... ♪ host: good morning this friday, january 10. we begin this morning with reaction to the sentencing to

president-elect trump today in new york on 34 counts of falsifying business records. court proceedings follow a last-ditch effort i mr. trump to have the supreme court stopped the hearing. a5-four ruling, the justices denied. this morning, your reaction. he was out to join the conversation. democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. you can also text us, include your first name, city and state, at (202)-748-8003. or join us on facebook.com/c-span or you can go to x with the handle @cspanwj . we will get to calls in a minute. let's begin with what the supreme court said. it was the three liberal justices and amy coney barrett and chief justice robert who

wrote, "first the alleged jury violations that president-elect from state court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. second, the burden at sentencing will oppose on the president-elect's abilities is substantial in lht of the trial court stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge after a brief virtual hearing pair go -- hearing." here is how president-elect trump reacted to the supreme court. president-elect trump: they called for an appeal and it acknowledged about what the judge said about no penalty, and there isn't really penalty, but we will appeal anyway psychologically because frankly it is a disgrace. it is a judge who should not have been on the case. is a highly conflicted judge, and they called for an appeal. i read it and i thought it was a fair decision, so i will do my little thing tomorrow, they can have fun with their political

opponent. as you know, i'm under a gag order from a judge. this was an attack of a political opponent, and if you take a look at it, i'm not supposed to be talking about it so i will not. i'm the first president and probably one of the first candidates in history that is under attack with a gag order, where are not allowed to speak about something, and they ought to find out what that is all about. and this is a long way from finished. i respect the court's opinion, i think he was actually very good opinion because he saw what they said, but they invited the appeal, and the appeal is the bigger issue. we will see how it all works out. i think it is going to work out well. host: president-elect donald trump yesterday reacting to the supreme court. joining us is greg stohr, a supreme court reporter with bloomberg news to talk more about this. her the president-elect say it is a fair decision and he respects it by the supreme court.

what did they say? guest: certainly an interesting reaction from him. one thing he did not say, they did not call for an appeal. there is an assumption that donald trump has the right to appeal and that he would. he will have a full chance to raise immunity arguments. the court said one, it will not have much burden on them, and two, he cannot weigh in on the decision. host: what do they mean but not impose a burden on him? what were his lawyers arguing that they made that decision? guest: they used words like stigma, they talked about the distraction of having this criminal proceeding hanging over him. the judge in the case said he would not impose jail time. he's going to impose something called an unconditional release which basically means further actions donald trump or his lawyers have to do in that court. it's not like you have to check in with a parole officer

anything like that. essentially no burden on him going forward. host: so no financial fine or jail time, no punishment? guest: that is correct. the case will go on appeal, and that may take part of the president's time going forward, but that is something the courts have been willing to solve. host: right appeal no sentencing? no time in jail, no fine, no punishment, white appeal? guest: to use that word again, "stigma," is a convicted felon and he will be sworn in as a convicted felon, the first one, and if he disputes the charges, and he would like to get this corrected and in his mind clear the record. host: how did this get to the supreme court? explain the process when the justices deal with an appeal

like this. guest: judge merchan considered that immunity, and it stems from the decision. the big decision where they effectively kill the case in washington involving efforts to overturn the 2020 election. donald trump said that decision means the state law case needs to be thrown out, as well, even though it is all about things that happened before he was president. essentially what he was arguing was because prosecutors saw some evidence of tweets i put out while i was president, they painted the whole process, and, therefore, the verdict is invalid. george marchand rejected that. those issues have not been fully resolved in the new york courts as they will be, but because sentencing is coming up today, donald trump turned to the supreme court to try to get them

to stop the sentencing while those issues get aired out. host: talk about how it is received by the court. justice sotomayor's name was mentioned in the decis, why her name? guest: each justice is assigned a part of the country, a circuit or state, and they handle emergency matters. they are the point of entry. in some cases, justice will decide on his or her own bigger matters, they refer to the court, but basically it was submitted to her, she referred it to the full court and they voted 5-4 to reject the request. host: talk about the 5-4 decision and the chief justice and amy coney barrett training with the three liberal justices. guest: those are the two most interesting because they were part of the majority back in july when the court said presidents have immunity. john roberts wrote that decision. amy coney barrett, perhaps a

little less of a surprise here, because she did not fully join and she was concerned about this notion that prosecutors could not use official acts of evidence to with they were doing privately. so there is a certain amount of consistency in her situation -- position. john roberts apparently decided that the context of this, emergency application to interrupt the state court proceeding in between a jury verdict and sentencing was an appropriate use of the court stepping in to say, we are so concerned about immunity, that we are going to stop this one going forward. host: discuss reports about justice alito receiving a phone call from president-elect trump before the emergency appeal. guest: this had to do with a job candidate in the administration, someone who clerked for justice alito.

it is not by no means unheard of , and it is common for justices to recommend them for positions. somewhat unusual to have a direct conversation with the president. justice alito put out a statement, he said he took the call from the president, they talked about the job candidate, they did not talk about the case. in fact, the case had not been filed at the time of the conversation. we don't know what other things they might have talked about, but justice alito said we did not talk about host: any pending matters of the court. will there be any -- any pending matters of the court. host: will there be any ethics investigation -- maybe that is too strong of a word -- into the phone call? guest: not likely, in large part because of the supreme court code of conduct that doesn't really have an enforcement mechanism, so there isn't really a way if somebody wanted to file a complaint for there to be a place where we could file the

complaint, there might be some sanctions that was a violation, this is what we talked about, there may be congress stepping in to try to do something, but it probably just adds to the mix of those ethical controversies the court has had. host: before we move onto another case, what will happen today in new york? this morning, 9:30 eastern. guest: the president-elect will be connected by video, it will be, as the court said, relatively short proceeding, it is a 34 counts conviction, so it may take time to work through some of that. it could be a pro forma sort of thing. host: back to washington, the supreme court today takes up the to our case. what is it that the justices are deciding? guest: this was a law enacted by president biden who says tiktok,

a wildly popular social media at, if it is not sold by the chinese parent company by january 19, it is banned in the u.s., and tiktok and a group of users of content creators on tiktok have challenged it on free-speech grounds, and the court is taking this up on a fast-track basis within eye toward seemingly getting a decision about whether that is a goal space violation -- free speech violation. host: one will be no because the van is january 19? guest: the court put this on fast-track, so i would expect something by then. there's also a request that started, just to put the law on hold while the case goes forward, it is possible that the court does that before the 19th, but given the way they are timing this, i imagine they intend to give us something before the 19th. host: president-elect donald trump told the court what he

would like to have been. what did he say? guest: a very unusual brief by donald trump. he is not arguing today, and he does matter in this because his administration would be in charge. he filed a brief that essentially said, put the law on hold to try to broker a deal. it was unusual in part because usually when someone says to put a law on hold, it is because it is unconstitutional or some other reason unlawful. he did not make that argument, he basically said i have the ability, kind of an over-the-top brief praising his ability to do those sorts of things, and he said, put it on hold and i will take care of it. host: greg stohr is the supreme court reporter for bloomberg news. follow his reporting on bloomberg.com or on an. thank you for joining us early this morning. we do appreciate it.

by the way, you can listen to that tiktok oral argument today on c-span2 at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. we will have live coverage of the oral argument. you will be able to rom the justices about look theyore would like to see happen with tiktok. our question this morning for all of you, our conversation is your reaction to predent-elect trump's sentencing on the hush money case later in new york. you can join the conversation this morning. here are the lines. it's go back to what mr. trump had to say to the press after the guilty verdict in the hush money case last may. [video clip] president-elect trump: this was a disgrace, this was a trial -- rigged trial by a judge who is

correct, we were at 5% or 6% in this district, in this area, this was a rigged, disgraceful trial. the real verdict is going to be november 5 by the people, and they know what happened here and everybody knows what happened here. and the whole thing, we do not do a thing wrong. i'm a very innocent man. it is ok, i'm fighting for our country and constitution read our whole country is being rigged right now. this was done by the biden administration, they were in the mood to hurt a political opponent, and i think it is just a disgrace, and we will fight till the end and we will win. [end video clip] host: president-elect trump back in me. he was candidate trump then, and that is what he had to say in

reaction to the guilty verdict. 34 counts on falsifying business records. today is the sentencing in new york. a judge has said that there will be no punishment. your reaction, steve, san jose, california, republican. the president-elect is arguing that going forth with this stigma, this sentencing, puts a stigma on him and his administration as he is about to start his next four years in the white house. guest: -- caller: i totally agree with president trump. this is outrageous. there can be no finer -- i repeat -- no finer example of l'affaire then this court proceeding with the judge. i followed the trial, i listened to the experts, democrat, alan

dershowitz, he's a democrat, mind you, jonathan truly, he testified before congress. he is such an authority on law, jim trusty, i listened to all of them, and there are at least eight to 10 outrageous things that he did that are points of reversal, and i listened to cnn for many, many years, and i was outraged that you did not have on one of these experts, especially jonathan turley or alan dershowitz. i could find no record of you having on either of these two gentlemen to put a stop to this

and bring to the attention of the american public what was going on. i have listened over and over again, people referring to the felony convictions on show, and you could have put a stop to it by these experts, alan dershowitz and jonathan turley. host: steve, you take issue with people using the word convicted felon, i mean, he was convicted on 34 counts, and those were felonies. you take issue with describing it that way? caller: you could've put a stop to it? host: stop to what? caller: you could have put on the experts that would shoot down what was going on and how unfair that judge was treating trump. host: ok, steve, first of all,

we are c-span -- he said cnn. later on the program, john malcolm from the heritage foundation will be arguing that side of this, so we hope you stay with us this morning. al, watertown, tennessee, independent. good morning. caller: yeah, thanks. sometimes we grow, knew she, like the bloomberg person, but the election was a contest between voters who do and do not believe hoaxes. now we have the trump is a felon hoax to go along with the russian collusion hoax. [indiscernible] when covid was a lively conspiracy, border agents whipped migrants, trump stole secrets at mar-a-lago, hunter biden's laptop with russian

information, tax benefits and if it only the rich, if you get vaccinated, you will not catch covid -- see my point? the point is that most of the people, even a lot of democrats know that this was l'affaire, and it is more of the same. so, it is over with for the mainstream media, people like you bloomberg guests, all of the headlines, c-span is famous for reading the headlines from the washington post and the new york times. nobody believes them anymore, and nobody cares that some judge in new york convicted donald trump of a bunch of nonsense. that was a sham show trial. tens of millions of people know it. host: al, independent in tennessee. let's hear from democrat, luis, north carolina. caller: good morning and happy new year.

all this nonsense people are speaking this morning is ridiculous. the president-elect has been convicted, and it should stand. when he got on television the other day, he said, see, i won all my cases, i did nothing wrong. some of the stuff he had not even been to trial for, so he needs to stop the lies. i don't know why people -- i guess if you say things over and over and over again to brainwash these people. i mean, i could see them support him, but just saying that he did not do nothing wrong is ridiculous. and he knows he's not going to go to jail, so i don't know what his problem is. and it is ridiculous. and also with the jack smith

stuff, those supreme justices should be recused. host: a couple of people have brought up jack smith. i would like to share the headline -- appeals court allows release of smith's report on trump's election reversal efforts. the ruling can be appealed. resident electronic says releasing the special counsel report would interfere with his white house transition. from the washington post -- a federal appellate court urged a rolled that the justice department made public release jacks must report on donald trump's efforts to undo the results of the election of 2020, although the timing of the release remains unclear. the ruling did not distinguish between the two volumes of smith's report, when dealing with election interference probe, and the other focused on smith's investigation into trump's alleged mishandling of

classified documents. back to the hush money case, here is the manhattan d.a. alvin bragg back in may, delivering a statement to the press after that guilty verdict in the hush money case. [video clip] >> the 12 everyday jurors vowed to make a decision based on the evidence and the law, and the evidence and the law alone. their deliberations led them to unanimous conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that defended donald j. trump's guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree to conceal the scheme to corrupt the 2016 election. while this defendant may be unlike any other in american history, we arrived at this trial and ultimately to date, this verdict, in the same manner as every other case that comes

to courtroom doors. by following the facts and the law, and doing so without fear or favor. [end video clip] host: the manhattan d.a. back in may. michael, north carolina, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: doing well, sir. caller: my question is, we have got to get it all behind us because we now have a newly elected president, and we have got to move on from this. we need all these trials to be handled as soon as possible so we can know where we are at with the presidency. host: do you think the president-elect after today should let this going out appeal? caller: -- let this go and not appeal? caller: not appeal. host: cats, tennessee, democrat.

good morning. -- pat, tennessee, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm an old woman. i've lived through a whole bunch of presidents. i don't understand what is going on in this country. this is absolutely ridiculous. why don't they quit fussing and fighting, and let's just wait and see what he does. i mean, it is proven to me and the country, no matter what he does, he is going to get away with it, so it doesn't really matter. host: what do you mean, wait to see what he does? you are talking about the president-elect, you mean his administration? caller: wait and see what he does in his administration, if he does the things he says he will do. if he starts with the hollering and screaming, and trying to put

people in jail and stuff like that, the country needs to stop it. until that happens, let's just get on with it. host: tie that back to the hush money case and the sentencing that will happen later today or at least the sentencing hearing later today. caller: i'm not stupid. i watched the news. he never denied he did all that stuff, but you know what? i don't even know why that is a problem. that is in the past. he did it, get over it. host: pat, democrat, jackson, tennessee, she says let's move on from the 34 felony count verdict for falsifying business records and what prosecutors: attempt to cover up 130,000 hush money payment to porn actress stormy daniels. the president has denied wrongdoing.

he did tonight wrongdoing throughout. iv, minnesota, independent. ivy, minnesota, independent. caller: i hope you can hear me good. people forget that the reason that this is a problem for him is because he has not only paid the person to hush them up, but it was not good enough. that probably would not have come out except that he wanted to deduct those amounts from his taxes, and that is where the problem is, so he has cheated on his taxes also, as well as committing fraud, the business side of it. host: alicia, oregon, independent. good morning. it is your turn. caller: thank you for having me. by the way, for anybody's

information out there, if you're wrong, you will be found guilty from a trial of 12 people. now, now that that is out of the way, you cannot go around blaming everything on everything when they cannot even do their jobs when you want to do them, according to free speech, the evidence [indiscernible] we are going to go on your property and look through everything you have without a warrant because i know this. police came on my property and could not find a thing. and i'm an average person. fbi keeps storming on my property and don't find the thing. don't come with your problems

without a solution. i gave them some information, i said to them, here, and come to me, i'm an anonymous. i did get persecuted front i did give my name for a solution that would not cost you any moneynni. host: i will leave it at that. as we talked about earlier today with greg stohr of bloomberg news who covers the supreme court, the justices will hear oral argument this morning at 10:00 a.m. this morning on c-span2 on the tiktok case. mike gallagher, a former member of the house of representatives from wisconsin, who is chair of the select committee on the chinese communist party writes in today's wall street journal, congress did not ban tiktok.

the supreme court should uphold the law i wrote, which requires only finding a new owner, and he writes in the wall street journal, if tiktok manages from the app stores this month, bytedance will have no one to blame but itself. rather than pursuing divestiture, it will have devoted 270 days since the law went into effect. its actions suggest that bytedance and the communist party believe it is easier to infiltrate our system and comply with their laws. the justices must join bipartisan majorities in congress and sending the message that bytedance and the chinese communist party are mistaken. that is mike gallagher writing in the opinion pages of the wall street journal on that tiktok case. can listen live this morning to the oral argument, 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span2. back to our conversation with all of you about the sentencing

in new york at 9:30 a.m. eastern time and the hush money case against president-elect donald trump. i would like to show you what the president had to say in reaction to the supreme court decision not to stop the sentence hearing today. he was meeting with republican governors at mar-a-lago. here is he had to say. [video clip] president-elect trump: called for an appeal, they acknowledged what the judge said, found no penalty, there's no penalty, but we are going to appeal anyway at least psychologically because frankly it is a disgrace. it is a judge who should have been on the case. he's highly conflicted, and they called for an appeal. i read it, and i thought it was a fair decision actually, so i will do my little thing tomorrow. thick enough and with their political opponent. as you know, i'm under a gag order from a judge. this was a first. this was an attack of a political opponent. if you take a look at it -- i'm not supposed to be talking about

it so i won't -- i'm the first president and probably one of the first candidates in history that is under attack with a gag order where i'm not allowed to speak about something, and they ought to find out what that is all about, and this is a long way from finished. i respect the court's opinion. i think it was a very good opinion for us because he saw what they said, but they invited the appeal, and the appeal is the bigger issue. we will see how it all works out. i think it will work out well. we beat jack smith. he's back. he puts people in very bad positions, like giving people death penalties. i will tell you, jack, he is a disgrace. we won all of those cases, and most of the others where there limping along. we've had a lot of love affair. these are people who understand what is going on. this was an attack of the republican party.

this was an attack on the republican candidate who just won an election by record numbers, the highest number of republican votes by far ever gotten, and we won seven swing states, we won the popular vote by millions. and i said it a long time ago, the real vote, they tried to stop that from happening, they tried to stop the selection from happening or to bloody somebody up so badly that they cannot win, and the people got it. again, we won by the largest number -- no one has ever seen anything like that -- it was conclusive, the most consequential election at 129 years, and the people know everything that you are asking, they have been saying this for two years as it went along, and hopefully it will never happen again, an attack on a political opponent, so peter will be appealing the decision.

they are asking for an appeal, and that is on the fact of what is going to happen, much more importantly, than tomorrow. [end video clip] host: president-elect trump calling the hush money case political l'affaire against a presidential candidate. your reaction to the sentence hearing taking place later today in manhattan. donna, and, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling because people started like delusional like we don't watch ourselves. when the reporters first ask donald trump about the hush money case, his mouth dropped, his eyes dropped -- i have to ask my lawyer, come on, and he talked about william barr. he set the supreme court up with

the right people, and that is what they do. they kept pushing them and pushing them, and i'm glad they stopped at this time. host: explain, pushing what back? caller: the cases were jack smith cannot do nothing to him. and then, also, they should show each year what happened on january 6 because it was a disgrace. host: we will stick to the topic this morning for "the washington journal." . , texas. caller: -- perry, texas. caller: think [indiscernible] payment to perkins cooley, this was a conspiracy to go after him

with all prosecutions, 34 felony counts, lit the penalty be what it is. he realizes there's nothing there. there's not even a crime. they tried to bolster into a felony, which you cannot do. it was a felony crime. your other caller said something about taxes being deducted. this is not a tax case, a state course -- estate court case. this case is going to be reversed. there was no crime here. you could not have wrought this case against the democrat. something has to be done to stop democratic prosecutors from going after republican opponents. they do not want them to be

president after january 6. i think they will investigate and look at all the cases they brought against him because it was an effort to run him out of the election. host: eddie is a republican in massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. democrats are saying that republicans are killing democracy. i think they are killing it themselves, going back to hillary clinton with fbi, george floyd, he sent a policeman to jail, 1000 affidavits of fraud in voting places when they are adjudicated, these are the words on jury notification, how can the charge of 34 times to buy the memoirs of a lady of the night? that is a federal case brought

up in state court because the federal do not want to use it, they knew it was wrong. host: robyn, tennessee, democrat. caller: hi. i'm a little confused because i'm under the impression that no one is above the law, and if you are convicted of a crime, there is a set penalty for that crime, and why would that not apply to everyone equally? i'm a little disturbed when people are standing up going, we are the party of law and order, when that is the very thing thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak. host: let me bounce this off of you, the attorneys for president-elect trump, in their argument on why this sentencing hearing should not take place today, the argumenhe supreme court, the doctrine of

sitting presid imm shields them from criminal process during the brief but crucial time of presidential transition, while he engages in the extraordinarily ing task of preparing to assume the executive po the united states. the prospect of imposing sentence on president trump just befoassumes office 47th president raises the specter of other possible restrictions on liberty, such as travel, voting requirements, registration, pratnary requirements and others, all of which should be constitutionally intolerable under the doctrine of presidential immunity. robin, your reaction to the president-elect's lawyers. caller: if we are going to follow one part of the constitution, shouldn't we follow all of it? i believe what was happening after that 2020 election, all this misinformation was put out into the universe about an

election, and then here is this estate case, where they approved in a jury trial that he was guilty of 34 felonies, and they would just like to throw that out, too. i don't understand when you are doing the right thing versus the wrong thing and how to get away with it? if you break the law, you should be penalized according to what everyone else gets, right? host: from the suprurt orders last night, first, the allegeentiary vons of president-elect trump state urt trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect's possibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial courttated intent to impose a sentence of "unconditional discharge," after

a brief virtual hearing. virtual because the president-elect is going to, according to news reports, attend the sentence hearing virtually today. he was at mar-a-lago last evening, meeting with republican governors. noah, new york, republican. good morning. noah, new york, republican, it is your turn. caller: yes, hello. i would like to say that they assessed the case, finding it disturbing and how criminal law ought to be used and how criminal trials ought to be conducted. it has been nominated, their favorite, for trump's success on appeals where hopefully he gets appeals. the judge's astonishing decision to preside in this in the first place, the new york supreme

court justice decided over the hush money trial of trump, who have donated money to both the biden administration and a different, credit party. that is not really judicial and does not set up a good precedent for the federal court system. host: speaking of the judge in thee, this is what he said january 3, 2025, a jury heard evidence for nearly seven weeks and pred its verdict, defending and the people were given every opportunity to address ening decisions to exhaust every possible motion is supportivendn opposition to is an unprecedented and likelyt scenario.be repeated legal

this court must sentence defendant within a reasonable time following verdict, and defendant must be permitted to avail himself of every available appeal, a path he has been clear he intends to pursue, but which only becomes fully available upon sentencing. the judge with his rationale of why the sentencing will take place, this morning, 9:30 a.m. eastern time, and the president-elect, after the supreme court denied his emergency appeal to stop the hearing, said he would go forward with the appeal process. tom, massachusetts, independent. caller: i don't agree that trump keeps being accepted for guilty crimes.

he seems afraid of any wrongdoing, him and his family, and i don't think that's right. every other politician, any they are guilty of a crime, they justify whatever it might be. for trump and his family just seem to be accepted, and it is not fair to the rest of the people of the country. host: let's take a brief break from this conversation about this hush money case to give you some numbers on those wildfires in the los angeles area. here's the wall street journal front page, the wildfires in los angeles ray john, more than 10,000 structures fear the death

toll will rise. economic losses are estimated at times of billions of dollars, roughly 33,000 acres were aflame in more than 3200 thousand without power across los angeles. this headline. the crisis deepens as infernos that wreak record damage -- any more coffee. we will just skip over that. california is the biggest home insurance market in the u.s., but also one of the toughest for companies to navigate. the state accounted for eight of the 10 costliest u.s. wildfires on record. and more from the wall street journal this morning, when you take a look at the california wildfires and the history of it, the 2018 camp fire cost 12.5 billion. they expect the wildfires los

angeles that the total will, at higher than the record we have seen so far. that is in the wall street journal this morning. and then there is also this from the washington post, the insurance losses of the los angeles players could exceed 20 billion, j.p. morgan analyst wrote thursday in a research note, the estimated total economic losses of 50 billion, while accuweather said a range of 135 billion to 150 billion. that is where the cost could come in for this, another headline to share from you from the washington times related to this, that president biden has found the federal government will pay for state fire damage. governor gavin newsom asked for 90% reimbursement. mr. biden on wednesday approved

the disaster declaration which unlocks local taxpayer funds to officials dealing with the disaster. the government typically covers roughly 70% of the cost. however, esther biden opted to 100% of the cost. that was more than what was requested by the governor, who has to pay for 90%. the funds will reimburse local government for the cost of debris and hazardous material removal, temporary shelters, first responder salaries, and " all necessary measures to protect life and property and folks," according to the president. back to our conversation about this hush money sentence hearing later today in new york. diane, minnesota, democrat. caller: thank you particular call. i'm calling today because i've

been one of those people who found out it was $13,000 for the state, 20 for the federal government and guess what? all i say, if you're going to do this we make special deals and i'm just appalled that i'm still paying up these taxes, and that is what other people are doing in the middle class. we don't get a break. host: david, virginia, republican. caller: i remember when the stormy daniels case first hit, and reporters asked donald trump about it, he said i don't know anything about it, ask echo

cohen. he lied, didn't he? his attorney, michael cohen, michael cohen waived attorney client privilege, allong his attorney, bob costello to testify, he testified before congress, and according to michael cohen -- bob costello, michael cohen was still pounding the desk, swearing, saying i will do anything to stay out of jail, and costello said, well, i will see in a couple of weeks because they really are not after you, thereafter donald trump. and cohen, i don't have anything on trump, and then bob casillas and what about stormy daniels? he said that michael cohen told that stormy daniels, he said, i handle that on his own. he said i never told trump about it. he never told trump about it, he

did not believe trump had anything to do with stormy daniels. he was just protecting wallonia -- melania. bob chris taylor was called to testify under judge merchan, the prosecutors cap interrupting all his testimony saying objection, objection and the judge said sustain, sustained, and when costello looked at him out of the corner of his eye at the judge -- chris taylor was a very experienced attorney, he was a prosecutor and you what was going on was not right. the judge cleared the entire courtroom because he starts staring at the judge, looking at him, what are you doing? the judge went off and cleared the entire courtroom. reporters and everything to achieve this guy up, so this whole thing looks ridiculous. looks like to me stormy daniels is guilty of extortion, and i think cohen might be guilty of embezzlement because during that, he admitted to taking money from trump, about $20,000.

host: renee, florida, democrat. caller: wow. that was a good one. michael: went to prison -- michael cohan went to prison, i believe heas defendant two, not defendant number one, if that is the same cas because trump is caught up with so much, and then he was in prison, they did not bring them out of presented testify because they knew he would not testify against trump because he was waiting on his party, although he might be done serving his time. what is wrong with people? what is wrong with them is we have a propaganda channel in this country that feeds these people and it is social media,

and now they are allowed to lie? it is just crazy. host: a lighthearted moment yesterday at the funeral service at the national cathedral for the late president jimmy carter. all five current and living presidents met together to mourn the loss of our 39th president, and you can see there, former president obama talking with president-elect donald trump, a lot of commentary on social media about their interaction between the two. yesterday, president-elect trump was asked about it at mar-a-lago last night. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> what were you talking to barack obama about? president-elect trump: it did look very friendly, i must say. [laughter] i did not realize how friendly it looked, i started on your

wonderful network little while ago, and i said, boy, they look like two people who like each other, and we probably do. from philosophies, right, but i think we probably do. i don't know. we got along, but i got along with just about everybody. we met backstage, as you know, before we went on, and i thought it was a beautiful service, but we all got along very well, which is good. [end video clip] host: president-elect trump talking about how they met backstage before they came out to sit in the chair stare at the national cathedral. if you missed any moments of interaction between the current former presidents, their wives, the former first lady's, the vice president sue attended and sat behind the presidents club there, you can see it all on her website at c-span.org. john, pennsylvania, independent. let's hear from you on the hush

money case and the sentence hearing that is going to happen in new york at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. caller: the sentencing president-elect donald trump, he is not above the law, ok, and he is not special. and the jury sentenced him, and, you know, judge merchan is only doing his job, and he is not above the law, and the thing is, just because he got elected president, he does not have the right to be discharged or whatever, and the supreme court, he tried to go to the supreme court ground, and he gave that opinion to support that, too, and he did the right thing. and it really is a going to have an impact on him anyway.

and people need to know what the truth is of our country, we are a democracy, not a dictatorship, and that is the message we need to send across president-elect donald j. trump. thank you. host: mark, new jersey, democrat. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: first of all, this man, i don't know what is wrong with people, it is likely or blindsided. they don't see what is going on here. he was speaking to that alito fitted prior to this. can't they see what is going on here? it is money, money -- host: you don't believe justice alito when they say they don't discuss this appeal, they were discussing a job applicant, someone who clerked for samuel alito, who served in the trump administration's first four years.

he says that is what they were discussing. caller: i don't believe a word of that, absolutely not. and you have the other justice there whose wife was into that insurrection thing. she is going along with it. this is terrible, how he has gotten from what he has done, before he has ever run for president, but with that university thing in new york, where he took money from people, it was a whole frothing, people don't see what is going on here. it is so upsetting. a wannabe dictator that is going to get away with everything. hopefully our government will stop anything that goes on, but as far as going back to this thing today, i'm so glad that they rejected this, the supreme court, the two justices came forward and did this. but he is actually getting away

with murder here. he's not witnessing any attentive jail time, and as far as that thing with jack smith where it will be made to the public, i'm so glad that is going to happen. host: capitol hill update for you, this is from the cincinnati enquirer out of ohio, buys president-elect jd vance to resign his seat at midnight. the president-elect jd vance will resign his ohio senate seat at midnight as he prepares for his new role, a heartbeat away from the presidency. he will take the oath alongside president-elect trump on january 20, two years after he joined the u.s. senate, his is ignition, first reported by nbc news, clears the way for mike dewine to join bernie moreno. he alerted him to the decision thursday, calling it a tremendous honor and privilege to serve the people of ohio.

mark will attend an event that trump's mar-a-lago resort thursday with governors. that was yesterday. it is unclear when the governor will reveal vance's successor. the wine said thursday -- dewi ne sodhi decision will be coming soon. lieutenant general john huston emerged as a front-runner and joined him at mar-a-lago last month, so that is an update on the senate. also this from the senate, the lincoln riley act passed the house, and now it is on to the senate. usa today reported the lincoln riley act was passed on the 264-50 nine vote with 48 house democrats joining the republican. the bill will move to the republican-controlled senate which will move to the senate today. all 52 senate republicans and democratic senator john fetterman of pennsylvania are cosponsors of the bill. he goes on to say that freshman

democratic senator, ruben gallego, expressed his support for the act on wednesday. other democrats expressed their support for the build. spokesman for senator mark kelly of arizona, garrett peters of michigan, dave mccormick of pennsylvania, confirming their support. georgia senator john also told cnn he would vote to advance to of the bill in and a spokesperson for senator tim kaine said the senator was still reviewing the legislation, so that is what is happening in the house and senate. the first bill passed in the 19 congress looks like it is headed for passage in the senate, as well. the house took action yesterday to punch the court over its case against gaza and benjamin netanyahu, the bill instructs the president to freeze property assets and deny visas to any foreigners who are materially or financially contributed to the courts efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a

protected person. protected persons is defined as current and former military and government officials of the united states, and allies who have not consented to the court's jurisdiction, such as israel. this is the international criminal court. so that action taking place in the house yesterday. let's hear from armando, hawaii, republican, on the hush money case. the sentencing hearing in new york, 9:30 a.m. eastern time today. good morning. caller: good morning antigua to give my call. i would like to say one thing. this is where divisiveness in this country begins because of these kinds of attacks against trump. first of all, this started out as a misdemeanor. people always say he is guilty, he is guilty, look at his

demeanor. and they were out to get him from day one, when he first ran for district attorney, that is what he ran on. and he elevated it to felony because he hid another crime regarding the election, and that should have gone to the federal court. it should have stayed at the state all right, armando. we're going to million -- william in the city. -- william in mississippi. caller: he can get off with no fine, no penalties, no jail time, then you should let every criminal in america go with similar crimes, regardless of

the rap sheet and record. the crime they got put in jail for, they should get away with it. you keep poking the bear, you allowed a guy to come on and tell his version of the story like he was there, this is what is dividing the country. we have been hearing this for the last eight years, people allowed to shape the conversation, ignoring facts. they want to shape the conversation like they want to shape it and we are supposed to believe this. what is going to happen. you have people who have loved ones in jail, white and black, with lesser crimes and have spent time away from their loved ones. do you allow this person to come in and allow him to get away with all of this stuff, all this

stuff he is allowed to get away with. you are doing different things in the court to get people kicked off of the courts. you are on the verge of a civil war. host: we leave it there for now. when we come back, we will pick up the conversation. john malcolm of the heritage foundation will discuss president elect trump's criminal cases and previous hearings for attorney general pam bondi and kashyap patel -- kashyap patel -- cash -- kash patel. and then later we will talk with elizabeth wydra. >> democracy, it isn't just an idea, it's a process shape by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a

select few with basic principles. it is where debates unfold, decisions are made in the nation's course is charted. democracy in real time, this is your government at work. this is c-span, giving you your democracy, unfiltered. american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. in the lead up to inauguration, american history tv looks back at famous inaugural speeches. this weekend speeches by jimmy carter in 1977, ronald reagan, and george h w bush in 1989. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, hillsdale college professor richard gamble on civic faith and how american nationalism incorporated religious elements and symbolism during the cold war.

at 9:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency, the book the mysterious this is nixon recounts pat nixon's time in the white house including support for the equal rights amendment, a woman on the supreme court and more mid to high level government jobs, exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a ful schedule on your prraguide or watchnle at c-span.org/history. >> it is democracy unfiltered. with c-span, expense history as it unfolds with live coverage this month as republicans take control of both chambers of congress and a new chapter begins with the swearing in of the 47th president of the united states. tune in for the live all day coverage of the presidential inauguration as donald trump takes the oath of august -- the

oath of office. state with c-span with coverage of the 119th congress. c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome to the washington journal, john malcolm , vice president for constitutional accountability and in -- walk us through what will happen at 9:30 this morning in new york in the hush money case. guest: the president elect will not be there in person. you will appear virtually. the judge will sentence him for the 34 counts for which he was convicted in the so-called hush money trial. he has already indicated he is going to give him what is

referred to as an unconditional discharge. he is not going to impose any kind of sentence of the file or jail time or period of probation but he will give him something of a tongue lashing about the gravity of the defense as they see it in for the fact that he held donald trump in contempt of court several times during the trial and he will say that the president doesn't respect the court or the law. one of the reasons why this is significant is because there is a peculiarity of new york law that even after the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, you are not deemed to have been convicted until the judge enters the judgment. once he announces the judgment and signs the paper, then donald trump will officially be a convicted felon and will now have the opportunity to appeal that to the state court system and possibly the federal court system as well. host: will we hear from the

lawyers from both sides today from -- at 9:30? we will hear from the lawyers on both sides. it will be interesting to see if we will hear from the defendant. donald trump will have the opportunity to basically say what it is wants to say it. his lawyers will probably say don't say much but this is donald trump we are talking about so it wouldn't surprise me if he let his feelings be known. he has already done it on social media. this will be his opportunity to say it directly to the judge. host: the president-elect's lawyers made an emergency appeal to the supreme court saying that this is a burden on his responsibilities as he prepares to take over as the 47th president of the united states. what do you make of the supreme court decision, 5-4 saying they disagreed? guest: it is not a ruling on the

merits. with a said was this will take an hour of his time and they don't think it is too burdensome on his abilities to serve as president he will be filing his appeal during that time and the judge has said what the sentence is going to be and that will involve no impingement on the president's time and they said that is good enough to go ahead at this stage and the president can appeal. the other four, who dissented and said they would grant a stay, it is unclear what their reasoning was weathered just the sentencing proceeding would be too much of a burden or whether the appeal process would be too much of a burden on the president or whether it was even fair to go ahead with the sentencing in light of the fact that one of the major repeal issues is whether the judge

admitted evidence that never should have been admitted in light of the supreme court ruling in the trump versus united states case. host: and the immunity case? guest: that's correct. host: evidence that was presented, the lawyers believe that evidence is protected by immunity? guest: there is no question in even judge merchan would admit that there was evidence admitted given with the supreme court said in the immunity case should not have been admitted. they were white house telephone messages and disclosures and testimony from senior white house advisor and none of that should have come in during the trial but the judge has said it is a harmless error that the evidence was sufficiently strong that even if we had that stuff never come in, he would haven't been convicted and therefore i am not going to grant the motion

to dismiss the charges. host: do you agree with president elect trump's decision to pursue the supreme court said he can and he said in reaction to the court that he will? guest: there is no question he is going to appeal this. he can't appeal the stay order that the supreme court has done, he was always going to appeal this conviction. there were a lot of problems with this trial, not just admitting evidence that clearly should not of effort -- admitted but there were 6, 7, eight other serious errors and there is a decent chance that this conviction will ultimately be overturned. host: what were those errors? guest: one is whether or not the judge should have recused himself in the first instance. this is somebody who sat in judgment of the trump organization's cfo which was an

unrelated proceeding. he had donated personally to an organization called a stop at republicans and had it donated personally to the biden-harris campaign in 2020. his daughter is a major strategist and fundraiser for democratic candidates and fundraiser off of this very trial. he also denied a motion to change the venue. donald trump is not very popular in new york city and faced a hostile jury and admitted lots of extraneous evidence. this was a business fraud case. it is actually a misdemeanor but has ramped up to a felony if it is done for the purpose of concealing another crime. a document's case he allowed in very salacious testimony from this poor and actress about this alleged one night stand that took place in 2006 including testimony about how she felt intimidated by donald trump when she was in his hotel room.

there was all kinds of extraneous evidence from michael:. the prosecution entered into k stuff about his criminal conviction. it is usually the defense attorneys that want to highlight a witness criminal stuff. one of the many crimes michael: pled guilty to was a federal election campaign finance violation and the entire theory of the prosecution was this business fraud records case wasn't designed to cover up a campaign finance violation. the judge issued a very strange jury instruction that i think was also a reversible error. he said that this had to be done for the purpose of concealing another crime and another crime that was charged was to conspire with someone to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by

unlawful means. the judge then suggested, well, it could be federal campaign violations and that might be the unlawful means or an additional tax charge or false records. he told the jury you pick which theory you like and you don't have to be unanimous with respect to that theory. i think that is reversible error. not to mention the fact that this really was a documents case and tried as eight federal campaign finance law violation and it is the department of justice that has exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute criminal cases involving federal campaign finance violations. the federal election commission has exclusive jurisdiction over civil violations of federal campaign violations, both looked into this matter and declined to proceed against donald trump. host: we are talking this morning with our guest john malcolm of the heritage

foundation former deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division during the bush administration. we want you to join the conversation with us this morning. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. you can text and include your first name city and state to (202) 748-8003. let's talk about jack smith and the reports that are set to be made public. an appeals court yesterday is that they can go forth. your reaction and first come out when these reports. guest: jack smith was a special counsel, not an independent counsel, a special counsel and he is charged with not only prosecuting whatever cases fell within his jurisdiction, a judge in florida ruled he was never properly appointed as a special

counsel, that his appointment violated the appointments clause of the constitution, that was on appeal and he has not dropped the case altogether was going to prepare a final report, just as robert moeller over the russia gate investigation. he presented to the attorney general in a report for the attorney general and the attorney general has the discretion to release the report, not release the report, released parts of the report. jack smith has indicated he has two reports he is going to prepare, one for the d.c. case which involve the events of january 6 and the other was for the classified documents case. there is still -- he has dismissed the case in washington, d.c.. the case in florida has been dismissed as to donald trump and the case has been transferred to the local federal prosecutor. there are still two defendants in that case.

the judge has said basically one, jack smith you didn't have the authority to write this since you were improperly appointed and there is still a pending case against people who are going to beat mentioned in that report and you could prejudice a jury and make it very difficult for them to get a fair trial. host: so what happens next? guest: i think the 11th circuit has said this report shouldn't come out. time is running out. merrick garland has indicated he is going to release the report at least as to the d.c. case and that he might withhold the report as to the classified documents case in florida. although he also said he might send portions of that to the leaders in congress so they could review it with the confidentiality understanding. one thing that is really

interesting is that in 10 days donald trump is going to be inaugurated as president. pam bondi is going to have a confirmation hearing next week and likely to be confirmed as the attorney general. this is a report prepared for the attorney general. if this issue extends past january the 20th, the report will be handed over to pam bondi and pam bondi can decide, and it is completely in her discretion, what portions of this report to release or to release it at all. host: nbc news, a federal appeals court revealed that they can release a report on donald trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss but kept in place a judge's order requiring a three day delay to allow for further appeals. the ruling means president elect trump can ask the supreme court to block the release of the report written by special counsel jack smith. a spokesperson for mr. trump did

not say whether the president elect would appeal thursday's ruling but instead attacked smith in a statement. let's get to calls, carry in wisconsin, republican. you are up first. caller: as i was listening, your guest, john, answered my biggest question. i was going to ask if you could give a very concise explanation of what crimes trump was really convicted and accused of and i couldn't quite remember clearly how they turned the misdemeanor into a felony and i am talking about the new york hush money case. 34 felonies, let's try to look at the law and correct me if i'm wrong, you answered my question, the real thrust of it all was campaign finance. as i understand it, the

falsifying business records is a misdemeanor but i don't think people get this. they finagled the law in a way that sullivan has ever been in use and never in a case like this to combine and make each check written and each record a separate misdemeanor and they combined them to make them into a felony using the justification that you can show it is commission of another crime then it can be a felony. and i was thinking that was election interference they were talking about. trump did it to affect the outcome and if people knew about it they wouldn't vote for him and all of that stuff. and also i think i heard at one point that some of the offenses were passed the statute of limitations. i want people to understand it

was finagling misdemeanor's into a felony. host: john malcolm? guest: this with 34 fallon are -- felony accounts, 17 invoices and 17 payment records of payments and invoices from michael cohen and payments to michael: and listed as being -- michael cohen and listed for business services. and michael cohen said these were not for business but to reimburse me for hush-money payments i had made to stormy daniels to prevent her in the run-up of the 2016 election from talking about her alleged one night stand in 2006 with donald trump. then the theory was if michael cohen had make the payments to stormy daniels and it was somehow related to the campaign, that was an excessive campaign-finance violation. judge merchan denied the motion

to dismiss and said that the 12 jurors unanimously found guilty of falsifying records with the intent of fraud which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy and promote the presidential election by unlawful means. that was clearly the theory. this was a federal presidential election. i don't think that alvin bragg and judge merchan had the jurisdiction or authority to proceed with this case at all. another reason why it was significant these became felonies was that these all happen in 2017. this case was brought much later. the misdemeanor has the statute of limitations of two years. family has a statute of limitations of five years. even then the statute of limitations would have run but new york passed a law that held that during the pandemic. as to whether this case would have been brought, it is very

rare, and this was a business fraud case designed to basically say, people that want to do business are doing due diligence and checking out business records and you want to make sure the business records are accurate so they are not going to be defrauded. this had nothing to do with that at all. donald trump paid this money out of his personal funds and they weren't even paid out of his campaign. another error i found that was at the trial was that judge merchan wouldn't let a former commissioner testify that in his view none of this was related to the campaign and these were all personal payments by donald trump to cover up what would have been an embarrassing disclosure that would probably harm his family and that in fact the funds had been paid out of the campaign that would have been a campaign-finance violation. alvin bragg ran saying he had sued donald trump many times

successfully when he was trying to be district attorney that he was going to get him and he did. host: brock, newark, new jersey, independent. caller: the 2025, project 2025, i don't like it. as far as the hush money case, i'm trying to find out why you are so mad. he is not going to jail, he got all his people coming in. your that she should be focusing on what is going to happen in america and just let this go. he is going to have it on his record and he will still be president. host: i don't understand. we will get a response to that. guest: i don't want to talk about project 2025 and donald

trump, project 2025 and i assume everyone knows, involved a hundred people putting together recommendations for an incoming administration to consider and that was made before trump came in and the democrats featured it in those. the heritage foundation put together a similar look before every presidential election but first whatever reason this volume attracted a lot of attention. when joe biden came into office, he said we are not going to engage in retaliation or go after political enemies and we will have a return to normalcy. anything but that happened. and it is not only of course a danger in terms of somebody being wrongfully convicted or singled out for prosecution because of who they are not what

they did, but i also feel there is a real danger. presidents do things that are going to do things that are very popular in the states that voted for him and unpopular in the states that didn't vote for him. it is very easy if someone comes to a state criminal code to find a violation of law that would argue and be attached to something president did. there are well over 1000 locally elected district attorneys and there is something very dangerous about having a locally elected district attorney going after a former president for conduct that took place while he was in office. some of this conduct, the payment to stormy daniels was before he was in office but a lot of the evidence introduced in the payments were made to michael: -- michael cohen while he was president. for example in some deep red jurisdiction there was a

fentanyl death of a resident there and somebody decided to go after joe biden for negligent homicide for his immigration policies that allowed illegal alien into the country who sold the fentanyl to the person who died. that would be a very easy charge to make and would probably be very popular in that jurisdiction and probably ensure that that locally elected district attorney gets reelected, just as alvin bragg was but it would be very, very troublesome and the terms of the effect it could have on a president while he is in office and the supreme court in the presidential immunity case recognized exactly that. host: tyler in virginia. caller: question number one, are you a lawyer to begin with? yes or no? guest: i am. caller: so based on facts and

law, can you explain with his judicial regarding say someone shoot someone in broad daylight and by your example and analysis, new york would have no authority to arrest that person. so under the law, a criminal cannot be arrested even though they commit a crime in broad daylight, say they did in new york but have to bring back into florida. host: hang on the line for did you understand, if not feel free to ask. guest: i understand enough to answer the question. tyler raised the issue about donald trump's statement, i forget what he said that i could stand on 5th avenue and shoot

somebody and people would still elect me. the immunity case made it quite clear that there is no immunity whatsoever for unofficial private conduct and somebody is standing on the street and killing another individual would come unless there was a national security threat involving that individual, the private conduct for which he could certainly be prosecuted. he could not be prosecuted as a sitting president but he could certainly be impeached and removed from office and then prosecuted or when he was finished with the term of office he could be prosecuted and nobody would say a thing about that. presidents do under certain circumstances get to engage in conduct at private citizens don't get to do. for instance, the president is the commander in chief, he orders drone strikes that killed individuals. barack obama ordered a drone strike who was a united states

citizen who was killed with no due process of law and he never had a trial. but presidents get to do that. private individuals do not get orders drone strikes. host: we will go to jim in springfield, independent. caller: a question that has been stuck in my head during this whole process and i have followed the case closely, it seems to be fraught with if president trump is successful in overturning this conviction in the next two or three years, does he have recourse against alvin bragg and also does he have recourse against judge merchan for either prosecutorial misconduct or election interference. i would love to hear your opinion. guest: i think the president

certainly hasn't done that. if he finds that there was evidence that was hidden or some other nefarious purpose, you might be able to go after alvin bragg or people in his office for prosecutorial abuse. but this case was tried and there were motions dismissed in the judge ruled in their been some intermediate appeals considered and some of the judgments judge merchan entered in the trial will now have an appeal from the trial itself and the sentence imposed and this will be an unconditional discharge. i don't see off the top of my head what the merits would be to go after alvin bragg and juan merchan personally, but i don't like to anticipate arguments that haven't been made yet. host: clay, virginia, republican. caller: i was wondering if you could give me an idea of if there is any kind of precedent

for prosecution simply assuming that an ongoing felony is taking place, not trying or convicting a felony in order to upgrade a large number of misdemeanors into a package deal of felonies, where we get that large number of felony convictions donald trump is supposedly convicted of cradles are all of misdemeanors and passed the statute of limitations here and how they get upgraded to felonies based on some ongoing conspiracy nobody has ever proved? thank you. guest: the allegation was that he conspired with people including michael cohen and also the ceo of the national enquirer that involved other payments in order to engage in a federal campaign finance violation and that was ongoing from 2016 to whenever the last one was submitted by michael cohen and paid.

i suppose if you're looking at it you could then argue that any intimidation, michael cohen said he was intimidated to try to keep quiet about it. that could be part of a conspiracy. that was the allegation. it was all nebulous. i don't think there was jurisdiction to try that. i think there were all kinds of errors that occurred but that was the theory, whether it was proven or not, 12 jurors certainly thought so, albeit under a flawed injury instruction in my opinion. we will see how donald trump fares on appeal. one of the things that will be difficult but his trial attorney during that trial, todd blanche, and the guy who argued the appeals before the supreme court will be in the justice department and not personal attorneys anymore. todd blanche is highly likely to be confirmed as the deputy attorney general and the other like that to be confirmed as the solicitor general.

you have to get new counsel to work on the matters. host: we will go to mary, who is a democrat, in vermont. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question concerns this troubling precedent of ag's deciding not to release special counsel reports. why should any ag withhold those reports from the public? they are paid for by taxpayers. they can be redacted if there are reasonable bases for reductions or for national security reasons or to protect someone's safety and privacy. there are ample opportunities to question witnesses who investigated the report and reached conclusions based on the report and to air recommendations. we all benefit from hearing those arguments in public.

another branch of government is involved here. i believe congress passed the special counsel statute. why don't they have a say here? if you could address some of those issues, i would appreciate it, and thank you for taking my call. host: thanks, mary. guest: thank you for the questions. there wasn't an independent counsel -- there was an independent counsel statute passed and we had several over the years, lawrence walsh, ken starr, but that independent counsel statute was allowed to lapse. there are now special counsel's in the special counsel's are appointed by the attorney general and pursuant to department of justice regulations about what authorities the attorney general has. i am not sure that congress has, they certainly don't have as

much say here as they did when there was an independent counsel statute in place. taxpayers pay for all kinds of things that never see the light of day for all sorts of reasons. people are investigated and sometimes they are charged and sometimes they are not charged. federal taxpayers paid for the salaries of all of those federal prosecutors and fbi agents who investigate those matters. there would be several reasons why in attorney general might decide not to issue a report. you mention a few of them having to do with classified information, cooperation from other agents, the cia, national security or counterterrorism division of the fbi. they may also decide that it is unfair to the people mentioned in the report to release it. it is going to be out there and people's reputations will be tarnished and they're not going to have an opportunity to go to court to represent their side of

the story. an attorney general might just decide to read this and say, this doesn't make sense to me, it is fundamentally unfair to the people mentioned in they will not have an adequate opportunity to refute the allegations in the report. i don't know what is in the report, but prosecutors and they make decisions not to proceed don't have to go public with the fact that they haven't proceeded and the reasons for not proceeding. host: we will go to the next caller who is an independent. caller: in that case, there are three things with donald trump. first, the election interference, second the documents and hush money thing, and the hush money business to me has the least national

interest. documents and election is a major thing but nothing happens there and it gets swept under the carpet. is there an exclamation for that? host: john malcolm, let's take his thoughts. guest: in terms of the new york case, you're not alone in thinking that was a week case, even some very -- weak case, even some democrats like john fetterman came out and said it never should have been brought and wouldn't have been brought against any other person but donald trump. the other cases are going away for very simple reason that the people of the united states elected donald trump and it is very clear that a president of the united states has constitutional authorities, a lot of which are his and his alone to exercise and under both

republican and democratic administrations, the department of justice said it would violate separation of powers to subject a president of the united states who is an incredibly busy person with important tasks that affect the nation that he undertakes every day to be sitting in a courtroom defending himself against a criminal charge. if he is impeached and removed, then you can do that. that a president simply could not do his or her job while having to defend himself against a criminal charge. that includes charges in state court. we have a supremacy clause that states do not take action and that would include action by a prosecutor or state court judge that would impinge on the abilities of federal officer to perform his or her duties and certainly there is no federal

officer with more responsibility than a president. host: laurel, maryland, damien is watching, a republican. caller: was the state jury trial and why couldn't trump's lawyers who are high-priced defeat this little old elven rag -- alvin bragg? why couldn't they win? guest: sometimes injustices occur in court. if you were alvin bragg it, you would say the evidence was overwhelming and the jury reached the right verdict. if you were donald trump, you would say yes, i paid my lawyers and they were very good but i had a judge who issued several instructions, both in terms of what evidence he admitted in what he would not admit and in terms of the instructions he gave for the jury that tipped the scales against me dramatically and it was

fundamentally unfair and never should have been brought before a jury. it should have been brought in a jurisdiction in which i could have gotten a fair trial involving a judge who is not prejudiced against me. host: 930 a.m. eastern is when the sentencing hearing will take place in new york in manhattan. john malcolm, refresh our reviewer's memories are folks just joining us know how brief of a hearing will this be? guest: it all depends. some sentencing proceedings take a long time and there are witnesses and character witnesses. i don't think there is going to be any of that but i think you will hear argument from the prosecutor who will say that how bad he thinks the crime was. the judge has tipped his hand as to what sentencing he will give, unconditional discharge. host: which means nothing? guest: he is going to say you are a convicted felon and that

is on your record and now you can go appeal and i will not impose any additional penalty. he already had imposed some penalties by holding him in contempt during the trial. it depends on how long the lawyers want to make statements and if donald trump wants to make a statement and how long he wishes to speak and how long juan merchan feels like lecturing donald trump before the preceding ends. i think this will take me an hour but it is impossible to tell into you get into the courtroom. host: after this hearing, what options does the president elect to going forward? guest: he will appeal this conviction and can't appeal either to state court or a federal court. if he appeals to a state court, he can argue violations of new york state law and federal constitutional law. if he appeals to federal court, he can only argue alleged errors of a federal constitutional law.

so it is a little unclear which court he will go to first or rather he will try to appeal to both at the same time. host: can the president elect pardon himself? guest: no, he cannot. the pardons clause is quite clear. a president has plenty of authority to issue pardons but it is limited to federal offenses. the pardons clause says you can pardon somebody for a federal offense, and i personally believe that if the president couldn't pardon -- could pardon himself, and has never been done before, but he cannot pardon himself for either in impeachment allegation or a state level offense and this is a state level offense. host: john malcolm, you talked about pam bondi and her nomination by the president elect and you suspect she will

get the senate. what about the president elect trumps nomination of kash patel? guest: p is going to have a harder time. it is not that his record is bad. he was a very bright guy, a federal defender for a while. he was a prosecutor, including working on working on terrorism and violent crime cases. he served as a staffer on the house intelligence committee and as a staffer, high-level staffer for the secretary of defense and i believe also served in the national security council as a staffer. what is going to be problematic for him are various statements he has made. he accused some trumped level people who were fighting the president while he was in office engaging in conduct that was borderline treasonous and he said he wants to close the fbi building and send all the agents into the field and keep a

skeletal crew and close the building and open at the next day as a museum to the deep state. he has talked about possibly investigating media representatives which is certainly not anything that will endear him to the media. but he would be heading an agency that at one point, without his knowledge, subpoenaed his telephone records and those of various congressmen. he has a legitimate beef and president trump does against the way the fbi has been conducting themselves. i know christopher wray and i used to work for him and i like him but i think the fbi has its problems. it has not been very transparent and has engaged in misconduct that has not been adequately disclosed and dealt with. i don't know whether he is going to be confirmed or not but it will be very interesting confirmation hearing to watch. host: john malcolm at the institute of constitutional government, vice president at

the heritage foundation for that institute. we thank you very much for the conversation this morning. guest: thanks for having me on. host: we will take a short break. when we come back, elizabeth wydra of the accountability center discusses the sentencing today and the constitutional issues the center is monitoring with the incoming trump administration. it with us. -- stay with us. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 7:00 p.m. eastern in the lead up to inauguration day, american history tv looks back at famous inaugural speeches. this weekend, speeches by jimmy carter, ronald reagan, and george h w bush in 1989. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, hillsdale college professor richard gamble and

civic faith and how american nationalism incorporated religious elements and its symbolism during the cold war. at 930 p.m. eastern on the presidency, a book, the mysterious mrs. nixon recounts pat nixon's time in the white house including her support for the equal rights amendment, a woman on the supreme court and more in mid and high level government jobs. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and ran a full schedule on the proam guide arrives online anytime at c-span.org/his >> sharon man, the host of here's where it gets interesting podcast and author of the small and the mighty is our guest sunday night on c-span's q and a profound lesser-known americans who have changed the course of american history including retail pioneers richard sears and roebuck, clara brown and

others. >> you ask people who's the best person that you know, almost never will they say jeff bezos, almost never will they say some tv star. they will almost always say somebody that has impacted them in some really important way and very often those people are not famous or rich in the don't have their name on the side of a building. there are thousands of americans who have shaped the course of history and changed who the united states has become through their actions but for a variety of reasons their stories have not been recorded in those boldfaced fonts in the history textbooks. >> sharon mcmahon with her book "the small and the mighty," on c-span's q&a.

you can listen on our free c-span now app. >> it is democracy unfiltered with c-span, experience history as it unfolds with live coverage this month as republicans take control of both chambers of congress and a new chapter begins with the swearing in of the 47th president of the united states could on monday, january 20, tune in for all-day coverage of the presidential inauguration as donald trump takes the oath of office becoming president of the united states. stay with c-span for comprehensive, alive, unfiltered coverage of the 100 19th congress and the presidential inauguration. c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to the "washington journal.

" a reminder at 9:30 in superior court will be donald trump at the court virtually. the court proceedings will take place in the hush money sentencing hearing. you will remember that president elect trump was sentenced -- or excuse me, convicted by a jury back in may on 34 counts of falsifying business records. today is the sentencing hearing. the judge said there will be no punishment, fine or jail time for the president elect but the sentencing hearing has to take place. there was an effort by president yesterday to stop those -- in the proceeding from taking place. the supreme court justices said on a 5-4 vote that they believe the sentencing can take place today. we are monitoring that on the "washington journal. here is what the president-elect had to say yesterday at mar-a-lago meeting with

republican governors on his agenda and his reaction to the supreme court. [video clip] >> the call for an appeal and they acknowledged what the judge said about no penalty and there is no penalty but we are going to appeal anyway, just psychologically because frankly it is a disgrace. it is a judge that should not have been on the case, a highly convicted judge and they call for an appeal so i read it and i thought it was a fair decision, actually. i will do my little thing tomorrow in they can do -- have fun with their political opponent. i am under a gag order from a judge. this was a first. this was an attack of a political opponent and if you take a look at it, i am not supposed to be talking about it so i won't, i am the first president and probably one of the first candidates in history that is under attack with a gag order where i am not allowed to speak about something. they ought to find out what that is all about and this is a long

way away from finished. i respect the court's opinion and i didn't think it was a good opinion for us because you saw what they said, but they invited the appeal and the appeal is under bigger issue. we will see how it all works out. i think it is going to work out well. we beat jack smith and he is not -- i don't think he should have been there anyway. he puts people and bad position like giving people death penalties. he is a disgrace. we won all of those cases and won most of the other cases where they are limping along. we have had a lot of law fair and people who understand what is going on. this was an attack on the republican party. this was an attack on the republican candidate who just won an election by record numbers, the highest number of republican votes by far ever gotten. we won all swing states and won

the popular vote by millions of. that was the real vote. i said it a long time ago, the real vote, and they tried to stop that from happening and they tried to stop this election from happening or to bloody somebody up so much that they couldn't win. and the people got it and wait won by the largest number, nobody has ever seen anything like that. it was conclusive and massive in the most consequential election in 129 years. these people, the people know everything and they have been setting this for two years as it went along and hopefully it will never happen again, an attack on a political opponent. so they are asking for an appeal and that is on what is going to happen much more important than tomorrow. host: president-elect donald trump yesterday when asked to react to the supreme court decision where they did not put a stay on his emergency appeal

to stop the sentencing from going forward. today the judge said the sentencing pass to go forward after the jury found him guilty on the 34 counts could you or the president-elect their essay that he will be appealing after today's hearing. joining us this morning to talk more about this and other issues is elizabeth wydra, the president of the constitutional accountability center. your reaction to these developments i had of the 930 -- 9:30 hearing this morning. guest: thank you for having me on and talking with you and your viewers. the supreme court in a 5-4 order last night allowed the sentencing to go forward and that was frankly the common order of things to allow the sentencing to go forward this morning and especially because

judge merchan telegraphed me with a sentencing that he was not going to sentence president elect trump to any jail time. any potential burden or interruption of his presidential duties would not occur as a result of the sentencing because he is not going to sentence him to any jail time as a result of his conviction for these felonies. the supreme court obviously because the normal course of things would be to allow the entire appeal to continue after sentencing, is not shutting off that avenue of legal challenge from the president-elect but they did just affirm that even when you are a president-elect, the normal order of the rule of law applies to you and that is what we are seeing this morning peered frankly the only surprising thing -- morning. frankly, the only surprising thing is that it wasn't a

unanimous ruling and four of the justices would have allowed them to stop that rule of law and postpone the sentencing. i think why president elect trump fought so hard to stop the sentencing is that even though there will be no jail time, he will be entering his second term as president as a convicted sentenced fallon and that is something that is unprecedented in american history. host: the perceived -- sentenced felon and that is something that is unprecedented in an history. host: can't you lay out what you think will happen in these proceedings? guest: this is a case of great public interest and unique because it involves a president-elect and former president. what will happen today is something that happens in courtrooms across the country to everyday people in america which

is the face accountability for crimes that they have been convicted up by a jury of their peers or a judge on a bench. so that is what is going to happen to donald trump today. it is in some ways a very real representation of the principle that no one is above the law and he, like many other people who have been convicted of crimes, will face the sentencing today. because he is going to be president, he is not going to receive the sentence that he might have otherwise received, although we don't know that because the judge did not give that alternative, which is appropriate. it is just a normal criminal proceeding and something that happens in the due course of things and that is what president elect trump will be subject to today. host: i would like you to respond to john malcolm who talked about the merits of the case. i will have you respond to what

he had to say. [video clip] guest: this is for somebody who sat in judgment of the trump organization's cfo which was an unrelated proceeding and donated personally to an organization called stop republicans. he had donated personally to the biden-harris campaign in 2020. his daughter is a major strategist and fundraiser for democratic candidates and fund raised up of this very trial. he also denied a motion to change the venue. donald trump is not very popular in new york city and faced a hostile jury and he admitted lots of extraneous evidence. this was a documents case, a business case, a misdemeanor, but has ramped up to a felony if it is done for the purpose of concealing another crime. a documents case he allowed in very salacious testimony from this poor and actress stormy

daniels about this alleged one night stand that took place in 2006 including testimony about how she felt intimidated by donald trump when she was in his hotel room. it was all kinds of extraneous evidence from michael cohen. the prosecution to enter stuff about his criminal conviction and it is usually the defense attorneys that have to highlight a criminal record but here it was the prosecution that wanted to highlight that because one of the many crimes michael cohen pled guilty to was a federal election campaign finance violation. the entire theory of the prosecution it was that this business fraud records case was designed to cover up a campaign finance violation. host: elizabeth wydra? guest: his last few words are getting to the heart of the

matter. we are talking about a hush money case, payments paid to silence stormy daniels for a much larger purpose which is to try to influence the outcome of a federal presidential election. the lying and theer-up and osehe hmone pats area lot of evidence that the intention of hiding these payments to stormy daniels was to have an impact to make sure that voters did not have what could have been key information to them in making their choice at the ballot box and that is something that is very serious, interfering with the sanctity of the people getting to make their voices heard at the ballot box when it comes to who will be serving as president. a jury of his peers decided that

based on the evidence presented to them that he wasn't guilty of those 34 felony counts. that is the way the criminal justice process works and it works whether you are a former president and a president to be or if you are just one of every date new yorkers who is also subject to the same rules and laws and when they don't abide by them are held accountable. before we get to calls, your reaction as well to the reports by jack smith and his investigation, the special counsel, and whether or not they should be made public? guest: i think it is that attorl garland made clear that he was only going to publicly release the part of the report that dealt with january 6 insurrection and president trump's role in that. the classified documents case, which is ongoing with respect to president trump's codefendants in that case will only be

available for in-camera review by the most senior members of the house senate -- house and senate judiciary committees. that will not be publicly available. i think it makes sense in the public interest. this obviously was an incident that struck at the very heart of american democracy. the attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power according to the people's will, as expressed in the presidential election in 2020. that is a deeply serious crime against constitutional democracy. even though president trump obviously is no longer subject to those criminal actions -- jack smith dismissed those charges in accordance with the long-held department of justice policy that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted. that doesn't mean that the underlying facts are no longer true.

i think this is appropriate for the history books, for americans to know this information, and i will be very interested in seeing that report when it is made public. host: let's get to calls. barb is joining us in iowa. democratic caller. hi, barb. caller: i'm so tired of trump being allowed to save lives. things like calling the judge in new york a conflict judge. you have clarence thomas sitting on the supreme court with his wife, part of the big lie and stop the steal. alito, you know. and also with him talking about winning the cases in florida? he did not win anything. he was a corrupt trump judge who happens to be married to a friend of trump's who has connections to the mob. who dismissed those cases. those cases which happened to be

him stealing top-secret nuclear documents. for lord knows what purpose. that's all. i'm just so tired of his lies and the public buying it. thank you. host: elizabeth, your reaction? guest: i think what we are hearing is frustration a lot of people are hearing on all sides of the ideological spectrum. there is this loss of confidence in the judiciary and coming out, we see it at the supreme court with a lot of the ethics scandals that have happened. the caller mentioned justice thomas and justice alito and that has really dampened public confidence in the courts. particularly the supreme court. i think there is greater confidence in the trial judges. particularly because they often work with a jury of everyday americans who are the ones who sit in judgment when people are

brought before the court on criminal charges. but it is a real concern that we have lots of public confidence in the courts, because the impartial and fair administration of justice is a requirement for our constitutional democracy to work in. the rights of all of us to be did -- to be respected and enjoyed. i think she is right in the sense that trump is incorrectly claiming that he won all of these cases. he has not been exonerated on the facts of the case, as i mentioned previously. the reason that jack smith dismissed these charges is not because he no longer thought they were appropriate based on the fact is, but because there is this long-standing department of justice policy that, while presidents can be charged after their term is over, you cannot criminally prosecute a sitting

president. so, once donald trump was reelected to the white house, that is why jack smith dismissed the charges. he has not been exonerated. . he also has not been convicted, because the cases did not get to that point, because of appeals and delays. she is absolutely right in that sense, and i think it will be important for the american people to see this report, particularly with respect to the obstruction of the peaceful transfer of power and the attempts to overturn the will of the people in the 2020 election. host: chuck is in gadsden, alabama. caller: good morning. let me ask you this. when this gets thrown out -- in other words, i believe 100% it will. are you going to come back on and say the justice department worked? i don't think it has been working at all. with what has been going on. if you don't think the judge was, you know, compromised, then

you are not a very smart person. thank you. host: ms. wydra, do you want to react? guest: i will put aside the rude part of that, but, look, the appeals process will continue to play out, and if there are concerns about the actual substance of the criminal conviction, then those will be handled with the normal course of the justice system. look, there are lots of people that think the justice system doesn't work there are lots of people that think it particularly does not work for the powerless. we have seen powerful people being able to game the system and evade justice and accountability, so, there are lots of concerns that the justice system is flawed. we try to work to improve the justice system and ensure that due process is available for all and that accountability applies to not only those of us who

camino, our everyday americans, but also to the people who sit at the highest rungs of power in this country. you know, when it comes to the actual substance of the conviction that, again, will play out through the appeals, but i think it is important to note that we did have a jury of everyday americans, of regular new yorkers who looked at the facts, who said that there were these hush-money payments that were made by president -- well, donald trump when he was a candidate, to hide this information from the american voters. and they found him guilty on those felonies. that is the way it works for people who are rich and powerful, as well as other regular working new yorkers. host: joseph in virginia, republican. joseph, question or comment? caller: it's going to be primarily a comment, but i would like some type of an answer.

the lady's comment that only the part of the report of the insurrection is going to be released, ma'am, no one was charged with insurrection. nobody. there is a lot of people's obsessions that don't necessarily like donald trump to keep using the word insurrection. it was not an insurrection. that is like saying you are being charged with murder and all you did was shoplift. you need to be accurate. and my other point, if i can very quickly, the other caller that said, with trump with all of these very expensive lawyers, why couldn't he eat alvin bragg? the answer is obvious. because i used to live in new york. yes, there is a jury, but all of them are super, super liberal democrats and all liberal

democrats hate donald trump. that is why alvin bragg's case, that is why he got convicted. not on the merits. host: we will get a response. elizabeth wydra? guest: it is important to remember the serious charges that were brought against the people that attacked the peaceful transfer of power on january 6. we are talking about charges of seditious conspiracy. we are talking about charges of assaulting police officers, law enforcement. so camino, what happened on january 6 was a very serious attack on our democracy and we have seen that reflected in the charges that have been brought and the convictions that have been obtained against other people. people other than donald trump who participated in the events of january 6. host: we will go to john in florence, massachusetts.

independents. caller: that is a joke. nobody was charged with insurrection, so you can stop saying that. that is a fools thing to say. why was the election official not allowed to testify about federal elections and how it was not a violation? play that part where john malcolm talks about that. why was trump not charged with a federal election crime? that is weird. that doesn't make any sense. how were misdemeanors upgraded to felonies? that is all reversible error and you could play that part where john malcolm said that. i wasn't biden charge for his documents case? they said he was a well-meaning, demented, retarded, deadhead. host: elizabeth wydra, respond to his sighting of what john malcolm had to say during a previous interview. guest: well, there is a big difference between the way in

which the classified documents were handled in the instances of donald trump and joe biden. president biden cooperated with the investigation into whether or not he had inadvertently retained classified documents and they did find some classified documents. they returned those when they were asked. that is in substantial contrast to the way that president trump, with the very serious, as your caller mentioned earlier, very serious classified documents that deal with vital matters of national security, not only did they deny they had those documents, they tried to thwart the search for those documents. they refused to turn them over after they have been asked to return them to the national archives. so, there is a big difference in the way in which there was a

response to the retaining of classified documents. you know, it happens. sometimes even the most well-meaning people can keep documents they did not realize they had in their private possession. but the way that one reacts to being asked about those documents and being asked to return them is very telling. i think that is a substantial difference in why president trump's casing ended in criminal charges and president biden's did not. host: going back to january 6, monday was the fourth anniversary of that. president-elect donald trump signaling again that a possibility of offering pardons to supporters who participated. i want to share with the president-elect had to say and get your reaction to that. >> more than 140 police officers were injured on january 6. liu pardon anyone who attacked a police officer? >> the only one that was killed

was a beautiful young lady named ashli babbitt. she was killed, and there was actually somebody else killed also. a manga -- a maga person, but people don't give a credit. ashli babbitt was killed. she was shot. should have never been shot. she was shot for no reason whatsoever. in fact they were saying she was trying to hold back the crowd, and the crowd was made up of a lot of different people. so, we will see. but i will tell you this. the person that was killed was ashli babbitt. the other thing is, when they talk, you know, there was never charges of insurrection or anything like that. if there were this would be the only insurrection in history where people when in as insurrectionists with not one gun, ok? me tell you, the people you're talking about have a lot of guns in their home, for hunting, and

for shooting, and entertainment. a lot of good reasons. but there was not one gun that they found. host: elizabeth wydra, your reaction to the president-elect, and also clemency powers? guest: first, there were other people who died as a result of january 6. officer brian sick, for example, and some of the charges to people present on january 6 related to officer sicknick's death from strokes that were caused from coming you know, being spree -- sprayed with toxic chemicals, for example, by some of the january 6 writers. i think it is important to remember the seriousness of the charges, and the potential deadly violence that could have occurred on january 6. you know, if not for the brave efforts of our law enforcement officers. it was a report put out this week from courage for america and public citizen that highlights some of the

individuals that could be pardoned if president trump decides to do a blanket pardon for all of the january 6 writers. i encourage listeners to check that out if they want to look more at some of the individuals involved in the january 6 the riot. or insurrection. i think it is absolutely appropriate to call it that. though obviously some of your callers disagree. on the clemency powers, it certainly is within president trump's pardon power. it is a very broad constitutional power to issue blanket pardons or individual pardons to people who participated in january 6. i think whether it is good for america is obviously a different question. certainly he has the constitutional authority to do it, but whether that sends a positive message about the sanctity of the ballot boxes and the importance of ensuring the

peaceful transfer of power is something altogether different. given, as we saw from the evidence from the january 6 committee and from jack smith's case brought against donald trump for january 6, there are certainly allegations that president trump supported, allegedly incited that action. so it is not terribly surprising that he would want to pardon the people who he allegedly called to action. host: sharon in dade city, florida. democratic caller. you will hear from you next. caller: hi. i would like to thank ms. wydra for coming on and giving us the facts, which are vitally important right now. i would like to make two comments and then ask her question. it is pretty evident from this last election that our forefathers did not anticipate that our public would put their

own fears ahead of what is best for the country and elect a convicted felon. so coming out, i would like to ask her, like, what can we do in the future? because we hate to think this is a precedent being set, that, you know, anybody with a criminal past can run for president and get elected. because people's fears and greed. what does the future look like? that is my question. thank you for taking my call. guest: i think that is a really important point that the caller makes, which is that the constitution lays out lots of different structures, institutions, procedures, rights, but ultimately it is up to the american people to be the holders of the flame of american democracy, and there are lots of ways in which we decide the direction camino, the constitution puts out a map, it

puts out certain guardrails. but camino, the constitution is a document that i think, to frederick -- frederick douglass, who was a great interpreter of the constitution, who talked about how the constitution was used as a tool for oppression in that particular instance he was talking about the institution of slavery. but it also could be a document wielded for emancipation. that could be wielded for liberation. a lot of that depends on the ways in which the american people choose their leaders and our constitutional democracy. it is really up to all of us to engage in each generation with the constitution, and we have had before us generations of activists, abolitionists who worked to make the constitution through the amendment process a document that is more inclusive, that is more gala terrien, that is more just. and it is up to all of us to

make good on the promises in the constitution and vote for people who will manifest that promise of the constitution. and, you know, i do think the founders envisioned that there would be people who would try to seek power in the united states who might use it for corrupt means. they did put a lot of anti-corruption measures in the constitution. but ultimately the accountability and the decision for who will leave the night -- lead the united states comes down to the people. so it is our responsibility to educate ourselves about the constitution. its values, its promises, and to educate ourselves on the issues and the candidates who are running for election and, you know, it is important from a state and local level all the way up to the office of the presidency and to carry on that constitutional obligation that we have. host: leah in new york,

republican. caller: yes, the hush money debacle, my opponent said, he will say anything not to go to jail. admitted president trump knew nothing about the payment. the sham jury trial was meant to confuse the jury's verdict. the hush money payment over a decade ago cost taxpayers millions in phony charges. and, lastly, the government is using taxpayer money to hush sexual allegations against congressman impeachment requirements to this day. thank you. host: elizabeth wydra, your reaction? guest: yeah, you know, look, it was hush-money payments that were alleged to have been in the service of keeping information from the american people that could have been vital to their votes in the presidential

election, and a jury of everyday new yorkers decided that the evidence presented met the criminal standard and convicted donald trump, just like lots of other people in the united states and other new yorkers get held accountable for their actions. if she had been on the jury i'm sure she would have voted differently, but that is the way a jury voted according to the evidence presented to them. host: elizabeth wydra, the president of the constitutional accountability center. your group has taken president trump to court over violations of the emoluments clause. explain why you pursued those cases and the clause. guest: yes, so, as i mentioned a few moments ago, the drafters of the constitution did envision that there would be people who rise to power in the united states, including the office of the presidency who could seek to use their office for corrupt means to enrich their selves. one of the things they were

particularly concerned about is that this type of corruption could come from foreign governments i'm a obviously compromise the national security of the united states and could cause an elected leader to act in the interests of a foreign government to get money, profit, or other emoluments from a foreign government that would compromise the american people's public interest. so, the emoluments clause, foreign emoluments clause prevents an officer from taking these types of profits, money, honorary titles or gifts from foreign governments unless they first lay before congress the foreign emoluments there would like to receive and keep an congress approves it. i think it is important to note that camino, president trump, if he continues to get profits from

his businesses that involve foreign governments coming you know, he could go to congress and say, i plan to do this, and particularly since congress is now controlled by his party, you know, presumably if it was not compromising the american people's public interest they might approve those. but the fact he previously did not go through that process as outlined by the constitution is a clear violation. we at the constitutional accountability center represented the largest number of members of congress to come together to say that they wanted the right -- they wanted their right to vote on these foreign emoluments to be respected and enforced. and the constitution to be honored in this really important anti-corruption principle that the founders of our country road into the constitution. we will see whether he continues to ignore the foreign emoluments clause in his second term, but certainly we are going to be watching to see whether or not

that important anti-corruption part of the constitution is respect by all officers with responsibilities in our federal government. host: you can learn more about the constitutional accountability center if you go to the u.s. constitution.org, or on x elizabeth wydra, thank you very much for the conversation this morning. guest: thanks so much for having me, and thank you to your college. host: we will tak a short break. when we come ck, continuing the conversation with you about the new york hushoney case. the sentencing hearing happening in just a few minutes in new york. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv. saturdays on c-span2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 7:00 p.m. eastern in the lead

up to inauguration day american history tv looks back at famous inaugural speeches. this weekend, speeches by jimmy carter in 1977, ronald reagan in 1981, and george w. bush in 1989. on lectures and history hillsdale college professor richard gamble on civic faith and how american nationalism incorporated religious elements and symbolism during the cold war. and at 9:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency, keith hardage -- keith hardage lee recalls pat nixon's time in the white house, including her support for the rights amendment, a woman on the supreme court, and more mid to high level government jobs. watch american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, andin the full schedule on your program guide or wch online at c-span.org/history. ♪ ♪

>> techie senator mitch mcconnell has spent 40 years in the united states senate. 17 of those as leader for his republican colleagues. it is the longest any senator has been at the top of the leadership wrong in either political party. senator john thune was elected a few weeks ago to head up the republican majority in the senate in 2025. we walk, journalist michael tackett's book, a profile of senator mcconnell, is titled "the price of power." mike tackett, the deputy washington bureau chief of the associated press, conducted over 50 hours of interviews and was granted access to never before released oral histories. >> journalist michael tackett with his book "the price of power: how mitch mcconnell mastered the senate, changed america, and lost his " on this episode of notes plus.

notes plus is available on c-span now or wherever you get your podcasts. democracy. it is not just an idea. it is a process. a process shaped by leaders, elected to the highest offices, and entrusted to a select few with guarding its principles. it is where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted. democracy in real-time. this is your government at work. this is c-span. giving you your democracy, unfiltered. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to the "washington journal." happening today in new york city, in a manhattan courtroom, that is the hallway just outside the courtroom, president donald

trump will be sentenced in that hush money you new york -- hush money new york case. president trump will not be there. we suspect he will appear virtually. the judge in that case giving him that option. and the sentencing will take place, even though the president elect the supreme court in an emergency appeal last night to stay -- in other words, stop -- his hearing from going in place. here's what the supreme court said in a 5-4 decision. four liberal justices, along with the chief justice and amy coney barrett, they wrote the following. first, the elected evidentiary violations at president-elect trump's state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. second, the burdening that sentenci will impose on the president-elect's responsibilities is relatively substantial in light of the

trial court's stated intent to impose a sentence up on conditional discharge after a brief virtual hearing. unconditional discharge. that means no fines, no jail time, no probation. we are getting your reaction to this this morning. jimmy in erlewine, pennsylvania. hi, jimmy. caller: how are you? host: morning. caller: good morning. i want to say i wish elizabeth were still on. she must be a dei hire or paid by george soros. i am just a straight guy, but you are going to tell me all of these illegals, does she know it is a felony to cross into our border? it is a felony. it is not a misdemeanor. getting back to what she said about president biden, he had classified material in a garage with a six dollars lock on it. it would not put them in jail because the prosecutor said, his mind is going and they would not

convict him. then the whole crux of the thing is this. i don't want to be disrespectful. she is a lady of the night. she is a $20 ocher -- hooker. you are going to worry about paying someone off? this country is so fouled up. when elizabeth said that they were sprayed with toxic chemicals, look, i was in the army, exposed to agent orange. never got opinion. i was proud to serve my country. that isthat is why i hope vivek ramaswamy and elon musk get rid of these left-wing nuts. george in missouri. your thoughts on this hush money case moving forward to the sentencing phase from the president elect saying he will appeal. caller: i cannot understand what is going on. the constitution of the united

states. this guy was a convicted felon and now he is a convicted felon. my in-laws and people in normandy would turn over in their graves if they knew something like this was going on , have a gay convicted felon as the president of the united states stop all of these other countries are laughing at us. host: he was convicted by a jury of his peers on 34 counts. because of a new york law he is not actually convicted until the sentencing hearing takes place today at 9:30 eastern time. caller: i understand that and i hope people who voted for this man is happy that now we have a convicted felon as of 9:30 today. host: this is what the judge had

to say about why he was moving forward with the sentencing. "a jury heard evinc for nearly seven weeks pronounced its verdict. defendant and theeople were given every opportunity to address intervening decisions, to exhaust every possible motion in support of and in opposition to their respective positions and what it is an unprecedented and likely never to be repeated gal scenario. this court must sentence defendant within a reasonable time following verdict and defendant must be permitted to avail himself of every available appeal, path he is made clear he intends to pursue but which only becomes fully available upon sentencing." terry in connecticut, democratic caller. caller: my question is should the appeal process wait until

after the term of the president is over due to his power over the court and the judges? if he is appealing as the president i think the judges would be afraid to rule against him. host: terry's suggestion. joseph in point pleasant beach, new jersey, republican. caller: how are you. can i make two comments and i want to ask you a question. people on that show, they just call up saying trump is a convicted felon. that is why the democrats are doing this, they want to have that talking point. laws were changed just to convict him. laws were changed. the bragg case. stormy daniels.

then you had the woman on before, your guest saying january 6 there was no peaceful transition of power. when trump was elected last time there was no peace. they tried to get him from the first day in office with the russian, they were spying on him. i want to ask you a question. i listen to you, i don't know which way you lean, i like listening to you. the guest before mentioned trump making money as the president didn't you think in the back of your head that president biden and hunter biden were making money and you do not push back on that? what -- he is making money illegally off of his name. trump has done nothing wrong making money off of other countries. i want to know why you did not bring that up. host: thank you for that

feedback. we were at the end of our segment with her. it is something her group pursued during the first trump administration. you are right, something i could have brought up about the allegations against hunter biden. kurt in south carolina, independent. hello. caller: good morning to you. i was an original trump supporter with this first run until i got about a third of the way through his presidency and learned what he was all about. now he has been legally elected again although he is a convicted felon. he is up for sentencing today. what i think they ought to do this since things can be run remotely these days, i think they ought to find a very nice large cell in a federal prison, let him sit in the cell, let him

run the government from the south. that would -- from the cell. that would give me some satisfaction to ease the angst i have had over the last several years with this guy who is a liar, a criminal, and does not have a clue how to run any kind of government. that would be my suggestion. host: kurt's thoughts in south carolina. eddie in huntington, new york. republican. caller: good morning. the issue i have with this case is originally the federal elections commission did not want to take it. the attorney in the southern district of new york cannot help it -- did not want it, and actually bragg did not want it. then all of a sudden the number two were three men in the justice department comes down to do the case. if you listen to people like alan dershowitz who said he never voted for trump but he

looked at this case and he cannot figure out what the charges are and he said there are at least 26 reversible decisions this judge made. his daughter was making money off the case. the judge donated to biden's campaign. i think the process of bringing this to court should have been questioned. it is too late for that and hopefully on appeal if it works it works. i find it very ironic that this process started two years after he decided to run for office instead of when the alleged crime happened. host: eddie in new york, republican. earlier we spoke with john malcolm of the heritage foundation who was making similar arguments to what you had to say. if you miss that you can go to our website and find it there. we just spoke to elizabeth who argued on the others have this, she is the president of the constitutional accountability center, and if you're interesting in hearing her

arguments you can fight it c-span.org. trina in texas, a republican. caller: hello. most of what i was going to say has already been said while i was on hold. your guest that was on said trump's biggest crime was he hid evidence prior to an election from the american people. isn't that the same thing that biden did prior to the 2020 election by saying the hunter laptop was not hunter's and it was russian misinformation and he did not talk -- he did not talk to any of hunter's business partners. he hid all of that and it is all coming out it was true. she also said a president can be tried after he is out of office. if we are having equal justice isn't biden going to be in trouble for what he did prior to

the 2020 election, hiding evidence from the american people? they say no one is above the law. it looks to me like there might be a case for what biden did prior to the 2020 election. a lot of people said had i known about the laptop i would've not voted for biden. it seems to me like there is going to be a case for the other side if that is truly what your guest said his biggest crime was, he hid it from the american people. host: trina in texas. an update on the wildfires burning in the los angeles area. front page of the wall street journal. "more than 10,000 structures have burned. officials fear the death toll will rise." inside the wall street journal, let me show you what they have to say on the cost of this.

"damage costs are likely to set a record" is the headline. "the camp fire 2018 burn in california posta $12.5 billion and according to estimates in other newspapers this fire that is still burning in los angeles could be a lot more." according to jpmorgan chase it could exceed $20 billion and some experts putting that price tag even higher. wall street journal editorial today. "california's fire insurance catastrophe." they write "insurers have already scrapped hundreds of thousands of policies and wildfire prone areas. democrats blame climate change which has become an all-purpose excuse for any disaster relief failure but the real insurance problem is state regulators have barred insurers from charging premiums that fully reflect risks and costs.

california is the only state that hereto for has not allowed insurers to incorporate the cost of reinsurance and premiums. as a result insurers are paying out one point $09 in expenses and claims for every dollar they collect in premiums. this is financially unsustainable which is why many have paired coverage in areas of high fire risk with expensive homes. state farm dropped nearly 70% of its policyholders and one pacific palisades neighborhood where the average home price is $3.5 million." that is the wall street journal editorial board with their opinion today. sandy in minneapolis. independent caller. we are talking about this hush money case in the sentencing that will go forth today. go ahead. caller: good morning. all i can say it she has to be kidding me. i cannot wait until january 20

when all of this harassment will be over in the country can continue to survive. host: ok. just a note that we have also learned that -- this is the scene outside of the courtroom. as we have told you this proceeding getting underway at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. we are past that point. we do not have cameras in the courtroom, they are not allowed. as many of you have been tracking this case, you know that already. this is the camera outside of the courtroom in new york. josie in florida. democratic caller. go ahead. caller: i have two brief things. i believe judge merchan donated

$15 to the democratic party. compare that to the $250 million that elon musk donated to trump last summer. the other thing is trump was still paying off stormy daniels in the summer of 2017 as he wrote checks and signed them. these checks are in the indictment -- while he was president he was still paying her off. like $30 a month so it would not be as detected. i don't know if that was official acts of paying off a mistress. i don't know. host: i also want to let you know with the latest numbers on the economy. this is from the new york times but it is many of the newspapers. "u.s. job growth ends the year strong. employers finish the year with a burst of hiring, adding 256,000

jobs in december. the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.1% in december 2024." don in pennsylvania, independent -- sean in pennsylvania, independent. caller: this trial speaks to a lack of faith in the judicial system as a whole and highlights the pros power that the presidential pardon happens because but for the presidential pardon i don't think this trial would've been thrown out as easily. likewise president biden being able to give a blanket pardon for any hunter biden felonies has also highlighted how gross of a power overreach the presidential pardon is. it has turned a lot of trials like this one into a farce that leaves people believing less in the judicial system. host: the new york times updating on the proceedings

happening in the manhattan court this morning. maggie haberman reporting from inside the courtroom. "the president elect is known a familiar pose, his arms crossed in defiance. he shakes his head again as joshua steinglass, the prosecutor, says the once and future president has made clear he has disdain for the rule of law." at coming inside the courtroom in manhattan. those are the doors outside of the courtroom. the president-elect attending the hearing virtually. tammy in cleveland, ohio. democratic caller. let's hear from you. all right. porter in indiana, republican. caller: hello. when elizabeth was on, that last

paragraph she put out there, it reminded me of biden, all the corruption and everything she was saying trump could possibly do. it reminded me of what biden has already done and nothing is being done to him. i hope he is held accountable after he is out of office. as far as trump, us republicans believe that it was a kangaroo court so we do not consider that court verdict as guilty on felonies. we do not look at it that way. maybe the democrats do. thank you very much. host: clay in mississippi, republican caller. what are your thoughts on this hush money case, the sentencing hearing taking place in new york? caller: thank you for taking my call.

good morning. i just wanted to point out that this is still an obstruction of president trump being able to do his job. the purpose for the constitution is to try to prevent putting an undue burden on an elected president while he is in office. if they do their sentencing, which i think their window of opportunity has pretty much passed for them to do that so it would not be a burden, than what they are doing now is going to force him to possibly -- he may not do it -- he will appeal something. host: you are breaking up. the president-elect said last evening when he was reacting to the supreme court's decision to not stop this hearing that he

does plan to appeal. also from new york times reporters in the courtroom, the heart of the sentencing when it began. this is from one of the reporters. "the president-elect was told he will be allowed to address the court if he wishes but first it was joshua steinglass, one of the prosecutors, who started to speak first. stein glass says the prosecutors agreed with the expected sentence of unconditional just charge." that means there would be no find, no jail time, and no probation and the prosecutors agreed with that. that taking place when this hearing began this morning. let's go to dayton, oregon, independent caller. benji. a couple of things. caller: most of us do not buy into the new york manhattan kangaroo court.

we think it was a set up. we think the supreme court ruled correctly to let the sentencing go through because it will not be a big deal. it will be overturned on appeal because of 10 reasons. the other comment i wanted to make is i was disappointed that elizabeth was the worst presenter you have ever had on. i was disappointed you did not push back on her more on the moments clause in joe biden and hunter biden and the ukraine money and the hunter biden laptop. there's a lot of stuff to push back on. has she ever sued joe biden? host: what evidence would you point to that the president himself benefited from hunter biden's business dealings? caller: most of the information on the laptop identifying him as the big guy and he kept 10% to 20% of each sale that hunter

made. host: benji in oregon, independent caller. host: let's go to ricardo, democratic caller. caller: i find it very strange that the republicans cannot concede that the republican-controlled house could not find one scintilla of evidence against joe biden, yet they still throw joe biden's name into these criminal things that did not happen. right in front of their eyes donald trump has committed crime after crime after crime. what did they say? they say is a kangaroo court. it is the democrats going after the republicans. did we forget the democratic senator in new jersey was

convicted? did we forget that joe biden son himself was convicted? yes, he was pardoned, just like manafort was pardoned. just like steve bannon was pardoned. host: caller we lost you mid-thought. terry in iowa, independent. caller: hello, how are you doing? i would like to mention that this is all about swaying the election. it is all about the hush money. that is what the payments were made for and why they were trying to hide it. if that is the case several callers have been talking about hunter biden's laptop. nobody mentioned the 51 intel agents that said it was not real. nobody mentioned the media that kept saying it was not real. nobody mentioned you c-span,

you, greta that kept going on and on and denying that this was existing to this day you have not come forward, you or c-span or any journalist to say we were wrong. you sit there every day and every time someone mentions the hunter biden laptop you run away. you should have seen yourself. go back and watch this recording of yourself and see what you did. thank you. host: terry in iowa. we are watching this manhattan courthouse in new york. the media, the cameras are outside the courtroom. there are reporters in the courtroom watching these proceedings take place. the president-elect is not there but he is appearing virtually to hear from the judge in this case. we will go to california, francis is there, a republican. good morning.

caller: good morning. host: we are listening to you. caller: greta, you should be for everybody. you always agree with the democrats. i see you always agree with the democrats, not with the republican. i don't understand that. why do you do that? that is not fair. host: how am i agreeing? caller: you are agreeing with democrats when democrats are with joe biden and all of this, and you always full up trump's mistakes. he is not convicted. you put that he is convicted. he has never been convicted.

you cannot put that he is convicted. host: i mentioned that very thing just a little bit ago. peary in montgomery, alabama. democratic caller. caller: good morning c-span and the c-span audience. i keep hearing republicans talk about the justice system is unfair. if you are african-american the justice system has been unfair for years in this country. should we not say the same thing? that it is unfair for this country, the people judging these folks because that we know they have been -- if donald trump cannot get a fair trial in this country, how can an african-american get a fair trial? host: the president-elect sentencing hearing underway in new york. patrick in new hampshire, republican. what you think of all of this? caller: i want to give you a big

thank you because what i am watching on the screen at the port, this is what got donald trump elected and got us this next four years. i want to thank you personally because you and the democrats pushed and pushed and said look at this trial, he is guilty, he will get in trouble. host: a host sitting in this chair would not say that. people do not say he was going to get in trouble. that was not said. caller: you just said like five minutes ago, somebody said about hunter biden and then you said where is the evidence? can you tell me where the evidence is that joe biden took eddie money? host: i asked that question because he made that claim. i was asking him what the evidence was, if he was going to prosecute what would be the evidence? caller: with this case you all

said he is a felon. this is going to crash him in the election. it did not. host: that was never said by a host sitting in this chair. dave in las vegas, independent. caller: i apologize for those guys saying what they said. they are ignorant. all of the republicans -- the ones that backed trump are ignorant. this guy is a felon, a rapist, got people killed trying to overthrow our government. what is wrong with these people. they are so messed up. you have to have evidence. the guys the biggest racist. he does not want to fix anything. he will ruin this country. it is not make america great again. it is make america hate again. host: lynette in north carolina, independent. caller: i think what we the

american people need to think about is how we balance the principles of accountability with the political implications of sentencing a sitting president and what this means. we see world leaders all the time get away with things and from the outside that just looks like there is no accountability. here we have an actual opportunity for once i have accountability and he is our leader, i accept that, we voted for him and we elected him. now we need to move forward and decide what now from here. we have accountability or not? host: julie in michigan, an independent. tell us what you think about this sentencing hearing happening in new york? caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. one of the things that bothers me about this process is the breakdown of the judicial system to the degree that it became -- it became the onus of the american public to decide

whether trump is guilty or not guilty by virtue of an election. the judicial system really fell down on the job in my opinion. i do not think it is right that the election was what decided in essence trumps accountability or whether or not he is a criminal, basically. i am upset with the judicial system and it will get worse under trump. he is going to place people in positions of power that should not be there simply out of loyalty to him. i think he needs to be sentenced, there needs to be a punishment, there needs to be accountability. the rest of the world is

wondering what the heck is happening in america. host: none of those things will happen. the judge has said there wille no fines, no probationanno jail time. this is from the associated press. present-elect appearing virtually inside this court room . the proceeding is underway in new york. michelle in louisiana. democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. he is not going to be able to sell any alcohol any of his golf courses -- host: where did you hear that? caller: i have heard it a lot of times. he was going to sell all of his

clubs to his son and they were like no, you're absently not going to be able to do that. host: rachel in new york city. independent. caller: hi, everybody. i am of government information librarian and nonpartisan and i provide people information so i am coming from a wonky place. what is frustrating as we are talking about what about-ism. these allegations are very serious and they undermine our democracy in the most fundamental way. i hope it does not matter where we are politically. do we have accountability, do our elections matter? whatever side you are on, the biden is not equivalent to this. we can have issues with this but we have to look at this case, what it means for the american public wherever we stand and make sure we care enough about our country to say listen, we

think our elections have to be fair. information has to be out and other things are very different. right now i don't care where you are. let stand together for making america great, but in a way we have accountability. host: rachel's thoughts. we will leave it at that. thank you all for participating in the conversation today. that does it for today's "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> todayn c-span, we are monitoring an event with the turn -- with attorney general merrick garland and the outgoing director of the atf.

if they make remarks we will take you there live. also later prede biden will be getting an update on the wifis in califora,nd at 1:30 eastern we take you live to the whiteou for a briefing with press secretary karine john pierre and the fema administrator. we are also standi by for any comments from presidenelt donald trump or his lawyers in his sentencing today in the new york hush case. on c-span2 the supreme court is heinoral argument on t's first amendment challenge that requireshe app to divest from its chinese parent company or face a nationwide band later this month. that is live on c-span2. >> fitness democracy unfiltered with c-span. experience history as it unfolds with c-span's live coverage as republicans take control of both chambers of congress and a new chapter begins with the swearing

in of the 47th president of the united states on january 20. tune into coverage as donald trump takes the oath of office, becoming president of the united states. stay with c-span this month for live unfiltered coverage of the 119th congress and the presidential inauguration. c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more, including sparklight. >> what is great internet? is it strong? is it fast? is it reliable? at sparklight we know tiktok -- we know connection goes beyond technology. the best connections are always there right when you need them. how do you know it is great internet? because it