host: thiss "washington journal" for saturday, january 11. yesterday a judge sentenced

president-elect elect donald trump to an unconditional discharge for all 34 counts a falsifying business records in the first degree. it means no punishment such as jail time or fines or ion will be imposed. we want to hear your thoughts on the sentencing. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 8-8002. you can text your comments to (202) 748-8003. be sure to include your name and city. you can also post a question or comment on facebook at facebook.com/c-span or on x at @cspanwj. thank you for being with us. we will get to your calls and comments in a few minutes. first some headlines in today's newspaper about that sentencing. this from "the wall street

journal." sentenc cements trump as a felon. with the sentence, trouble be the first felon to occupy the oval office. the front page of the washington post, trump becomes first president to be sentenced. from the article, it says president-elect donald trump received no penalty friday for his convictions and his hush money trial, an extraordinary moment that saw him become the first u.s. president sentenced for a crime. the sentencing hearing, held just 10 days before trump's to be inaugurated for a second term , reflected the history and affirmed that trump would be the first president to enter office as a felon. trump, sometimes scaling or looking away, appeared on a screen from new york -- from florida as new york supreme court justice juan

merchan spoke about the difficulty of sentencing the incoming president. he did speak during the sentencing hearing. here are some of his comments. [video clip] >> every other defendant in your position it was my obligation to consider all mitigating factors to inform my decision. some of those aggravating factors have been articulating at the start of this trial. my written decisions, and january 3. they need not be repeated at this time. however, the considerable, indeed, extraordinary legal protections afforded by the office of the chief executive is a factor that overrides all others. to be clear, the protections

afforded the office of the president are not of been a gating factor -- not a mitigating factor. they don't reduce the seriousness of the crime or justify its commission in any way. the protections are however a legal mandate which, pursuant to the rule of law, this court must respect and follow. however, despite the extraordinary breath of those protections one power they don't provide is the power to erase a jury verdict. it is clear from legal precedent, which from july 1 was scarce, that donald trump, the ordinary citizen, donald trump the criminal defendant would not be entitled to such considerable protections. i'm referring to questions that extend well beyond those

afforded the average defendant who finds their way to the criminal justice system each day. no, ordinary citizens don't receive those legal protections. it is the office of the president that bestows those far-reaching protections to the officeholder. it was the citizenry of this nation that decided you should once again receive the benefits of those protections, which include, among other things, the supremacy clause and presidential immunity. it is through that lens and that reality that this court must determine a lawful sentence. after careful analysis and obedience to governing mandate and pursuant to the rule of law, this court has determined that the only lawful sentence that

permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office of the land is an unconditional discharge, which the new york state legislature has determined is a lawful and permissible sentence for the, of falsifying business records in the first degree. therefore, at this time, i impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts. i wish you godspeed for your second term in office. host: our topic for the first hour of today's program is that sentencing hearing and the sentence that president-elect donald trump received yesterday. and: now if you would like to comment -- you can call in now if you would like to comment. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independent, (202) 748-8002. james from georgia on the line for independents. caller: good morning. the supreme court is a rogue -- these people, what they are doing, they are taking away our rights. they are maintaining white privilege. trump is a king. what trump can do as president -- think about this with that immunity. he can steal as much money as he wants from the treasury or have someone do it such as steven mnuchin. then he can pardon that person. the legal scholars are telling you all come they can be pardoned by trump. anything trump tells them to do their going to do it. he can also pardon himself. the rule of law? there is no rule of law. there is the interpretation of the constitution by people, whoever decides to touch it. it was legal under the

constitution, anything can be legalized under the constitution if you have the right judges. this is a corrupt system. i could steal a piece of bubblegum and get 10 years as a black man. this is crazy and it makes no sense whatsoever. ain't no rule of law. host: wreck in florida, line for democrats. -- rick in florida, line for democrats. caller: thank you for your time. i was thinking, the insurrectionists should lose their citizenship. that is something the courts can't do. they can't take it away. that is what presidents do. just take all of their citizenship away from them, however many thousands were there, andut them behind the south americans. that's a high got to say. thank you -- that's all i got to say, thank you. host: pat, the line for

republicans. caller: good morning. host: hi, pat. go ahead, you are on. caller: i just wanted to say, the uust judge was not picked by a 24-judge pool. he should have recus himself. his daughter raised $93 million for the biden-harris campaign an profited $12 million for h work. president trump at the presential act and received differt treatment from senator joe biden athe time who didn't have clearance. barack obama, january 20, 2017 has not returned documents until this day. this is abuse of power and also a set day for america. trump is, you know, being -- this is politically motivated and timing is everything. but the just judge is coming back soon.

deuteronomy, 34:22. host: good morning, ed. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well, and. caller: there was a time in this country, a black man was charged with the crime. they would haul them into court and the jury would be 12 klansmen and the judge would be the head. that is what was going on yesterday. that is the trial that trump got. that's all i got. host: herbert in georgia come the line for democrats. caller: good morning. well, the thing is, he cannot pardon himself from this felony. me, being an ex-fillon, i was -- ex-felon, i was denied jobs.

the opportunity is opened for all ex-felons they cannot be denied jobs. if they do, they are liable for civic suits. defend all ex-felons if we are denied jobs going into the post office, military, or policeman. what trump did opened up a can of worms for all ex-felons to not be denied jobs no longer. civic attorneys, get on board. defend the mall because if you allow him to be privileged to get the highest office as an ex-felon, they can no longer deny me if i put in an application to the post office, police office, corrections office, every job in america

cannot be denied to ex-felons no longer. so come get on y'all's jobs, civic attorneys, and let's show people justice is for all. god is not a privileged person. trump is not privileged in god's eyes. he might be a king to the republicans, but not to god. thank you, god, for allowing this to happen for all ex-felons in america. host: herbert was talking about the sentence or what it means when you become a felon. the new york times says that a conditional discharge would have required him to meet requirements such as maintaining employment or paying restitution but this sentence comes with no strings attached. no other defendant in manhattan convicted of mr. trump's crimes

received an unconstitutional discharge in the past decade or so, court records show. trump was given the opportunity to speak, spoke for six or seven minutes. here are part of his remarks. [video clip] >> i am totally innocent. i did nothing wrong. they talk about business records, and the business records were extremely accurately counted. i have nothing to do with them. it was done by an accountant or bookkeeper who gave very credible testimony and was corroborated by everybody that was asked. with all that is happening in our country today, with a city that is burning to the ground, one of our largest most important cities burning to the ground, with the wars that are uncontrollably going on, with all of the problems of inflation and attacks on countries and all of the horrible things that are going on, i got indicted over

calling a legal expense a legal expense. it is called a legal expense. i want to say it is an embarrassment to new york. new york has a lot of problems but this is a great embarrassment. i believe this and other cases that were brought, you know the doj is very much involved in this case is because that is the political opponent they're talking about your the doj is very involved. you have a gentleman there sitting there from the doj's office and also involved in the new york state attorney general's case. he went from there to hear. he went around and he did what he had to do. got them to move on me. in the meantime, i won the election in a massive landslide. the people in this country understand what has gone on. this has been a weaponization of government. they call it lawfare something like this never happened to this extent in this country before. i would like to explain i was treated very unfairly, and i thank you very much. host: back to your calls.

cookie in ohio, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. host: cookie, can you turn down your television in the background? caller: i can't hear you. host: can you turn your television down in the background? go ahead and give us a call back once you get that taken care of. a reminder to our callers, keep your television's muted once you are on hold and listen through your phone. kerry from illinois on the line for independents. caller: i want to thank you and i enjoy your programs. i think there are several factors going on. the judge could only pass a

sentence based on the way the constitution is written. like the president cannot serve time and cannot be convicted while holding office. so, there is that. the other aspect of that is he was convicted by 12 people who sat in that courtroom every day and heard the facts of the case presented from both sides. while i don't -- i think it's a really sad day in america for our soon to be sitting president to be in this situation and place america in the situation. the other thing too that i am more concerned about is, this is going to open the floodgates on a lot of other things.

i don't know. i'm torn. i agree with what happened today. because the judge had to rule the way he did, he did that so his thing could not be overturned. he had to follow the constitution. i just think that people need to take accountability for what they did, and that's all i have to say. host: that was carrie in illinois. linda in mississippi on the line for democrats. good morning, linda. caller: good morning. i think trond didn't get what he deserves. he has committed the crimes ever since he was a young man. but those who are moaning and defending him, trump is a convicted felon, and that is an embarrassment of the united

states to have a convicted felon, the first time it ever happens, and i pray that it's the last time that it ever happens for this country. but those who voted for him, listen to him instead of watching the show. he never says anything about what he's going to do for you or your family. it's always the rich and the powerful. he has show the world that if you are white, fat, and rich you can get away with every kind of murder, any kind of crime you want to. trump is a prime example. i pray for this country, and i pray for those, especially those who voted for him and cannot see that he is the biggest crook this country has ever elected in our lifetime. and that's saying a lot. thank you very much. host: linda in mississippi. beth in shalimar, florida on the line for republicans. good morning, beth.

caller: i'm not even sure where i want to start on this. as far as the sentencing thing goes, i think judge marchan did everything in his power given that he was following the laws of the state of new york and the constitution of the united states. as far as trump is concerned, i didn't know stormy daniels had a law degree, so that's interesting. but the thing that made it a felony, as far as i'm concerned, is a 1099 was issued by trump, michael cohen, for $420,000. that was a false document meeting the three requirements to make what might have been

lesser than a felony the felony itself, because it was a document generated by the company that had false information. it made michael cohen file a false tax return. made the trump company file a false tax return to the federal government. it was sent to the irs as a 1099 for michael cohen and the trump company for the transfer of that money. it was a tax document, it was a false document generated by the company, and i can't remember what the third count was, but it met that, too. as far as trump saying that it was all legal, it wasn't.

$130,000 went to pay hush money. if he had written a check to stormy daniels from his own checking account for $130,000, he might have gotten away with it. there is no law against that. but when he is running for president, he has to abide by the rules that have been sat down for elections. that's why mr. packer from the national enquirer realized that he had made a mistake in paying off the other girl. once trump ran for president he was getting into campaign finance. so, those laws were broken. this conspiracy lasted for years and years and years. it was before he even ever decided to run. he was in conspiracy with the national enquirer.

so, he's not getting any comeuppance from this, but i don't think he can learn from anything anyway. he's not going to change. he's been impeached twice. and the senate failed us. the doj failed us by starting so late on this. we have two other federal cases hanging out there that are not going to be able to be conducted. we are in a constitutional crisis, because the day before trump had to be sentenced on this, he is in a telephone call with one of the supreme court justices. he knows what the appearance of conflict is. he takes the call, and it is about loyalty of a former clerk from 14 years ago. host: got your point, beth.

hearing your thoughts on the sentencing of president-elect donald trump yesterday. the members of congress have been tweeting out their thoughts. this from representative eric swalwell. he says trump wants to and canada, which is interesting, because as a convicted felon he is not allowed to visit there. i just don't know how this is going to work. this from senator bill hagerty. this entire lawfare case was a political campaign sham designed only to brand president trump as a felon. the judge didn't even impose a punishment. what a pathetic waste of taxpayer resources that should have been used on the real crimes against new yorkers. congresswoman jasmine crockett, there are two tiered systems of

justice in this country, and donald trump lives on the tier where he gets to walk into the white house without spending a single day in jail or being put on probation after being convicted of 34 felonies. one more, this from senator lindsey graham. the new york justice system is beyond anti-trump. the new york attorney general and manhattan district attorney see president trump as a political prize. they have singled out president trump for prosecution for offenses that either never existed before or were cobbled. that is part of his tweet. back to your phone calls. rob in louisiana on the line for independents. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: -- these people for not knowing the whole truth.

[indiscernible] instituted the laws. that's all i have to say -- the whole truth. [indiscernible] host: that was rob in louisiana. maxine in maryland on the line for democrats. caller: yes, i don't agree with the verdict for trump, as the other person who was on said we have other people who do crimes and go to jail. it is a slap on the wrist for trump. like he can do no wrong. my thing is, i don't understand when the judge got up there and gave him this little thing.

i was wondering, could he do anything else by being a judge besides giving him a slap on the wrist? furthermore, people who voted for trump, they ought to be ashamed of themselves who voted for trump. maybe we had a chance with kamala harris, we don't know. now, this democracy we have right now, it's a mess, it's chaos, and they should be ashamed of themselves. they sent michael cohen to jail. that's not right. trump, and then that supreme court? ought to get rid of them. that's all i've got to say. host: a couple of colors are bringing up michael cohen. the case arose, donald trump's sentencing, the case arose from

a 2016 hush-money payments to pour and start stormy daniels -- point star stormy daniels he was selling her story of a sexual encounter with trump. had she gone public she may have set off a scandal in the final days of mr. trump's presidential campaign. mr. trump, the jury concluded, reimbursed his fixer, michel cohen for hush money and then directed that the records be falsified to keep the payment under wraps. president-elect trump's former attorney michel cohen witnessed for the prosecution during the hush money case. reacted to the sentencing yesterday on msnbc. [video clip] >> obviously, very torn between what i would have liked to have seen happen. don't forget, i received a six year sentence. three years of incarceration and three years of supervised release. in my legal career never heard

of an unconditional discharge. i was so confused i went to chatgpt despite the fact that judge furman doesn't think that anyone should go through chatgpt, right? i looked it up, and i was unable to find anybody in history who has ever gotten an unconditional discharge. >> there is already a record of using the justice department and having you in his sites. they are promising this on day one. they are trying to get cash patel. what is your expectation, your level of anxiety or worry being targeted for unlawful retribution by the governance of the united states? >> it is why i put in a presidential pardon application and my hope is joe biden presents me with the same part in that he did for his own son. i think there is nothing wrong

with that. i have been targeted by the department of justice, that is fact, not circumstantial. judge alvin helen steen acknowledged that it was retaliatory and he'd never seen anything like it. i think that there are a lot of people on this enemies list. i want to make it clear that from the very beginning with the senate permanent select committee on intelligence all the way through the manhattan d.a. criminal case, i have been subpoenaed to testify. to be honest, based upon this unconditional discharge, hindsight being 2020, if i knew today what -- if i knew back then what i know today i wouldn't have appeared for any of these. i don't think it's fair. i don't think that's the way that our system should be designed. i don't think it's right that somebody should be above the law despite that the supreme court has provided the presidential

immunity doctrine, which to me is confounding. if i knew then what i know now i never would have appeared. host: just about 30 minutes left in this first hour, asking you your thoughts on president-elect trump's sentencing in the hush money case. next, rocking in texas on the line for republicans. -- rodney in texas on the line for republicans. caller: i have a couple of rhetorical questions regarding president-elect trump's claim that he had a gag order placed on him. is there such a thing as -- in communication and that is why the judge in his hush money trial placed the gag order on trump to prevent expert -- x partake communication?

correct me if i'm wrong. he had an opportunity in his trial to get on the witness stand and defend himself against these allegations that were involved in the hush money trial , but he didn't do it. is that correct? host: alan, line four independents. caller: how are you? host: doing well. caller: thanks for taking my call. i don't really know where to begin, but the trump derangement syndrome is alive and well in america. the first thing i want to talk to is all of the christians who call up saying all of this, they don't do anything but spout hate. i don't know about their bible, but my bible says that all have fallen short of the glory of god

and all men need grace. i don't know how you call yourself a christians and you spew nothing but hate for a human being out of your mouth. the second thing is, everyone knows that the trial in new york was the biggest scam in history. it was a bookkeeping error. there were two misdemeanors. they resurrected them. nobody still knows what the underlying charge that supposedly made him a felon is. nobody knows. there are 12 reversible errors in that trial. everyone says he was convicted. the trial should have never happened. it never would have happened if his name wasn't donald trump. every single prosecutor who looked at the case decided not to pursue it, because there was no case, until trump decided to run for election.

the minute he ran for election, the doj prosecutor left the doj and went to new york to be a lowly state prosecutor to get around. anyone who doesn't have trump derangement syndrome knows that. it is about as obvious as the nose on your face. 34 felonies for calling legal fees legal fees. and hush-money payments happen every single day in this country. they are totally legal. it is a bunch of bs and everybody knows it. new york, that district in new york, voted 96% democrat. you can't get a straight jury out of that. plus, the jury wasn't allowed to see half of the evidence. how are they going to come back with anything but a guilty decision? they didn't have any choice but to come back with a guilty conviction. they didn't see half of the evidence. they weren't told that all of this was manufactured and made up, so i don't blame the jury.

they most likely all hate trump to start with. then they are given evidence that is bs. it will all be turned over on appeal. then what are you going to say? are you going to come back on c-span and say i was wrong? i really want to admonish the christians. they amaze me. they spit hate out of their mouths. host: got your point. frank in savannah, georgia on the line for democrats. caller: yes, i hate to agree a little bit with the previous caller, but, yeah. this is actually the weakest case that was brought against him. if it were up to me, i wouldn't have brought this case. there is areason the justice department wouldn't touch this case with a 10 foot pole. trump was totally lying as usual. all the justice department know. i'm glad that he at least has a felony record, a felony on his record. i guess the judge decided, well,

trump was watching tv all day, it would be too much work for him to pick up a telephone and call a, probation officer every week you know? that is ok. at least you got it on his record. the papers, classified papers case, were dismissed. the reason they were dismissed, because judge cannon, she was basically in for trump, just like the supreme court majority is now. you will see her on the supreme court in a couple of years. we don't want to look like a banana republic when the new president charges the last president with all these crimes, that's true, but still we can't let them commit very serious

crimes left and right and do nothing at all. for me, it was a nightmare when he was elected the first time. and now the nightmare will continue. i don't know, i don't think there is justice in this world or the next one either. we will see what happens. at least it will be interesting. it will be exciting for me. yeah, i'm glad he was convicted. it was like when o.j. simpson was not convicted for the crime, but for another crime they threw the book at him. host: mary in florida on the line for republicans. caller: my friend in north carolina took the words out of my mouth. 34 felonies? this man has been convicted since the first day in 2016 that he was inaugurated. scam after scam after scam after

scam. as far as this new york case, another scam. judge merchan, they are complete idiots. this judge wishes him godspeed? he had a chance to let things go, but he refused because they are complete idiots. donald trump has been a very good president, but with all the scams on his back they didn't give him a chance. it's a shame. i voted for him three times. this man is a good man. he did good for this country. why don't you ever just -- this

channel, why don't you ever talk about what joe biden has done and his son, with all the scams that they pulled? it's a shame what this country has become, and what this present president has done to it. thank you. host: mary in florida. the topic for this first hour, 20 minutes left, is your reaction to president electra's sentence -- president-elect trump's sentencing in the hush money trial. an update on another story on the west coast, the wildfires happening there. from the los angeles times, this was updated 37 minutes ago. 11 deaths have been confirmed. more than 12,000 structures have been damaged or destroyed.

100 50,000 people remain under mandatory evacuation orders. law enforcement sources told the times that it's likely that many of the small fires will have turned out to be the work of arson. keith in savannah, georgia on the line for independents. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: first, thank you for c-span. i contribute monthly and i think that you have a great service. this is my first time calling. i am on the independent line. i am a democrat. i do feel trump has been unfairly persecuted in this case. it seems like this would be a personal issue and it has become a political one, which i'm not in favor of. during his first term we had to deal with the whole russian investigation. that also seemed to not really

have merit at the end of the day. what i would like to see for the second term is, let him do what he wants to do. i in favor of president trump. let's stop persecuting him and let's hope for a hopeful and prosperous future. that's all i've got to say. thank you. host: keith in georgia. darrell also in georgia on the line for democrats. caller: yes, i don't know what that caller from savannah -- yeah, he is from the crazy coast. i am from the other coast. i am so happy that all this happens. he is now banned from 38 countries. our president of the united states is banned from 38 countries. then, get this, like the other lady said, he called samuel

alito. samuel alito, harris, thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, those four are willing to let that guy get exactly what he asked for. thankfully coney barrett and roberts got with the democrats on the supreme court and voted 5-4 for him to go to trial. what he did on friday, he didn't want no part of that. like another caller said, if he was innocent he could have got his butt on the stand and testified and showed the american people he was innocent. this guy is a scam. there is more to come. a president can't own a gun. he can't even be around bullets. this is sad, man. you republicans, one out of three trumpers are as dumb as

the other two. bye-bye. host: darrell talking about some of the things that felons can't do. from the associated press, trump can still vote after sentencing, but he can't own a gun and will have to turn over a dna sample. the article notes that he will be registered to vote in florida and will be able to continue voting there. the caller was correct. he won't be able to own a gun under federal law. people convicted of felonies are not allowed to possess firearms. the article also says -- the question is, can he travel outside the u.s.? yes, as president trump will have a diplomatic passport enabling him to travel to foreign countries for official business and can also keep a regular or tourist passport. people sentenced to incarceration or probation can

have their passport denied or revoked, but that is not the case with trump. next, we will hear from lawrence in texas on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. yeah, i'm kind of perturbed on some of the comments, especially some of the racial stuff. the white guy getting away with all this stuff. it's crazy. that's the sad state of affairs our country is in right now. but, it is what it is. i would like to comment on the fires in california. i am a retired military guy -- host: we are keeping the conversation -- i read a story about it, but our conversation for the first hour is the trump sentencing. if you want to call back at 9:30 come you can comment on the wildfires. david, the line for

independents. caller: yes, good morning. good morning. my name is david greene, and i wanted to call and say that some of the comments that i heard this morning are completely uncalled for. we had an election this past november. americans voted for donald trump as president of this nation. i've never seen -- i knew there was so much division and so much hate going around for this man that people don't even notice. they get on, they call, they despise him, they just hope he dies. i've never seen the hatred. he's the leader of the country where they live. i've never seen anything like that. i don't understand the hatred. i am an independent. i will vote republican, i will vote democrat, it depends on the policies. i lived here for four years under joe biden.

i saw firsthand what his policies did to this nation. what his policies did the people that hate trump. they are so blinded by the hatred for the man they don't want to give him a chance. they want something bad to happen to him when he is just a billionaire. doesn't have to do that job. he does because he wants to. he was on an interview with oprah winfrey in the 1980's and she asked, would he run for president? he told oprah winfrey only if he saw the country needed him. that is what he has done. i just don't understand the hatred that people have towards the man. i wish they would get over it. i wish they would move on. support the guy. let's go ahead and make this country better than what we had it the last four years. i'm 60 years old. i've never seen the country fall down in four years like it did under joe biden. first time i've ever seen it.

i know we had covid and things that hadn't happened in the past, but you still hear this anger. listen to c-span. there are still so many people and that is all they want to do, trash the guy. i support -- host: david in north carolina. yesterday, during the sentencing hearing, one of the prosecutors in the case explained the reasoning behind the sentencing. here are his comments. [video clip] >> in probational court, which we received this morning, the author interviewed the defendant noting that the defendant sees himself as above the law" accept responsibility for his actions. that is certainly consistent with everything else that we've seen. in a typical case, both the offense contact and the other exacerbating factors would impact the appropriate sentence. but in this case, we must be respectful of the office of the

presidency and mindful of the fact that the defendant will be inaugurated as president in 10 days. any undischarged portion of the sentence has the potential to interfere with the defendant's performance of the duties of his office. as a practical matter, the most sensible sentence prior to his inauguration is an unconditional discharge. the court has expressed an inclination to do exactly that, because, in the court's words, "the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow the defendant to pursue his appellate options is to proceed to sentence." as you know, in new york a conditional discharge is authorized by penal law. if the court in regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and to the history, character, and condition of the defendant's of the opinion that

neither the public interest nor ends of justice would be served by a sentence of imprisonment, and that probation supervision is not appropriate. an unconditional discharge is if an conditional discharge is authorized and if the court is of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant's release. because these crimes are felonies, the court must set forth in the record the reasons for its action. the american public has the right to a presidency unencumbered by pending court proceedings or ongoing sentence-related obligations. imposing this sentence ensures that finality. sentencing the defendant permits this court to enter judgment, to submit the defendant's status as a convicted felon while he pursues whatever appeals he intends to pursue.

it gives full respect to the jury's vote while preserving the defendant's abilities. they recommend that this court imposes a sentence of unconditional discharge. host: you can listen to the full audio from yesterday's court proceeding, including president trump's remarks, online at c-span.org. president-elect trump spoke during the hearing and also pushed out or published a statement after on his social media platform, truth social. it says, the radical democrats have lost another pathetic un-american witchhunt after spending tens of millions of dollars wasting over six years of obsessive work that should have been spent on protecting new yorkers from violent, rampant crime that is destroying the city and state coordinating with the by then-harris department, an injustice,

lawless weaponization, and bringing baseless legal and fake charges against your -- against your 45th and 47th president, me, i was given an unconditional discharge. that result alone proves that, as all legal scholars and experts said, there is no case, there is never a case, in this whole scam fully deserves to be dismissed. the real jury, the american people, have spoken, by reelecting me with an overwhelming mandate in one of the most consequential elections in history. as the american people have seen in this case, there has no crime, no damages, no proof, no facts, no law, only a highly conflicted judge, a star witness who was disbarred, disgraced, serial perjurer, and criminal election interference. today's event was a despicable charade, now that it's over we will appeal this hoax, which has no merit and restore the trust of americans in our once great

system of justice. make america great again. again, that is the statement of president-elect donald trump after the sentencing -- yesterday's sentencing hearing. 10 minutes left in this first hour. james in brunswick, georgia. caller: yes, good morning. i want to say that trump is a phony. trump started, you know, an insurrection. trump is all about robbing, killing, and destroying the constitution. he tries to take away equal rights, civil rights, everything. i mean, everything -- he don't have the right, he is able to have all of these felony accounts and also get on top of

it be able to become president. there's people in this world who need jobs that can't even get jobs because they got way lighter felonies than trump. he's not nothing but a dictator. he's trying to turn back the pages. he is trying to take everything away from the citizens of the united states. he's hiding behind the united states seal, that's the presidency. it's wrong what he's doing. i mean, lying. he's doing everything to get away with it. he even went and put people in the senate. i mean, the supreme court, so they could protect him. the man is guilty. he needs to be in jail. they have witnesses. everybody who came to court.

i mean, he disrespected generals, lawyers, district attorneys. it's wrong. it's apparent. it's right in our face. you can see it. it's on tv. they let him get away because he got money. he's trying to protect rich people. he don't care nothing about the citizens of the united states. and it's wrong. even going to other countries, even collaborating with russia. he is collaborating with north korea, china, everybody, to bring down our constitution and everybody -- host: that was james. barry in south carolina on the line for independents. caller: yes, i think about king

david, the king of israel. he found a woman, bathsheba, who was married to, i think, uriah, he took that man's wife and had that man executed. put on the front line to die, committed murder. yet god said that david was a man after his own heart dear god loved david although david had done something similar to what donald trump had done. secondly, i don't think that a man sitting on that jury or a man calling in this morning that commit the same sin that donald trump committed would not have done the same thing that donald did to hide his sin against his wife. so, we need to get over it. it was a bad strategy that the democratic party took out instead of worrying about gas

prices, food prices, people surviving the economy, they were more concerned about muddying this guy's reputation, and it failed. so, it's time to move on. the bible says, pray for those in authority. have a blessed morning. host: i wanted to share some social media posts coming in this morning, reaction to yesterday's sentencing. this on facebook from alley. i can understand the anger behind those who call it a political witch hunt. again, what about the facts of the case that gave reasons to the jury to find him guilty? this is a sad day for the u.s. this one from nomar says, i understand why the judge did it this way, but any other person have likely received jail time and fines. vicki says, says more about the

da, judge, and the biden administration who said one of their doj to set up this sham. probably voted for this so-called felon. it will be struck down. i watched the judge and the trial. it was prosecutor you'll malfeasance. julie says, i've always had full respect for our supreme court, but not any longer. trump is no better than any of us. he should spend the rest of his life in jail, not in our white house. a couple of minutes left. mike in sarasota springs, new york, on the line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am from new york. i'm originally from the city area. the city itself is completely democratic. this whole thing has been a complete witch hunt. i want to thank you for taking my call, but it is a complete witch hunt. basically, the biden administration is so corrupt,

ok. what you've got to do, ok, this is all picking on trump, right. trump is our elected president, ok. you should have more respect. he is not as corrupt as a biden and democratic party. wake up, people. wake up, america. i told -- i called about a year ago, ok. i said the biden and democratic party as corrupt. we proved they are corrupt. when are the people going to realize we are living in a corrupt administration, ok. i go to the store -- take chicken for example. chicken right now used to be under five dollars. now it is $10. this is ridiculous. also, the sexuality. totally going against god. look at california, what is happening there -- host: i will leave it there. the next caller in georgia on

the line for democrats. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. first of all, i wanted to say, there are a few who say america hates trump. remember how you hated obama? you hated obama til this day. secondly, i agree with the guy who said lawyers should get up and defend felons. yes, it's time to defend felons. a reminder, trump always says nothing like this has ever happened in the history of america. today, now, he is the first president with this tag, a convicted felon. the president of the united states is a convicted felon. this is huge. i was angry with the verdict, but now, with this tag on his

head, history will not be kind to him and his supporters. be careful for what you wish for. finally, for those who support trump, and you call yourself christians, you easily take the mark of the beast, because you will never know when the beast will appear. because he is white you will support him and take the mark. be careful if you call yourself a christian. thank you. host: our last call for this hour is larry in new jersey on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i don't think the outcome of the court case of solves -- absolves him because of his infidelity and his guilt. i think rather than the trump derangement syndrome, there is a trump absolvement syndrome

that will look the other way even though he cheated on his wife and abuses the truth constantly. thank you. host: our last call for this first hour. next on "washington journal," we will be joined by the axios tech policy reporter maria curi to discuss the latest in the u.s. potentially banning the social media apps tiktok. later, kelly dittmar for the center for american women and politics will discuss the role and trend of women serving in elected office. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> american history tv saturdays

on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. in the lead up to inauguration day, american history tv looks at famous inaugural speech is. this weekend, speeches by jimmy carter in 1977, ronald reagan in 1981 and george h w bush in 1989. on lectures in history, hillsdale college professor richard gamble on civic faith and how american nationalism incorporated elements and symbolism during the cold war. on the presidency, heath hardage lee recounts first lady pat nixon' times in the white house including her support for the equal rights amendment, a woman on the supreme court and more on mid to high-level jobs. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2ndind a schedule on your program guide or watch anytime online at c-span.org/history.

book tv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. here's a look at what's coming up this weekend. human rights advocate mark clifford with his book "the troublemaker" talks about the life and activism of a hong kong media mogul and dissident, jimmy li, who's being tried for sediti and other crimes by the chinese government. on afterwords, journalist adam schaller with his book "99% perspiration" argues hard work is not enough to obtain the american dream. he's interviewed by author ali ssa quart. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2. watch anytime online a booktv.o rg. ♪ >> kentucky senator mitch

mcconnell has spent 40 years in the united states senate, 17 of those as leader in his republican -- of his republican colleagues. that's 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. journalist michael tackett's book is called " the price of power" and subtitle "how mitch mcconnell mastered the senate." the washington -- associate bureau chief 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 party on this episode of book notes plus with our host brian lamb. book notes plus is available on the free c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now to discuss the latest on the u.s. potentially banning the social media apps tiktok is maria curi, tech policy reporter for axios. thank you for being here this morning. maria: thanks for having me. host: why don't we start with yesterday, the supreme court heard oral arguments in the case tiktok versus merrick garland. bring us up to speed that how we got to yesterday. maria: congress passed this law that basically said bytedance has to sell tiktok or tiktok faces a ban in the united states. and that was last year but this is something that dates way back to even the first trump administration actually. president elect trump was the first want to really go after tiktok and say it is a national security concern. after this law passes, tiktok quickly challenged.

the d.c. circuit court of the decided the law was constitutional and then the appeal to the supreme court and now we are waiting to see what they decide. host: remind our audience what our government's arguments are for banning the app and what tiktok's arguments are for overturning the ban. maria: the government is arguing that bytedance, the parent company of tiktok, poses a national security threat to the united states because of its ties to the chinese government and basically the ability of the chinese government to access the troves of data collected through tiktok. that data collection is one national security threat. the other threat would be these risks of a covert manipulation attempt and these abilities for the chinese government to kind of manipulate what we see online and dictate public opinion in the united states. tiktok is arguing that this is an infringement on the first amendment right of other creators that use the app for

speech and tiktok itself, which is a u.s. company. host: yesterday, the supreme court heard the oral arguments in the case after it made its way up to the court. your takeaways? what did we learn? what did we here at the oral arguments? maria: my main take is that the judges, the justices did not seem very convinced that this is a first amendment concern, which is really the question at the heart of the case here, was whether or not this law violates free speech. and they did not seem convinced that all of the creators, the 170 plus million people on this platform, or the company itself, that this would be an infringement on their first amendment rights. and it really came down to the fact that this app and all of the creators on this app can continue to exist even if bytedance divests, so justices did not seem very convinced of that argument. host: our guest, maria curi,

policy reporter for axios, for the next 30 minutes or so will be discussing the latest on the social media ban of tiktok. you can start calling in up. the lines, democrats, (202) 748-8000. pelicans, (202) 748-8001 -- republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . and, i'm sorry, maria, yesterday, the supreme court heard the arguments. they did not release the decision but they are very limited by time. the band would go into effect a week from tomorrow, if they uphold it. when are we expected to hear a decision? maria: we don't know. we are all waiting from now until january 19. they could come out with a decision to pause the ban which is certainly what tiktok and bytedance are hoping for, as well as president-elect trump so

it would be a major win if they decide to do that. host: if the ban is upheld, what would it look like, what won't it look like come next sunday? maria: we've been hearing a lot of talk of the app going dark come of it shutting down. i think it really depends on what these app stores and internet service, these web hosting platforms decide to do. the fact of the matter is that on january 19 it, will be illegal to hosting this app. these companies could face $5,000 fines for every user that is still on the app. it would be a big risk to take but they could be banking on the incoming president simply not enforcing the law, so we will see what they decide to do. host: speaking of that, president elect trump has been supportive of tiktok and saying that he opposes the ban. what options will he or his administration have once they are in office? maria: that's a really good

question. it doesn't seem to be that trump opposes this law. but really in his lawyer's filing to the supreme court, he was very explicit, he said i am not taking a position one way or another yet, but i do want you to pause it so i can have an opportunity to negotiate a deal that only i, donald trump, have the ability to negotiate. in terms of what that deal could be, we are not sure. in the past, he has said he does not want these really big tech platforms, meta, google to get even bigger so that might inform his decision. it's really up to him to decide, what does a qualified investor sure under the law mean? certainly what lawmakers it tended -- qualified divesture under the law mean? host: the word divesture came up several times during the oral

arguments yesterday. explain what that is and other avenues the company could have to avoid a potential ban. maria: the main way to avoid a ban is for bytedance to sell this app. and tiktok also has the option to walk away from bytedance, so they could find a different buyer. a lot of the justices actually said, why don't you just find a different algorithm? why don't you come up with your own algorithm? that is why bytedance is appealing, and tiktok itself, because of this powerful tool that makes tiktok what it is. they could simply find that technology or something similar to it somewhere else. it would be very difficult because what makes bytedance's out rhythm so powerful is that source code that is in china. but they could find different avenues, according to these justices yesterday. host: if you would like to hear

the, listen to the audio of the our arguments from yesterday, you can find an online at c-span.org. -- you can find it online at c-span.org. we will go to our first caller for the second. ralph from michigan, line for democrats. good morning. caller: hello. i was worrying about the larger problem of disinformation on these internet social media sites. not just tiktok. i don't know of specific examples of election interference on tiktok. i don't know if that's happening. i presume it probably is happening. what about let's say facebook and twitter? disinformation on other websites, like for example, the russian disinformation campaign in 2016. i have to say the russian disinformation campaign, i

think that achieved the trump victory, very narrow victory in 2016. is there any concern or do you have concerns about disinformation in general? and disinformation on all the social media sites? maria: thanks for that question. it is certainly very timely. we did also find out this week that meta would stop its content moderation practices and turn to this model of modern content that's more similar to elon musk's x platform, which basically says users on the path from, people like yourself are basically now responsible for maggie shea things that are not factual are not there -- for making sure that things that are not factual are not there. that leads to more harmful speech online. if tiktok is banned in the united states, that leaves 170 plus million americans that need to find somewhere else to go and

they could very well choose to go to meta's instagram reels. and if content moderation there no longer applies the way that it used to, certainly could see a lot more disinformation happening there. host: jodi in charlotte, north carolina, langford independent -- line for independents. good morning. caller: i have a question. we are talking in terms of data with tiktok as well. what about all of the data that for the original people who already signed up for tiktok, it's like the damage has already been done? and also, who argued the case for united states when it came to the tiktok ban, because it seems like what we are being set up for is a war. if we put a ban on tiktok, not only will our people in america be banned and censored to even speaking their minds, but also china could get angry and we

could be subjected to war with china -- being at war with china behind that because of the bulk of their money and finance from technologies coming from the united states. are we even thinking about the people? maria: certainly, and this came up yesterday during oral arguments as well, tiktok, bytedance, these are not the only companies that are collecting massive troves of american data, sensitive and otherwise. other big tech companies in the united states, american once, are also collecting a lot of our data everyday. i think what makes tiktok unique, at least according to the government, is its ties to the chinese government. and so, there are national security laws in china that basically would require the overturning of that data to the government if the government decides to. that is what makes this particular company, tiktok, and

its ties to bytedance specifically dangerous, at least according to the government. but yes, all of these other companies are also collecting our data. and i think that is why you see tiktok's lawyer arguing for other measures that could have been less severe. for example, trying to pass a national data privacy law, which is something that congress struggles with year after year. other measures were considered, but unfortunately, where we are today is here. host: and as we get closer to the date of the ban going into place, there are reports that tiktok users have been pushed or are going over to lemonate, another app, it's also owned by bytedance, the same company that owns tiktok. how does that work of the potential banning of an app, if it's owned by the same owner,

would it fall into the same category as tiktok? maria: the lot is very explicit, any -- of the law is very explicit, any app owned by bytedance will be banned. a lot of users on tiktok are being encouraged to go over to lemonate. now, the companies themselves are not tying this to the ban. they are saying that this is just the type of migration that would make the creators be able to share their videos more effectively. but some of the creators that are promoting this migration are tying it directly to the ban with lemonate sponsorship on those videos. we did reach out to tiktok and lemonate when we reported this story and they were saying that that was an oversight. we are still seeing those promoted videos on the app saying that users should go over to lemonate, specifically as a reaction to the ban.

host: to our caller's point about other social media apps and something that was brought up during the oral arguments, if the tiktok ban is upheld, could other apps that may be don't have a direct connection to china face the same fate down the road? are each one of those going to have to come up as an individual case? maria: so, i think that in order, i think that a lot of that will come down to the risk that these app stores will want to take. i think the easiest thing to do would be to remove all of these different app stores, or i'm sorry, all of these different apps from their app stores in order to avoid any type of legal liability. but bytedance is a very complex, multinational corporation and it will be difficult to make sure that all of its different operations are shut down. host: this question coming in on x for you from, i'm sorry, i'm

not sure how to say that name. they're asking, what precedent is there for banning foreign ownership of a private company? maria: when that foreign ownership is coming from a foreign adversary, there has been president in the united states to try to limit that type of communication within the united states. but certainly, shutting down an app that is this popular with 170 million people on it is unprecedented. host: let's hear from jim in missouri, langford democrats. good morning -- line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. the talk about collecting personal data, you put out a line through any platform, there is no privacy expectation. i don't see what the big deal is. misinformation, well, you know, meta has told us what they think of that.

we are not going to check facts anymore. not good. elon musk owns whatever it is, x now. he's a foreigner. why did he buy a social program and then get involved in politics? i do not see how you can block part of the internet or else i couldn't watch porn or whatever. the dark web is out there. how can you stop part of the internet? the information is out there on any other platform that you choose. maria: i think what the government's lawyers argued is that what makes tiktok a specific threat is for example, the chinese government has access to all of this data from every american individual, what we watch, you know, what our interests are, who are friends

are, that they could then, one example that came up yesterday during oral arguments is that they could end up using this information to recruit and retain, you know, spies in the united states or conduct those types of operations that are national security concerns. while there doesn't seem to be this broader sentiment that -- does seem to be this broader sentiment that all of these tech companies are collecting our data and may be using it in ways that the american public are not comfortable with, what the government has really try to do is single out tiktok's unique threats because of its ties to the chinese government. host: c-span did air the oral arguments yesterday. again, you can find them online at c-span.org. but it was during the oral arguments that u.s. solicitor general elizabeth pre-logger spoke about those national security concerns. here is some of her comments. >> the chinese government's control of tiktok poses a grave threat to national security. no one disputes that the prc

seeks to undermine u.s. interests by amassing vast quantities of sensitive data about americans and by engaging in covert influence operations. and no one disputes that the prc pursues those goals by compiling companies like bytedance to secretly turn over data and carry out prc directives. those realities mean that the chinese government could weaponize tiktok at any time to harm the united states. tiktok collects unprecedented amounts of personal data and as justice sotomayor noted, it's not just about the 170 million american users, but also about their nonuser contacts who might not even be engaging with the platform. that data would be incredibly valuable to the prc. for years, the chinese government has sought to build detailed profiles about americans, where we live and work, who are friends and coworkers are, what our interests are, and what our vices are. tiktok's immense data set would give the prc a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and

espionage. on top of that, the chinese government's control over tiktok gives it a potent weapon for covert influence operations and my friends are wrong to suggested that congress was seeking to suppress specific types of content or specific types of viewpoints. the national security harm arises from the very fact of a foreign adversary's capacity to secretly manipulate the platform to advance its geopolitical goals in whatever form that kin of covert operation might take. the act addresses the spread of reign adversary controlled with a focus. it requires -- with laserlike focus. it requires only divestiture of tiktok to prevent chinese government control and that divesture remedy follows a young tradition of borrowing for control of u.s. communication channels and other critical infrastructure. so no matter what level of first amendment scrutiny applies, this act is valid because it is narrowly tailored to address compelling national security threats. my friend mr. fisher just emphasized and i acknowledge that millions of americans enjoy

exposing themselves on this platform. but the important thing to recognize is that the act leaves all of that speech unrestricted once tiktok is fed from foreign adversary control. the first amendment does not bar congress from taking that critical and targeted step to protect our nation's security. host: again, those full oral arguments you can find on our website, c-span.org. we will hear next from walter, cleveland, ohio, line for democrats. morning. caller: good morning. my name is walter goggins. i am thinking about tiktok and twitter, or x. now, if the president trump and musk, they buy that tiktok, they have control of a lot of people, giving them false

information. now, if china have this tiktok, we would think, we would think twice about what the information we get. but if we have it, americans, you know, musk and trump, then we are not going to think twice about it. what we are going to do is just take that as being the truth. i feel like that's a problem. i don't know. i don't know what to do with that. ok, that's all i have to say. i think we should worry about that. maria: i think what you are speaking to hear is americans increasingly not knowing where to turn to for trusted information. we know that americans trust in, you know, legacy media, and you know, just in newspapers and media outlets -- trust in newspapers and media outlets is

historically low. a lot of people are consuming the information from these media outlets like accent facebook -- like x and facebook. i think what you are talking to is making sure there are fact checkers on his preference. but what we have seen is these social media ceo's are turning away host: from that approach. it was also this week that that happened at meta, it was announced they are ending a fact checking program. what are they going to do instead? maria: instead of having these fact checking teams, which was mark zuckerberg's ig in the first place and it was what he was, you know, really touting ahead of even this last election to the people who were concerned that election misinformation would once again run rampant on social media sites. he is now saying that too many mistakes are being made with this approach, and it is also leading to bias, and say he is now turning to an approach that is basically the community, the people on the platform are now

responsible for flagging what they think is not factual or is misinformation. that is very difficult to do for an average person who is not trained on these things. and it is what we have seen happening on x where misinformation has increased. host: what has the reaction to that announcement looked like? maria: you have, you know, advocates who are trying to combat harmful information online, child safety advocates really sounding the alarm over this. but you have, for example, the incoming administration, who is very happy to be seeing this. because for a while now, republicans and conservatives have been alleging the censorship of conservative views online and they view this as a win for free speech. host: do we know anything about other social media companies are potential changes that could father this trend -- follow this trend? maria: not at this point.

host: we will go to margaret in santa maria, california, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. what i want to say is that trump used to be against tiktok, then he got $400 million from a board member of tiktok for his campaign, now trump is no more than a lobbyist for tiktok. so, that was my point. maria: noted. host: we will go to steve in maryland on line for independents. good morning. caller: thank you for putting me on. i will try to be brief. i have been keeping this up for years. i have been all over the united states. i grew up in the deep south and i just got back from the deep south. i will make it quick. i think a lot of americans are super undereducated and are super lack of knowledge about chinese politics and the world control things. and a lot of these tiktok users and supporters, they really do

not appreciate freedom of speech and what china can do if they had their way. if there was a 9/11 that came to america and china caused it, and let's say if china suddenly took over the united states in every possible way, the freedom of speech would be gone, there would be even more sexism and racism, slavery would come back to the united states. so my view is these tiktok supporters and users, they don't understand that, and they should be just the polar opposite. they should stop using tiktok and start being proud americans and stop supporting the chinese way of doing things. because we won't have un-american anymore. that's mike -- have an american anymore. that's my comment. i love this country and the people supporting tiktok, i don't think they love america. thank you. host: any response? maria: i think, you know, for creators, they are really

viewing this as a way to, you know, grow their small businesses, get their messages out there, grow their brands, and this algorithm has really allowed them to reach audiences in a way that these other platforms have not allowed them to. if you la onyer -- layer on that while tiktok and bytedance does have a very specific danger tied to it, when you layer on that other platforms are also collecting our data and we don't know what's happening with it, we get to a point where it's difficult i think for these creators to specifically go out against this app. host: along those lines, this question from scott in massachusetts, he asks, what is the economic impact of a ban? he says it does not affect me per se as i am not on tiktok but others generate income from the platform. maria: that's right.

you have a lot of creators on this platform generating income further small businesses and their brands. and the impact would be big not just for creators but for the small businesses across the country that use this to promote their brands. at the of the day, this is really a case about free speech and national security concerns. as we saw yesterday from these justices who will ultimately decide whether or not to uphold this law, they seemed to really push the idea that these creators could go to different platforms. host: answer in new jersey -- andrew in new jersey, line for independents. good morning. caller: good per you had a gentleman on c-span some time ago -- good morning. you had a gentleman on c-span some time ago talking about banning tiktok because there's a darkside nobody's talking about. there's a thing on tiktok called the choking game where they challenge kids to chop themselves on till they pass out. and this is rampant and this is killing our children because they did a piece on " 60

minutes" a while ago where these parents said good night to their daughter, who was a high school student, she went into her bedroom and after a while, they checked on her, no response. and they busted down the door, they found her hanging. and on her bed was the phone with a tiktok app open and instructions how to hang herself. now, i have seen commercials about tiktok on tv where they help businesses, where they help a guy, world war ii veteran who got his scooter stolen, and money was raised on tiktok. but let's look at social media, what it is doing to our kids. we had a kid in middletown, new jersey who hung herself because she was being bullied on social media. so this is the wave of the future. and i served this country in the

military. this is not the country i served. thank you. maria: i think what you are speaking to is an issue that was really top of mind on capitol hill and in the biden administration and will continue to be a big issue in the incoming administration, which is protecting children online. these challenges that unfortunately result in a a lot of harm to children and in times even death are not just happening on tiktok, there happening on pretty much all of the other social media platforms owned by u.s. companies. and the content moderation practices that these companies were doing on their own voluntarily, which some of these companies are now letting go of, try to to really address this issue. but as we discussed today, some of these companies are now letting go of these approaches. and for a lot of child safety

advocates, those content moderation practices were not enough. they wanted even more protections for kids, like for example, making the platforms themselves liable for what happens on these platforms. that is a debate that on the hill constantly hits a dead-end because shifting the liability to these platforms would be a major shift that some argue could also end up in chilling free speech. host: we are talking about tech regulation beyond the future of tiktok. what are you going to be watching for? maria: we last, and this last congress, covered a regulatory -- a lot of regulatory efforts around artificial intelligence and we expect that to be a continued major point of discussion on capitol hill. except now i think the conversation is going to shift to promoting innovation, which is another way of saying deregulation or no regulation at all, really allowing these companies to continue to, you

know, make these products more and more powerful, releasing them out into the world, and you know, making the united states competitive in this tech race with china. so we will be seeing how that plays out on capitol hill and in the trump administration. host: let's talk with jim in massachusetts, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i've just got a general question of, if this app is not allowed in china for the citizens and the youth in china, why would we let it here in america? this past caller talked about the choking. you know that's not being seen or used in china so why would we let that app be here in america? thank you. maria: i think free speech advocates would say we allow all sorts of things in america that may be not allowed in china, because we allow americans those types of freedoms to decide what

they want to engage with. that's kind of at the heart also of this specific issue. you know, do we, as some of you it, infringe on some americans' first amendment rights in this country? or do we put these national security concerns first? host: joe in buffalo, new york, line for independents. good morning, joe. caller: good morning. like the previous caller talking about the millions of dollars that donald trump got in the election from tiktok, and basically, let's face it, it's a payoff. i would like to know who else was influenced by tiktok on capitol hill. maria: so, on capitol hill, we talk a lot about and report a lot about lobbying efforts from big tech companies and how that sometimes could get in the

way of regulations moving forward. but when it comes to tiktok and bytedance, there was actually very broad bipartisan consensus on the hill that opposes such a net -- that it poses such a national security concern that it should either be sold off to an american company or banned. there are only really three free-speech absolutists who are saying we still want this app around for free-speech purposes. host: let's hear from peter in silver spring, maryland. line for independents. good morning. caller: first of all, thank you so much for c-span. thank you for having this type of conversation online. it's really helpful to educate everybody. i think we are missing one of the points here, wishes to me a little concerned about trying to mask making profits off of misinformation and using free-speech as a reason that they are allowed to lie, they

are allowed to misrepresent all the information they want, but because of free-speech, we cannot quiet them down. and meta has just followed x, because by not fact checking, you can put up lies that generate billions of dollars in revenue and billions of dollars in algorithm generated profits. and this is all about making as much money as they possibly can and has nothing to do with free-speech. you should not be allowed to lie on free-speech. you should be able to be facts checked and held accountable for telling the truth. thank you. maria: yeah, and i think, you know, mark zuckerberg did see the way in which elon musk cozying up to trump has benefited him. right? elon musk is now, his department

of government efficiency has a place in the incoming administration. we will see how long it lasts but musk so far is exerting a lot of influence over policy decisions and politics. i think that is something mark zuckerberg probably saw and realized he could also potentially benefit from by implementing these policies that are going to be more favorable with the incoming trump administration. the decision to get rid of fact checkers was just at the latest in a long line of decisions from meta. you know, they just yesterday also recently announced they would get rid of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, so we are seeing a big shift in, you know, doing what is going to be seen as favorable with the incoming power dynamics in washington. host: deandre in baltimore, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i agree with the ban on tiktok

paired essentially, it's been proven that china, the ccp, an enemy of america has access to collect meta bulk data and who knows how long they have been doing it. think about the different people who uses tiktok or may have used it in the past, u.s. citizens, u.s. military personnel, government personnel, federal employees. imagine all the data, authenticity stuff, and passwords that's been collected by the ccp through this tiktok thing, basically knowing everything on your device, biometrics included. imagine that data being sold off to a foreign entity -- foreign enemy. i agree with this tiktok been. it should have banded along time ago. it should be something that should be really not necessarily enforced but really pushed and make the public aware of the cyber threats of these apps.

our foreign enemies can have access to everything, literally everything. thank you so much. thank you for c-span and god bless. maria: those concerns are certainly in line with the biden administration, the first trump administration, republicans and democrats on capitol hill, and the d.c. circuit court of appeals, so we will see where the supreme court lands on this. host: mike in virginia, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't agree we should ban tiktok. corrupt media is controlled, they cover what they want. they don't spread information -- disinformation like fox. they cover a story the way they want. in russia, they talk about ukraine but they stopped talking about gaza. i look to tiktok to see what's going on in gaza or go to bbc or go to france. they just want to control what we hear. tiktok, i can express myself on tiktok.

they are worried about china hacking our information -- if they are worried about china hacking our information, they already hacked, they look at everything. we have voice for america. we should not be afraid of free-speech. fox news, that's more dangerous to democracy than any other outlet. and even some people can say msnbc is disinformation. some people can say cnn disinformation. no. i am sorry to say, but i think a peck is the push -- i think aipac is the push behind this, to b what's going onan because we don't hear it on many media. i think it's a great place to express your believes. they can attack us with credit card, using guess, buying groceries. they know everything about us. i am not worried about taking my

personal information. everyone knows our personal information right now and that's what i want to say. you should not been tiktok. -- ban tiktok. maria: one of the main arguments from the government yesterday was that this isn't about speech at all, that this is about national security concerns. and so, if the exact same content that you are seeing on tiktok today could continue to exist, the government does not really care about the content itself. if people posting anti-american pro china content, if they want to continue to do that on any other platform, on youtube, on facebook, on instagram, on x, then they can go ahead and do that. what the government says it is trying to do is really cut off the chinese government's access to americans' sensitive data and any data really. because through that data, they could, you know, kind of

influence the american discourse and they could use that data to really target americans and many make them spies in the future -- maybe make them spies in the future and do covert influence campaigns. host: let's hear from jason in oregon, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i was just wanting to comment on basically what you were talking about earlier about fact checking and how they are saying that if we start fact checking, that that would be like against free-speech. right? but isn't fact checking, like, wouldn't that be a form of free speech within itself, too? why wouldn't that be free-speech as well? maria: i think in terms of the fact checking on these platforms, it matters because increasingly, this is where americans are getting their news and their information about current events. and so, it is not just you and

your friends talking at a restaurant. it is this, you know, big platform where conversations are happening, where people who are in power, republicans or democrats, are making statements. and if you don't have a systemic way to make sure that those statements are accurate, then that impacts the way that americans are receiving information and then making decisions based on that information. host: our last call in this segment, jim in pennsylvania, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning, ladies. thank you for listening to us. i have a question for the lady there. i understand china is buying up all the foreign land all the hotels and motels. they own 51% of chevrolet. now they are going to get into the steel mills here in pennsylvania. what is the difference, what is the difference if it's tiktok? they are buying up the country. they are getting the country.

and why is our politicians letting them do that? maria: i think what you're pointing to here is that this u.s.-china competition and increasing tension really goes beyond one social media platforms. we are seeing it across tech. you know, we are seeing that it will impact other segments of the economy as trump prepares to impose tariffs. i think what you are pointing to here is that it is a much broader discussion than just this social media platforms. i think this has gotten a lot of attention because it's a way that millions and millions of americans are talking everyday and it is a big part of the information ecosystem. host: our guest maria curi of axios, she is a tech policy reporter, you can find her work online at axios.com and on x at @axios. next on "washington journal," kelly dittmar of the center for american women and politics will

join us to discuss the role and trend of women serving in elected office. we will be right back. ♪ >> sharon mcmahon, host of the here's where it gets interesting podcast and author of the small and the mighty, is our guest sunday night on c-span. she profiles lesser-known americans who have changed the course of american history, including retail pioneers richard sears and alvin roebuck, clara brown and others. >> you ask people, who is the best person that you know? almost never will they say jeff bezos, right? almost never will they say some

tv star. they will almost always say somebody that has impacted them in some really, importantly that some really important weight. they are not rich, they don't have daddy's money, they're not on the side of a building. there are thousands of americans who have shaped the course of history, who have changed who the united states has become through their actions. before a variety of reasons, their stores have not been recorded in those bald-faced fonts and -- bold-faced fonts in history textbooks. >> sharon mcmahon with her book the small and the mighty sunday night on the c-span's q& you kalus intoa. -- you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> witness democracy unfiltered with c-span.

experience history as it unfolds with c-span's live coverage this month as republicans take control both chambers of congress and a new chapter begins with the swearingen of the 47 ash the swearing in of the 47 president of the 96. tune in for our live 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 this month for compressive, live, unfiltered coverage of the 119 congress and the presidential inauguration. c-span, democracy unfiltered. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now to discuss the role and trends of women serving in elected office is kelly dittmar. she's the research director at rutgers university's center for american women and politics. welcome back to the program. kelly: thanks for having me. host: remind our audience what the center does and its mission. kelly: for over 50 years, the

center for american women and politics has been investigating and tracking women's political progress. we are often known for tracking representation, so the numbers of women in office across levels. but we also do analysis of women as candidates, the diversity among women, as well as behavior of women as voters. and in addition to just keeping track of numbers, we do research to understand why those numbers are where they are, why it matters to have women's political representation across levels and types. and then, we do programs. our programs are also invested in building women's political power, so we have ready to run and new leadership national trying programs across many states that try to do this work to target it and support women and others who want to support women to increase their representation and influence in politics. host: and as you mentioned, the center does track the number of

women in politics at all levels. wanted to share the numbers for congress, for the new congress that just came into office last friday. if we are looking at the senate, there are 25 women serving in the 119th congress. that is 25%. there is 125 in the house. that is almost 29% of the 435 seats. and not included in those numbers, but we want to make sure to know to them, are four nonvoting delegates. when we look at those numbers, they are the same as they were last year. there's no gain. why? what are some of the factors behind those numbers staying where they are? kelly: we have a slight decrease by one, but yeah, they are at stasis. why is that?

there are a couple of reasons. one is we did not have a mass increase or significant increase in the number of women writing this cycle -- running this cycle, so we've had a smaller poor then we had in the past few cycles. we had a record year in 2018 we had a huge jump in the number of women running, as well as the number of women winning. and that continued through 2020. we are stern to see a kind of plateau and even a little bit of a decline since then going into 24, so that affects what the results will look like. we also had a high number of women retiring or leaving to run for other office. what that meant is that we started at a deficit in this cycle. we had to fill in those losses and then try to make additional gains. we had about 13 women leaving. we had 18 new women in the house. you're going to only see slight increases if any and then we saw other incumbent losses and

defeats along the way. the loss of some incumbents, the smaller number of candidates were certainly things that contributed. and lastly, typically in years where we see republicans fare better or at least democrats fare not as good as expected or not as good as they have in previous cycles, that tends to not be great for women because women are a large -- much larger propos should of democratic candidates then republicans -- proportion of democrat candidates that are pelicans. host: when we look at research -- then republicans. host: when we look at research, talk about the impact research has shown about women in congress. kelly: when we talk about the importance and representation of women, i will talk about maybe in three ways. one is it is a democratic comparative. we say we are a representative democracy, so our governmental

institutions should be representative of the constituents they serve. and of course, women are over 50% of the population so there's kind of a fairness, justice democratic comparative to white matters to have women in office. it is symbolically important. people look at government and they say, is that a place for me? is that a place that i can make change? if they don't see people who share some of their identities and lived experiences, they may believe it's not. and they may also have a little less trust in those institutions that they are going to look out for them. but lastly, as you're asking, primarily, people want to know, what difference does it make and policy? research i and my colleagues have done as well as other scholars have looked at the substantive differences and outcomes of having women in office. it's knowledge changing a specific policy or bring a specific policy outcome, it is changing conversations. we know when women are

habitable, there are going to raise different -- are at the table, they're going to raise different lived experiences and concerns that may be of their male counterparts would not have. we could require welfare, but what are we going to do about the childcare aspect of that? when we had more women than ever on the armed services committee, women were saying are we going to address sexual assault issues in the military in a serious way? that was women across the aisle. there were also send we should make sure body armor fits women in the right way. there are just real-life experiences and perspectives that women bring that will shape not only the outcomes, but the agendas and the conversations. host: our guest for the next 35 minutes or so is kelly dittmar, research director at rutgers university's center for american women and politics. if you have a question or comment for her, you can start calling in now paired the lines, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. an independents, -- and

independent, (202) 748-8002. along the lines of what you were just saying, i wanted to share a headline that was out last month from abc news. it says no women will lead house committees for the first time in two decades. your reaction? kelly: yeah, i mean, this is part and parcel of the partisan division or problem we have when we talk about women's medical representation. i mentioned earlier that the candidate phase, democratic women are much better represented among democratic candidates than are republicans but the same is true when we look at officeholders. from the state legislative level to congress, women are a much smaller proportion of all republicans or republican caucuses. in fact, when you look at state legislators, for example, in over half of our states, women are at parity or above with

their democratic counterparts in the democratic party. but in those states, ar women at paritye with men among republicans? when we look at congress and any other level of office, that has real implications for the work of that caucus, especially when republicans are in the majority. what we are seeing in the house is that now republicans again are in the majority. that means they hold all the chairmanships. and there are not enough women, there are not women in that level of seniority at this point to hold those chairmanships. there are just a smaller number that are likely to ascend to those positions. if democrats were in control, we would have many more. we see that in the ranking member's. to me, it leads me to kind of the continued request or hope that the republican party also look at ways to be more strategic and targeted in the support of women.

but we can talk more about this. that has really been counter to the philosophy of the party, which has said we don't worry about or target demographic diversity, we are focused on merit, and we should not look at identity as part of that. host: we will bring our audience into the discussion and start with homer in louisiana, line for democrats. good morning. caller: how are you this morning? i am a native two year old veteran. -- i am an 82-year-old veteran. excuse me. and i think women ought to get a good chance at this. these old white men have been doing for the last 400 years. so why don't we give women the chance? they've got the biggest voting bloc. i didn't understand, a lot of things going on.

i would like to see in my lifetime how the women run this thing. thank you for your time, for letting me rattle off. thank you. host: kelly your response? kelly: first off, thank you for your service. and i certainly agree that there are so many more opportunities for women to ascend to political leadership. unfortunately, we have had a lot of barriers and challenges in the way. some who don't have that same belief that women's lived experiences and perspective should be brought into office. one thing i just want to add to that just because the caller mention his status as a veteran. sometimes when we talk about the importance of women's representation, those who may be rejected the idea that we should care about gender divisions or differences will say, well, that's just checking off a box, it doesn't mean anything.

when we say we want more veterans or folks with military experience, we say that's really valuable, right? and i agree. i agree though that the same way we think about veterans having distinct lived experiences that would matter for policy discussions, women in our country and women of diverse back runs have distinct -- diverse backgrounds have distinct lived experiences but most every measure, education, health, economically and so we should value those experiences in similar ways. host: let's hear from tina in tennessee, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, tina. caller: ok. i was calling to say that my mother went to vanderbilt university and she was a secretary at my high school. i wanted to be an engineer. so i applied, my first choice was m.i.t., and i got a letter

back like three days later that basically said, it didn't say you must be stupid, it just said, in case you haven't heard, we don't accept women. so i applied to my second choice, i didn't want to stay in nashville where i lived, was georgia tech and i got the same letter back. i didn't think to read about what sexes they took. my third choice was vanderbilt. and when i got there, i was com plimented that my advisor, the advisors always pick the students that they want because they can compete with each other. being the student that assigned these let people pick first, he picked me as one of his. asked him why and he said, i always pick all the girls and there are four in your class of about 400 people, because their standards are so high that they

do well. they do better than all the rest. if my mother hadn't been a secretary -- if it hadn't been for my father saying you can be an engineer, just keep trying, i would not have applied that working, because i didn't know anybody whose mother worked. if my mother had worked, my grandmother had worked in a professional position, i would have been a lot more likely to go into it. we are just reaching -- i'm a grandmother now and have grandmother -- and have grandchildren going into professions. i have a granddaughter who is a lawyer. so, that example, what do i know that adults did when you are in high school makes a big difference. we are just entering into the position where people can see examples of women, basically.

host: kelly? guest: i agree. that is such a good example of you can't be what you can't see. i was thinking about the symbolic importance of having women in positions of political power. it is important to tangibly measure that. i have colleagues who have done work to look at young people and who they see as political leaders. we do see biases even the women are increasing their representation. it is more likely if you see a young person to draw a political leader they draw a man because that is what they're used to seeing. that has real ripple and psychological effects because young women may say, what are my options? is politics one of those? i should add that there are of

course racial disparities across this level of office. the same is true. if you don't see individuals like you who share those identities and experiences, you might decide that this place is not for you and what that means is you lose your voice in the political process. so, it's important and that is one of the reasons we do the work we do to amplify the women who are there and what they are doing across the aisle, across parties, as well as to encourage others, young women especially, to consider this path of political service. one other thing that the caller mentioned was different standards. unfortunately, we see that is still true. we can look to our most recent election and find plenty of examples where women are often held to higher standards. there anticipation of that means when they are campaigning for office you will see women more likely talk through all of their qualifications, have detailed policy plans, and people still

say it's not enough. we know that for men, a lot of the times those qualifications are just assumed. we still have an unlevel playing field. while it is improving, it is unlevel when it comes to expectations and standards to which candidates and officeholders are held. host: a few weeks after the election you had an op-ed in forbes. election 2024 brings no increase in women's congressional representation. in the peace you note that net counts are not the only indicator of success when it comes to progress of women in politics. walk us through some of the wins or some of those other factors or gains that women picked up in the november election. guest: absolutely. when we talk about representation, it's not just a

number. there are particular ways in which we saw more and different types of representation for different types of women. on the republican side where there were not a lot of gains, we saw the election of the first woman to the house from north dakota. that is a state that will now have a different perception of who is in office. sarah mcbride became the first trans-woman in congress. as we have seen, unfortunately, in the news there has been backlash to that by some of her peers in congress, but she is demonstrating the ways in which i think quite respectfully navigating the space, talking about and demonstrating the importance of her presence. we will see that as policy debates etc. continue. we also had some versus in terms of race and ethnicity. our center is based in new

jersey and we had our first latina woman elected to congress. in oregon, the first black woman was sent to congress. these are all gains when we think about the diversity of women's representation. i would add one more thing. beyond the congressional level, we also now have three states at parity, meaning that women are at or above 50% of the full state legislature. while that is only three of 50 states, it is the first time we have -- we have only before had one state at any given time that reached that level of parity. we are reaching gains both in parity and women serving in office. caller: i can appreciate what the guest is saying, and i do,

but when she mentions the last election cycle, it looks like the only thing standing in the way of women is women. that's what it looks like to me, because -- it seems to me that women voted really overwhelmingly against their own interests. this is who they elected. it was women who put this guy in. who were those women and why they went for this guy as opposed to the democratic candidate? host: kelly? guest: i mean, i would remind the caller that the largest percentage of support for donald trump was wightman. -- white men. men were more likely to support donald trump. women in every election since

1980 have voted overwhelmingly for the democratic candidate. probably speaking to a subsection, white women, and more specifically noncollege educated white women. we saw this cycle white women overall went for republican. they've done so in every election for many cycles. but when you drill that down even further, college educated white women have moved increasingly, since the election of donald trump, to the left with their support. getting closer to 60% of that group has voted for kamala harris. i agree that there are conversations to be had about which groups are supporting whom, but we need to be very specific. that is true among men as well. these groups are not monolithic and who they support. i would add, there is an assumption that women should just vote for women. or that all women, in terms of

policy, are pro-choice. that's not true. we allow for the same -- we allow for the diversity of men's points of view when it comes to policy issues or who they vote for -- we don't assume men just vote for men, so we shouldn't do the same for women. not to say that we shouldn't have real conversations with women, especially in the case that you have candidates that have been blatantly misogynistic in their commentary and policy, i agree with that, but we should recognize that women are not monolithic in their priorities, in their privilege, and what they want to see in policy outcomes. host: jerry in new jersey, the line for democrats. good morning. caller: hello. i listen to you, and i have a question. i will ask it after my comment. i am a registered democrat. i voted for biden in the primary.

of course, he got hold out by the democrats and they put in harris and forced her down our throats. i went with trump. the question i have is twofold. one, we have republicans that are up -- not republicans, democrats held together. and we have others like sarah and stuff like that. no one was more critical of the women than the democrats. you're not quite supportive of women like you say. i've noticed if they are republican -- but if it is a democrat it is ok. how proud of you are -- in california, the girl who was governor after trump who screwed up the whole thing, these are all women in charge you are blowing it. who would you think could run as a woman in 2028 that could

really be? at? at the rate they are going -- barbara walters, i could go on and on. nancy pelosi getting rich. who? who is going to run on the democratic side. your democrats are blowing it. they are -- host: kelly? guest: i want to clarify that they are not my democrats. we are a nonpartisan center. i'm talking about successes for republican women, democrats, etc. i want to clarify we lift up women across party lines. that is why we are so concerned about the divisions or disparities between parties. in terms of the question about individual women and the caller's assessment they are doing a poor job. too often when we talk about women's political representation, fingers are pointed to one woman who did one thing, or another woman who

didn't do another thing, to say therefore women's representation is an important or shouldn't be valued. we don't do the same thing to men. we have histories of men who have arguably not done a great job in government. i not argue that means we shouldn't have no men in government. we have to be careful about these widespread claims. also, among some of those women, we should look at the greats. they may be held to a different standard. we know very little right now about karen bass' leadership through what is a current catastrophe. we know about her historic leadership as one of the black women of the house nationwide who had a pretty stellar record. she was successful in the u.s. house. from what we know already, already successful in her role as mayor. we have to wait and see how this

will pan out. she should be held to the same standard as any other leader in terms of criticism, but then not be painted as a representative of all women or all black women based on whether someone thinks she did a good job. we have to be careful in our assessment and consider the ways we may be critical of women in ways that are not the same to the men who are both currently serving and have historically. the caller asked one other question about the democratic bench, i guess. who is there going forward? this is a real question. i'm sorry to punt this, but this is a real question that the democrats are going to have to grapple with, as are the republicans after trump's term is over. who is really in line who can capture voters? for the democrats, who can capture voters that even harris wasn't able to capture this time. there are no shortages of women.

there are lots of qualified democratic women. we have a record number of democratic women governors who are serving, who are often on the lists. like gretchen whitmer, or others who are currently holding off his who are often put on the short list. we have women in the senate and the house. those are some women you might consider and start looking at as we look at their role and attempts to travel the country over the next four years. host: let's hear from diane in manchester, missouri on the line for republicans. caller: how are you? i have a question. i am upset. i am older than this woman, kelly, on. she made some statements that are just wrong about women are more democratic -- are more likely to be democrats than republicans. i find that wrong because of my

social group and people from all aspects of life, you know. that's not correct. i also find the democrats are not put forward a candidate like that would be seriously considered. i mean, kamala harris, forget that. even hillary had more experience than kamala, but she had a lot of baggage. you have to look at an individual. just because she is a woman you can't just vote for is what they were trying to do this past election. kamala is black and a woman. black men have to vote for her, and women have to vote for her. that's crazy. you have to vote for the qualification and the person itself, not what the democrats tell you to vote for. host: kelly? guest: yeah, i agree with you.

i think most democrats probably agree with you as well. one thing that was interesting in the harris campaign that i got asked a lot about is, why does she not talk more about being a woman, being a black woman in making history? she said i don't take any votes for granted. i'm not asking people to vote for me because i'm a woman or a black person. i actually don't think -- there were people who said, you're asking people to vote for her because she is a black woman. that wasn't the message of the campaign and certainly not a message of organizations like ours who are saying, yes, you should value the representation of women, but that is not why you vote for somebody. you vote for somebody because you think that they represent the things you care about. what i am arguing and what i think the larger literature in terms of representation would argue is, at least in part, identity and lived experiences

are part of the credentials that you bring to being a candidate. so, women may have some overlap with the lived experiences of the caller. kamala harris' experiences are going to be very different perhaps from the caller's. maybe or maybe not, right? those are things that you can look at to raise part of that story. i would follow up on the idea that i was presenting this information. you can look at any data -- presenting disinformation. you can look at any data on partisan representation for 45 years and it is consistently true that women in the electorate, maybe not in a particular community, but in the u.s. electorate overall identify overwhelmingly as democrats. i shouldn't say over 50% of women are democrats and are more likely to vote for democratic candidates. that is true. that data is on our website if

people would like to see it. host: kelly, i will share some of that data with our audience. there are numbers coming from your organization that look at women serving in congress to date. when we look at the senate, there have been 44 women in the senate, including 27 democrats, 17 republicans. 377 have been in the house, 200 52 democrats, 125 republicans, plus 8 nonvoting delegates. that breaks down evenly, 4 democrats and 4 republicans. 19 have served both in the house and senate. 12 democrats and six republicans and one independent. i want to note one of the numbers on the website when we look at those numbers, when we look at women serving in

congress to date, 3.3% of all women in congress. we will hear next from you that -- from yvette in florida. caller: listening to this conversation, i want to pass on my own experience with women these days. the ones that i've met in the military, for instance, here in florida, were so impressive. i was so impressed with these women. also, the young women in high school, i have recently met some young women who i visited with who were very impressive as well. i think the white men are voting for the beat your chest guy because they are afraid of these women. they are beating them out in law school and medical school, from what i'm reading. i'm just saying, guys, quit

whining and compete. it's just -- you know? they want us over there in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, so they don't have to compete. host: we will get a response from kelly. guest: thank you. i appreciate looking to the next generation and the optimism that yvette is bringing to the conversation. when we look at activism and advocacy, a colleague of mine has written a great book on the politics of gen z. talking about high levels of mobilization among gen z, particularly among gen z women and even more specifically gen z women of color who are really taking a lead when we look at protest politics, advocacy and all sorts of areas.

environment, gun-control, class-based arguments to look at greater equity in those areas, educational access, things like that. young women in particular are really impressive in the work that they are doing. not to say that young men are not as well, but we are seeing even gender differences in that level of engagement and participation. it's true that the future is bright there in terms of seeing more women hopefully translate that advocacy into an interest and success into running for office so we can continue to see the gains in officeholders. the other thing that the caller raises is, literature would talk about it as male or masculine fragility. the book "backlash" speaks to this in some way to say when we see progress, gender progress, racial progress, etc., which we have seen, often we confront a

backlash to that. it's often based in a perception that my well-being or privilege is under threat. i think we are seeing that among some men, some communities of white people, and it is something that donald trump in his elections has tapped into by saying we will go back. we will go back to when these groups had greater privilege and greater security and more traditional gender roles. it is absolutely part of our politics of this moment. host: we are talking about the importance of women in elected office, but there are also a lot of women who work behind the scenes. it was the day after the november election that president-elect trump named susie wiles as his chief of staff. she will be the first woman in that post. talk about the importance of women working in politics that in less visible roles.

guest: it is important. thank you for thinking about and pointing out the representation of women in unelected positions. it is something i've been thinking about when we think about congressional staff or consultants. those who inform the politics of our moment whose names we often don't know. when we think about women's political representation we think about power. power can be defined in lots of ways. one way is to think about, how much influence do women have on outcomes in these political spheres? someone like susie wiles, who obviously had a prominent role in the trump campaign, will now have a prominent role in the white house, that is a lot of influence. that is power. arguably more than some women in the u.s. senate. we have to look at all of the areas where women can gain political influence, power, and try to, i would argue, encourage women to think about those roles for themselves. in addition to the high-level

staff roles in the white house, you could be a legislative or congressional staffer. in our system, lobbyists are very influential. a bad name is given to some lobbyists, but they are a source of information and influence for elected leaders. it is a place where women if they care deeply about policy issues may think about lobbying and advocacy as a way to influence outcomes. when we look at the representation of women in these unelected roles we have also seen the persistent underrepresentation. that has been true in the white house and high levels of leadership, cabinet leadership. even in the trump administration before. we want to think about ways, how do we put more pressure on those who are selecting those staffs and appointees to consider diversity in that

selection? many will push back against that suggestion, but if you recognize the value of perspectives and lived experiences, you might see the value of encouraging more diversity across these unelected roles. host: let's hear from juanita. caller: how are you? it is very cold here in cincinnati. before i say anything, i want to make a comment about the lady who is going to be trump's chief of staff. as far as i'm concerned, she will be another mark meadows, so i am not impressed at all. secondly, about mrs. harris, can you imagine what the backlash would have been had in any way, shape, or form she would say she would lie on her race and gender

to be elected? a lot of black men did not vote for her either. thirdly, all you have to do, and i am an old lady so i can say it, all you have to do is look at the numbers in congress. women tend to bring to congress the things that make houses or homes work. things like, if you're taking care of mom and dad who is going to take care of the kids? who is going to make sure that the gas and electric wills are paid? who is going to make sure that the house taxes are paid, especially in red states? i live across from kentucky. half of the staff went to trial but half of the state doesn't have a nursing home and in their hospitals have closed. the numbers tell why women over the years have become

democrats. we will have to see what happens in the next four years. thank you. host: kelly? guest: thank you for that point. you stated it more clearly than i did in terms of the value of women's congressional representation. i want to back that up with interviews that we did in congress. my colleagues and i did a book called "a seat at the table" or we talk to over 80 women across party lines. one thing that continually came back to when we asked why does it matter when you are here, they talked about exactly with the caller was talking about. which is, we understand the distinct challenges of caregiving and running a household economically in terms of care or responsibilities, being in a sandwich generation caring for elderly parents and kids. they would talk about having those experiences and

responsibilities in their personal lives really did influence what they brought the congress. whether it be thinking about paid leave, which, by the way, republicans and democratic women have led on, just they have a different model for how you get there. but they were still leading on those questions. or eldercare issues, social security changes that would better address caregiving, we see women leading on so many of those things, as the caller said.i think that there are ample examples of why and how it matters, and that you can apply those across party lines. one other thing that the caller mentioned in terms of how difficult it would have been for kamala harris to ever say, vote for me, or think about my race and gender in this. she is absolutely right. where that to be something she did say, the criticism would be, she is playing the gender card or she is playing the race card.

as the earlier caller noted, there was an argument that she was even though she never said those words. there is a constraint you have as a candidate representing very diverse identities from what we've seen in office where, as you have white male candidates, donald trump repeatedly said that if hillary clinton -- she doesn't have the presidential look. he was very much playing into identity, but often we don't call it out as such when we assume the neutrality of whiteness and maleness. host: one last call, laura in pennsylvania on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to say, first of all, women are what runs this country if you think about it. they are caretakers and givers. kamala harris, i felt so bad for her when she had to stand up

there next to the speaker and have to say the numbers. that had to be so humiliating for her. i felt so bad. also, trump, ok, he hired women for certain jobs, but we need somebody in national security who can run this country. she has no clue, absolutely. he just hires women he likes that have no experience. we are under siege right now inside our country, you know. we need a woman that knows what she's doing. if you're going to elect a woman, it doesn't matter what she looks like. it is the experience. that is what really gets me. i don't understand how the people don't see what he's doing. it's just -- he is a circus.

host: we will get a response. we are running short on time. guest: i want to echo the fact that this is absolutely true. none of this work or argument is to say any woman, support all women regardless of their beliefs or experience. the argument that i would make, many of us make, and i think the caller is making is that women should be held to the same standard. the same scrutiny over qualifications, perspective as their male counterparts, not higher. if we do that, we should see more women in positions of power and influence in ways that can make positive outcomes. also, not all women are going to share the same position. that is why we want a diversity of women in office, because we have a diversity of viewpoints, experiences, and desires of women in the electorate. host: kelly dittmar, you can

find her work online. kelly, thank you for joining us for this conversation. guest: thank you. host: we are wrapping up today's "washington journal" with public forum. if there is a policy issue come you can start calling in now. -- policy issue you would like to talk about, you can start calling in now. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> democracy is always an unfinished creation. >> democracy is worth dying for. >> democracy belongs to us all.

>> we are here in the sanctuary of democracy. >> right responsibilities once again fall to the great democracies. >> democracy is bigger than any one person. >> freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected. >> we are still come at our core, a democracy. >> this is also a massive victory for democracy and freedom. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. here's a look at what's coming up this weekend. at 4:30 p.m. eastern, human rights advocate with "the troublemaker" talks about the life and activism of a hong kong mogul and dissident who is being tried for sedition and other crimes by the chinese government. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwords, "99% perspiration: a

working history of the american way of life" argues that hard work isn't enough to obtain the american dream. he is interviewed by an author. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> next week on the c-span networks, the house and the senate are both in session. the house continues work on the republicans' priority list of 12 bills focusing on immigration and border security bill. the senate continues work on the laken riley act to detain migrants for theft-related crimes. stay tuned to the c-span networks for comprehensive coverage of confirmation hearings for president-elect trump's cabinet nominees. pete hegseth, the nominee for defense secretary, will testify before the senate armed services committee. kristi noem, tapped to lead the department of homeland security,

will meet before the homeland committee. florida senator marco rubio for secretary of state goes to the senate foreign relations committee. the former florida attorney general pam bondi nominated for u.s. attorney general will begin her u.s. confirmation hearings testifying before the senate judiciary committee across wednesday and thursday. watch next week come alive on the c-span networks, or on c-span now our free mobile video app. also, c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on-demand any time. c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are an open forum for the rest of today's "washington journal." first, an update on the wildfires in california. reporting from nbc this morning says the fires have killed at least 11 people and has swept

through 37,900 acres in the greater los angeles area, destroying communities and more than 12,000 structures. says evacuation orders for the largest place, the palisades fire, has expanded east and threatens brentwood and encino. the fire is 8% contained. at least 153,000 l.a. residents were under evacuation orders overnight. also, the los angeles county declared a public health emergency, warning that smoke and particle matter could pose immediate and long-term threats. it was yesterday during the white house briefing the fema administrator deanna criswell spoke about the federal response to the california wildfires. >> recovery from these fires is going to be complex. i have seen many disasters throughout my four years.

this is one of the worst i've seen. the debris removal alone is going to be one of the major things we have to accomplish, that the state has to accomplish, to get the recovery journey started. that is why when president biden authorized 100% reimbursement for the first 180 days, it's really going to set the stage to jumpstart the recovery for these communities. i had a chance to drive through some of the communities that were impacted, and it is not just homes lost. we have seen schools destroyed, businesses, small businesses, religious institutions. these are things we are going to be able to help with temporary facilities, like temporary schools to get children back into the schoolhouse, but also any emergency measures as they begin the work of permanent repair. thousands of homes have been destroyed.

we continue to hear the numbers change, but know this is going to be a long-term recovery for all of the individuals that have been impacted. as i told the governor and mayor yesterday and today, i assured them that our programs, our staff, the entire federal family is going to be with them, alongside them, helping them achieve the outcomes they need to to not just rebuild these communities, but rebuild them in a way that's going to make them stronger and more resistant to the types of weather events they have been experiencing. the recovery journey will be long, but we will be there with them to support them every step of the way. host: we will start this open forum segment with henry from georgia on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. in response to your previous guest, i think that any quotas

based on race and gender and diversity, i think that's just a trashcan of promoting someone into a position. simply putting someone in a position doesn't always mean that the decisions they make will be decisions you agree with. so, you have to take some salt along with the sugar. i do believe that one of the characteristic downfalls of filling positions is to base it on a quota race or gender system. merit should be utmost. of course, everyone will decide that they support or do not support the vision and representation, type of

representation the voter particularly wants. no person voted into an office or promoted into a position is a panacea for all the problems they are going to have to deal with. thank you very much for your time, and also the opportunity to comment. host: henry in georgia. diane in ohio on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, kimberly. first of all, i want people to know next month i will be 72 and i am white. the other day when they were talking about black lives matter, i watched the kyle rittenhouse hearing. the three people he shot, two of which died, were white supremacists. obviously, it must appear that

any time there was disturbance during the time the people were doing the -- i can't think of the word that i want to use right now. when they were demonstrating, that white supremacists started the trouble. second of all, i want to thank president biden for being here because he did an excellent job. i wished harris would have became president, because i know this year we are going to be in a recession because of this man coming into office. if anybody thinks he's not after six, six -- he lost all that money, and now he things he can do better. he knew back in september of 19

-- i mean, 2019 that we were going to have a pandemic. in october of that year, my older sister was in the city that it occurred in. when she came back, she was very sick. luckily, she lived through it. he could have stopped that rack then -- that back then. all of the lives lost, that was trump. host: david in new york on the line for independents. caller: well, we have the tinfoil hat brigade calling in. we are on the younger side. we have three daughters and live in new york city. my question to the previous caller would have been, what is a woman? we have girls who go to gifted schools and they are being edged out by dialogical me -- by biological men who are coming and taking their scholarships on track and volleyball. we sit here and try to teach

them that they need to work hard, but they are completely overshadowed by these biologic men. i would ask that quick question. what is a woman. thank you. host: amy and west virginia. the line for republicans. caller: thank you for this topic. i wanted to ask a question and make the comment, how are there going to be more women republican candidates when the news media absolutely seeks to destroy every single one of them? it happens locally where i am at . it happens everywhere you go and everywhere you look. it's absolutely true that they will be destroyed by the media in any way possible if they run. how can a center such as yours we'll with situations like that and get help so more republican women can be representatives? host: that was amy in west virginia. our guest is no longer with us,

that she is at twitter. if you tweet your question you may get a response. carry on the florida line for democrats -- terry on the florida line for democrats. caller: i am thinking about the wildfire. i feel for those people, but we have more serious issues that trump needs to take care of. not renaming the gulf of mexico. if that is the case, why don't you give california back to mexico? i can't understand this man. we have too many problems for him to be raising petty issues. he's not a leader. god really bless and forgive those who voted for him. i see no way that the u.s. is going to make it through this. i'm putting my trust in god and

not in any old white man or men. we need to get a younger group in. that has a bigger view of this country. not bringing in a south african who has hate in his heart. i'm sorry, i'm just upset. thank you. host: terry. i wanted to show this headline from this morning's "washington post." federal prosecutors seek at least 15 years for bob menendez. the former senators was found guilty on 15 felony charges for large-scale bribery plots. prosecutors in the southern district of new york described menendez as a historic figure. in a sentencing memorandum this

week, he is the first u.s. official found guilty of acting as an agent of a foreign country and the first whose corruption offenses have reached a top position in a senate committee. he was the ranking democratic member and then the chairman of the influential foreign affairs panel during the bribery scheme, which ran from 2018 to 2020 according to records from his trial. over nine weeks last year, prosecutor showed how three businessmen, wael hana, fred daibes, and jose uribe showered menendez and his wife with hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash-filled envelopes, checks, gold bars, jewelry, household items, and a mercedes-benz convertible in exchange for menendez's help securing business deals with officials affiliated with the

governments of egypt and qatar. he also tried to disrupt several active criminal investigations into daibes and uribe's. menendez is poised to not only lose his office but his pension, law license, and has already suffered reputation only by becoming a "national punchline." good morning, louise. caller: you are doing a great job. before i make my comment about the open forum, i wanted to mention the woman who called earlier in from ohio. i hope that she is listening. donald trump did try to close down everything, all of the flights coming in, bringing covid in, bringing the wuhan virus. nancy pelosi, and everyone in

the democrats, california, faucc i, they had a fit. woman from ohio, i hope you hear this. in north carolina, we have been devastated and i've heard nothing from biden. nothing about 100% helping us. i just wanted to say this, because everyone in america needs to see what kind of fool we have in that administration right now. thank god donald trump won. host: brad in minnesota on the line for republicans. caller: good morning there. i wish that your last guest that you had on was still on, but it is almost crazy talk to have this dei stuff going on. you wonder why we are where we are at, and it is because of young woman like her. she really can't do much more than talk. i wouldn't have her lead.

she is no leader. to stand there -- and she pointed out, like, people should have white jokes. it is like, wait a minute. that is over the line when she starts talking like that. i look at it like -- are we just going to talk about trump? all of the guests you have coming on trump haters? you already got in the last eight years of having trump haters on here your show, now we are going to have four more. think about it. you are going to have 12-13 years on c-span of just trump haters. i think when you got rid of steve -- i still think steve is in the background giving the type of guests you've got coming on. i hope that "washington journal" turns away and doesn't keep following the steps of msnbc and

cnn. i mean, listen how half of these people are talking. they are crazy. they listen to the wrong things in their life and -- host: who would you like to see come on that would speak favorably of trump? caller: regardless -- why do you have to keep talking about trump, trump, trump? how about we start talking about the things that really matter? how about bringing on people who just want to talk about the direction of where they believe our country should be going instead of always that the problems we are in now are caused by trump? the people calling in that are democrats, it is always trump. you know what, you didn't work there when steve worked there. it seems like steve is still behind the scenes pulling the strings and having these types of people still coming on and on and on. i, i, i never talk with you and

i have talked with all of the other hosts there. i mean, what am i, what are people to think that when you continually go down this road the same as msnbc and cnn? it is just like you are a parent company to them. host: brad, we do have guests on with a variety of viewpoints on a variety of topics. we encourage you to continue watching the program as we have those guests on. joe in chicago come the line for democrats. guest: good morning -- caller: good morning. i would like to say about this tragedy, a natural disaster which has occurred in southern california. the republican standpoint of attacking the democratic leadership on the issue of not enough water available. it doesn't make a difference how much water and how much fire

apparatuses they would have had to fight this fire. nothing would have been enough. it was like the firebombing of dresden during world war ii. all you have to do is look at the pictures and see the devastation. there was never going to be enough, ok. never going to be enough. there was nothing that could have been done. for the incoming president, and this is for the guy who just called, trump has no business knocking anybody on the response of what wasn't done. he is going to be running the show in about a week. he should be there being presidential on what he is going to do to help these people, like joe biden is doing now. that's all i've got to say. this is a disaster and let's treat it as such and get the politics out of it.

thank you. host: sarah in indiana on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: to the guy who just talked, biden told gavin newsom a long time ago they needed to do something about the underbrush and all that and they cut him off and made fun of him, but that's not my point. i agree with the guy from minnesota about your station, tammy. do you realize your last guest, and i do it every day, your last guest you called six democrats, one republican, and no independents. pull it back up, people, if you don't believe me. the guy from minnesota saying how you guys are. guess what, they got a cnn guy on there. it is not steve anymore. they have a guy who came over from cnn, people. wake up. tammy, i used to mark down how you guys would call. oh my god, it is overwhelming

how you vote democrat. pull it up. go back in the archives, sit down, and start writing it down. you are a democrat. we know it. and so is the other lady. the only one really, the black lady, is the only -- is the best one out of all of you ladies. host: her name is kimberly. we will go to alex in detroit, michigan on the line for independents. good morning, alex. caller: i don't know how you take it. you good. i just want to say about, the gop, maga, when you watch those people talk on their podcasts and stuff, all those guys, they -- their gotcha phrase is what is a woman. when i was in junior high when

they used to have debates and stuff, one-on-one stuff, you had to have a gotcha question. what is a woman? in the 1960's, a woman was your mama. that is what a woman is. tell these maga folks when they ask you what is a woman, tell them, your mama. host: our last call is willie from hope mills, north carolina on the line for republican. caller: good morning. i first want to establish one thing. i'm not identified as an african-american. i am a black american. generations of history in this country. to me, the division is ridiculous. the democrats need to accept the fact that you've lost. biden's scorched earth policy of

making things extremely difficult for the incoming administration is just ridiculous. why are they doing it? host: that was willie in north carolina. one more caller, richard, line for democrats. caller: good morning. i was glad to get in. oklahoma is close to me where i live. they want to put the 10 commandments in the school. i think they ought to change the 10 commandments, the president has adultery, he lied to us, he stole from all of the people that he did business with. i am an old man, 87 years old, you know. i'm going to die pretty soon. trump is an old man and he is going to die too pretty soon.

he ought to go out and enjoy life instead of being a pest. host: our last call in today's "washington journal." thank you to our callers, our guests, and everyone who watched. we are back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern with another edition of "washington journal." enjoy the rest of your day. ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal," our life form involving you to discuss the latest issues in politics and public policy from washington and across the country. coming up sunday morning, evelyn farkas and reid smith discuss

foreign-policy challenges facing the incoming trump administration. then mpr's -- npr's roben farzad on economic stories to watch in 2025. join the conversation live 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now our mobile video app, or online at >> later today, governor josh stein full deliver his inaugural address. he served as attorney general of the tar heel state and defeated republican lieutenant governor mark robinson in the november election to succeed governor roy cooper. watch his remarks on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span. democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more,

including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers. we are just getting started. building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter commucations supports c-span as a public service, ang with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. host: this is "washington journal" for saturday, janua 11. yesterday a judge sentenced prident-elect elect donald trump to an unconditional discharge for all 34 counts a falsifying business records in the first degree. it means no punishment such as jail time or fines or probation will be impo we want to hear your thoughts on

the sentencing. democrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-800. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text your comments to (202) 748-8003. be sure to include your name and city. you can also post a question or comment on facebook at facebook.com/c-span or on x at @cspanwj. thank you for being with us. we will get to your calls and comments in a few minutes. first some headlines in today's newspaper about that sentencing. this from "the wall street journal." sentenc cements trump as a felon. with the sentence, trouble be the first felon to occupy the oval office. the front page of the washington

post, trump becomes first president to be sentenced. from the article, it says president-elect donald trump received no penalty friday for his convictions and his hush money trial, an extraordinary moment that saw him become the first u.s. president sentenced for a crime. the sentencing hearing, held just 10 days before trump's to be inaugurated for a second term , reflected the history and affirmed that trump would be the first president to enter office as a felon. trump, sometimes scaling or looking away, appeared on a screen from new york -- from florida as new york supreme court justice juan merchan spoke about the difficulty of sentencing the incoming president. he did speak