staying fixed in a research only capacity, we could be living a very alternate future. that's one thing we always want folks to think about at the abundance institute. choices today will decide the prospects for our future. host: i suppose you have heard about the perceptions of the concerns around artificial intelligence. what is the reality of it? guest: there is an array. the mundane, from google gemini to the far out, i -- to the far out -- i hesitate bring them up.

how are these two is being deployed by good and bad actors? do we have a laws in place to negate the harms? so far the answer is a resounding yes. discrimination -- say ai is being used to hire employees. if there is racial discrimination of any type, current laws hold those users accountable. host: do you receive future ai tech leaders come before congress to do the same. guest: potentially. we are two years into chatgpt, 3.5 this past week, i believe. all of these models are becoming more and more advanced, more and more developed compare getting integrated into the economy. you mentioned the internet, and i think the internet, electricity, ai, these are

general-purpose technologies. they have a broad array of applications. that is why it is so important to not craft regulation that narrowly pigeonholes them into one particular use. we're not sure the vast array of use cases these tools could have. host: terry is in ohio, republican line. caller: good morning for some of got a wild and crazy idea i want to throw out and see if it sticks. we have 180 million telephone poles in this country. how about putting a four-foot solar panel on top of each one? there next to the transmission lines. after a while, no one would notice them. guest: doesn't sound bad to me. i hope someone listening could do it, hears it and runs with it. it could be costly to deploy. this is something i've heard about from industry. we are short on laborers to

even maintain and build out current electrical fence mission capacity. -- transmission capacity. one of the ways around that could be generation of more locality. we do need workers to do all of these things and that could be the primary hurdle for that. pole attachments, that is an industry -- i believe state and federally regulated area as well. whoever wants to do that would have to talk to utility companies and telecoms as well. they all want some pole real estate. host: when it comes to those companies overall and talking about energy, how willing are they to come to the table to explore these new ideas? guest: it runs the gamut. incumbent industries, utilities in particular, they're providing our power needs. i think doing a decent job for the most part. when i go home i'm not going to wonder -- i don't wonder if my

lights are going to come on. that's great, that is an abundant present living in, but we can have a much more prosperous future by allowing the challenges to even compete with utility model to generate new electricity. host: have members of your organization reached out to the incoming trump administration to talk about these ideas? guest: we've had an array of conversations with different people involved. all our ideas are public as well and we hope they take them and use them. host: discussed with the trump administration folks themselves? guest: exactly. members of congress, incoming members of regulatory agencies, state policymakers as well. there are enough problems and solutions out there. host: abundance. institute is the website is re-confined our guest's work. -- is where you can find our guest's work. thanks her time. guest: thanks so much, pedro. host: