♪ host: this is the washington journal for january 15. republicans and democrats had the chance to question president

elect trump's choice for defense secretary. yesterday's hearing, democrats question him on his past relations with women and if he has enough experience to manage the pentagon. republicans were largely supportive of the candidate. some had critical questioning presented by the democrats. it is up to the full senate to decide if he should start the program. tell us what you think if pete hegseth should become the next defense secretary. (202)-748-8000, democrats. (202)-748-8001, republicans. independents, (202)-748-8002. active and former military, your chance to give your opinion, (202)-748-8003. you can use the same number to text us or post on facebook at facebook.com/c-span and on next at guest:. here are the major -- and on x at @cspanwj.

this is "the washington times." pete hegseth deflects democratic criticism. when you go to usa today, on their lower part of the front page, senators grilled him on impropriety and mismanagement of women. turning to pages of "the new york times," gop embraces pickford offense, dissipating, pete hegseth and hot seas, questioning his job qualifications, personal conduct. you go to the washington post, they put the picture on the center of the front page, pete exit under fire at hearing, and then "the wall street journal." pete hegseth weathers fiery hearing and denies misconduct allegations. that hearing took place yesterday at the senate armed services committee. here is a portion from his

opening statement. [video clip] >> the department of defense under donald trump will achieve peace through strength, and in pursuing these america first, national security goals will remain patriotically apolitical and stridently constitutional, unlike the current administration, politics should play no part in military matters. we are not republicans, we are not democrats, we are american warriors. our standards will be high, and they will be equal, not equitable. that is a very different word. we need to make sure every warrior is fully qualified on their assigned weapon system, and every one current on the aircraft they are flying, and every general and flag officer is selected for leadership and promotion purely based on performance, readiness, and

merit. leaders at all levels will be held accountable, and we are focusing on the readiness of the troops will be our only focus. (202)-748-8000, democrats. (202)-748-8001, republicans. independent, (202)-748-8002. also, a line performer and active military. tell us if he should become the next defense secretary. some of you are posting this morning, this is from kelly saying, president trump has an agenda, and all these congress and senators that go against to me to be primary o. he got an overwhelming vote create he won the presidency, the popular vote, resulting in the senators need to look up and undersndhat. it is time to quit standing in the way of progress. richard says there's definitely

some cceing points about him like his financial responsibility. i do lik t fact he's got a decent amount of military background. definitely not your typical nominee. so yes and no. and then james hatch from facebook, no. he is totally unqualified for the position. especially considering his comments on women and others currently serving in the military. we start with john, brooklyn, democrat. caller: good morning. i'm john from new york. i would like to remind everyone, the way he is setting his administration up the way he is doing it, let him, and we cut them off at the midterm election. host: specifically, what do you think of pete hegseth as defense secretary? caller: well, i'm a veteran, and

i don't think he knows the impact of it. i'm thinking is the preface of it and what he's doing and what he doesn't do. host: as a veteran, why do you think mr. hegseth doesn't understand those? caller: because if he did, he would be qualified to be the secretary of state. there's a lot of experience and thought and policy, and you have to understand the military. host: john in brooklyn. the confirmation hearing yesterday, bob, republican line. caller: thank you for having me on. i am a supporter of the hegseth nomination. i think he may not have all the experience at that level, but he is smart enough to put in his

wheelhouse to help guide him through everything. i don't believe -- some of the questioning by the democrats, it amazes me that they had no problem with two biden appointed positions, but they are going to object and nitpick everything. i'm not saying the man is a saint. people who are asking the questions, they would not be answering them either. host: we will go to pennsylvania, robert, independent. go ahead.

caller: i think he should definitely be appointed. trump definitely won the popular vote. and they were a complete disgrace, the way they acted yesterday. it seems like when we have a democrat that is and domesticate appointed, they are a complete loon, like bidens picks last time. but they don't act like this, and this is from an independent who voted for trump, and, unfortunately, i did vote providing my sorry -- did vote.

host: what is it specifically that stands out to you that takes you from the hearing that he's qualified for the job? caller: his answers were on point. i don't think anything he said, of course he doesn't know every single aspect of the position. who does? this is a position -- he doesn't even know what pete hegseth is being interviewed for. host: robert mentioned senator tim kaine, democrat from virginia wall street journal has a take on his side of the questioning. the closest democrats had

questioning from senator tim kaine of virginia -- and trump's team -- that is from the wall street journal. that full testimony available on our platforms. senator tim kaine, and the nominee with pete hegseth. [video clip] >> i would like to return to the incident on october 2017, at that time, you are still married to your second wife, correct? >> i believe so. >> and you had just fathered a child by a woman who would later become your third wife, correct? >> senator, i was falsely charged, fully investigated and cleared. >> so you think you were cleared because -- you had just fathered a child two month before by

woman who is not your wife. i'm shocked that you would stand here and say i'm completely cleared and you so casually cheat on a second wife, and she, the mother of a child of importance of as before, and utility were completely cleared, house at how set a complete clear? >> senator, the child's name is gwendolyn hope hegseth, she is a child of god, she is seven years old. >> and you cheated on the mother of the child less than two months after that child was born, didn't you? >> those were false charges, fully investigated and i'm completely clear. and i'm grateful to the marriage i have for the woman behind great -- behind me. >> you admitted to having sects at that hotel on october 17, he said it was consensual, didn't you and you are still married and he just had a child by another woman, how do you explain. >> those were false charges against me, fully investigated.

>> you have admitted that you had sexual you are married to wife two after you had just fathered a child by wife three. you admitted that. if it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualified to be secretary of defense, wouldn't it? >> was a false claim then, and it is a false claim now. >> if it had been a sexual so, that would have been disqualified to be secretary of defense, wouldn't it? >> that was a false claim, so you are talking about hypothetical. >> so you cannot tell me someone who has committed a sexual assault is as qualified from being secretary of defense? >> in my instance, mine only, it was a false claim. >> do you acknowledge you cheated on your wife and that you cheated on the woman by whom you had just fathered a child, you admitted that? >> i will allow your words to speak for yourself. >> i assume that each of your weddings you pledge to be faithful to your wife, you took an oath, haven't you?

>> senator, avenue -- as i have acknowledged, not a perfect person. [end video clip] host: again, let's hear from clay clay on the democrats line, georgia, hello. caller: i have a problem with anyone who cannot answer, yes, no. they asked this man to say yes or no. he has a problem. anybody who has a problem with on answering a question like that, that is something wrong. and democrats know everything they need to know about this man. there's no problem with that.

one thing i would like to say is anyone that does not answer a question yes or no, then there is a problem. no, he should not be anywhere close to the white house. host: marcus, wisconsin, republican line. caller: hello, good morning. right away, i would like to say i strongly agree with the last caller, if you cannot say yes or no to a standard question like that in front of a congressperson, i don't think you are qualified to be in a high position like defense secretary. host: let's go to larry, illinois. we have set aside a line performer and active military, if you like to call, (202)-748-8003. larry, illinois, calling on that line. go ahead. caller: yes. i spent 24 years in the air

force. i was in vietnam and desert storm. i feel like pete will do a good job. it is not political, you should not be political. when i joined the air force, i did not vote for the whole time i was in the air force for 24 years for the president. it doesn't make any difference who is the president, you are to abide by their orders, so i do not have anything to influence my thinking, but, i think the government and the defense department should not be so much political. again, i think pete would do a very good job given the chance. thank you. host: the wall street journal highlights the fact that a lot of attention paid to senator joni ernst, a former military veteran, could make or break the

vote. the wall street journal saying that in an interview, ohio's w.h.o. radio highlighted hegseth 's pledge to support many, and said she felt it was a good hearing and asked if he had her vote, she said, yes, she would support him. joni ernst, who is up for reelection in 2026, had faced pressure from trump allies to back the nomination. the wall street journal has several republican senators to watch out for when it comes to the full senate vote that could possibly make or break whether mr. hegseth becomes the next defense secretary. the highlight joni ernst to be a part of that, by the way. the utah senator, john curtis, republican susan collins of maine, and also on the list, the former minority leader mitch mcconnell of kentucky. lisa murkowski, republican of alaska, and todd young of indiana.

this nomination ultimately would go to a full senate vote to see if mr. hegseth will bring the confirmation. mary, alabama, democrat. go ahead. mary in alabama, hello, you are on. caller: i'm sorry. i think the gentleman should not be confirmed because he does not support the constitution because it you support trump, you cannot support the constitution. host: we will hear from another mary in pennsylvania, independent. go ahead. caller: i don't think he should be confirmed, the fact he could not answer basic questions about the job that he doesn't have

basic knowledge about the job, i think the senator from hawaii was asking about countries that belonged -- i forget what he asked -- but he cannot answer basic questions. the fact he did not even do research before coming to a confirmation hearing just speaks about his lack of preparation for this position. additionally, he cannot even say that if trump were to ask them to do something illegal that was against the constitution, he refused to answer the question. that just lets you know that trump is trying to put people into power so that way he can be a dictator on day one. it is crazy that voters do not believe what he says that he is not going to do that, he's not going to do that. he's doing it now. host: mary, pennsylvania, independent. the hearing for pete hegseth took place yesterday. several other nomination hearings happen today and tomorrow. to give you a sense of what to expect over the next two days on the confirmations, for today,

berries committees, marco rubio to become the secretary of state, pam bondi to be considered as attorney general, chris wright to be energy secretary, john ratcliffe to be the next cia director, sean duffy to be the transportation secretary, and russell vote to be the office of management & budget director. you recall that kristi noem, the south dakota governor, was slated to confirmed for homeland security secretary perry that has been postponed to friday due to paperwork. when it comes to the thursday confirmation hrings, eric scott turneto be consider the next secretary of hu lee zeldin to be the epa administrator, scott bessent to be treasury secretary and doug bergman to be interior secretary.

it will be30, the start time for that hea. when that hearin starts, we will show you a little bit of it, but when the house comes in at 10:, you can continue watching on c-span two, our platform c-span now, and c-span.org. again, that is for the confirmation hearing for pam bondi, president-elect's trump to become the next attorney general. on our line performer and active military, gary, michigan. caller: hey. how are you doing, sir? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i don't think you should be confirmed. his lack of basic knowledge about the position and his comments about women in the military. i served with a lot of women in the military, and they were fully capable of performing their duties, and the guy cannot even answer basic questions, yes or no. i have served 40 plus years in

the military, and if you cannot answer a basic question yes or no, i don't think you are qualified. i'm also concerned about his position on legal or illegal as given by the commander-in-chief, were crimes should not be in any circumstance -- how can i put this -- provided, started think you should be qualified. and he did not even know anything. as far as i'm concerned, no. host: by the way, another confirmation hearing to look out for, if you are interested when it comes to foreign policy, marco rubio, the senator from his confirmationringit is today, 10:00. if you would liketch , do that on c-span3 thether platforms available to you, as well. if you are interested in hearing

the questions he will be asked. kevin, new york, republican, should pete hegseth become the next defense secretary? go ahead. caller: good morning. i appreciate you taking the time to listen to me. i believe pete hegseth is a wise choice. i believe he has a full spectrum of others don't. you would think that we would want a more mature person with more years in the military, but i do not question someone who has interviewed people for jobs like on the television show. wanting to buy the best. not everybody is going to be a rocket scientist and not everybody is going to be the

rest, but i would say he is reachable. he would be in the top three, so as far as he is concerned, i feel he would do a good job. however, i did understand that the people -- this is an inquisition or is this a bunch of americans trying to get some work done right away? we changed it all the time if they don't work out. anyway, it is very important for us to get moving on this and all work together. i've been in the nucleus of the machine here for many, many years, witnessed it from both sides. you have to have one watchdog watching on the other. anyway, god bless america, god class -- god bless pete hegseth. host: laverne, oregon, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i'm really surprised that the republicans are willing to bring an alcoholic to this very important position. and the republicans i know definitely would not stand for having this person, just because of his alcoholic behavior. that is the one main thing that would keep him from holding a responsible job at any time. thank you. host: the washington post highlights republican questioning from the hearing yesterday, saying republicans expressed outrage at democrats line of questioning is sought to put holes in the criticism, aligning the negative allegations as coming from anonymous sources and suggesting few senators on the dais have managed more people than hegseth had, yet, nobody questioned their qualifications. they offered sympathetic

accounts written by female service members and former colleagues of hegseth's to be entered into the hearings. official record, one of the people speaking up for pete hegseth yesterday with senator markwayne mullin of oklahoma, and in his comments yesterday, criticized democrats for their line of questioning. here is their portion. [video clip] >> i think it is so critical of senators to be talking about his litigations, not only to be the secretary of defense, yet, your qualifications are not any better. you guys are not anymore qualified to be senator than i am, except we are lucky enough to be here, but let me read you qualifications of the secretary of defense is because i googled it and went through a lot of sites. it is hard to see but in general, the u.s. secretary of defense position is filled by a civilian. that is it. if you have served in the u.s. army forces and have been -- you

have to be retired for at least seven years, and congress can weigh that, and then there are questions that the senator from massachusetts brought up about serving on a board inside the military industry, yet, your own secretary you voted for, we had to vote on a waiver because the stepped off the board, but i guess that is ok because that is a democrat secretary of defense. but we so quickly forget about that. and then the senator from virginia brings up the fact that what if you showed up drunk to your job? how many senators have shown up drunk to vote at night? have any of you guys asked them to step down about further job? don't tell me you have not seen it because i know you have.

how many senators do you know who have gotten a divorce for cheating on their wives? did you ask them to step down? no, but it is for show. you make sure you make a big show and point out hypocrisy because the man has made a mistake, and you would like to sit there and say he's not qualified, give me a joke. it is ridiculous to hold yourselves at a higher standard and you forget you have a big plank in your eye. you have all made mistakes. i've made mistakes, and, jennifer, thank you for loving him through that mistake because the only reason why i'm here and not in prison is because my wife loved me, too. [end video clip] host: again, that was part of the back-and-forth with pete hegseth and his confirmation hearing. you can see it on our website if you'd like to watch the whole hearing. the comments on if pete hegseth should become the next defense secretary, tell us why or why not, (202)-748-8000, democrats.

(202)-748-8001, republicans. independent, (202)-748-8002. active or former military, (202)-748-8003. skip, michigan, republican. caller: i'm glad you played that tape there, what was so interesting is that if there is any cabinet position that needs them not compromising and working together, it would be the secretary of defense. that is the number one with democrats and republicans working together. then you look at my senators, both of them on there, talking about qualifications. honest to god, they would have to google the county where i live in their state to nowhere it is at because they've never been there, and they have no idea where i'm from. so what are they qualified to be

my senator? but i wish people would stop the personal attacks. look at it was best for the position to protect our country and most importantly to protect our soldiers, that is what i wish they would do. you for taking my call and have a good day. host: stephen, kentucky, independent. caller: thank you for allowing me to speak my mind. i would like to take a moment to tell robert from pennsylvania, i think he mentioned republicans don't kick and scream. let me remind you about january 6, the biggest kicking and screening event i've ever seen. so they did do that. so the topic, i think a celebrity as polarizing as him does not need to be in platform. with defense secretary title. it is to polarizing, he has no

idea what he's doing. he may be a great speak to political situations, he is clueless. the fact that we are allowing celebrities with no experience, other than just being popular to run these departments -- host: he does have a military background. caller: he does not know everything about secretary of defense, does he speak multiple and witches? no. there are plenty of other but candidates that would fit better , there are so many other good candidates out there that could be a leading choice for republican. host: we will hear from mary, pittsburgh, democrat. hello. caller: this is mary, pittsburgh. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i'm 97 years old, and i

definitely do believe this gentleman should not be made defense secretary, and the main reason why is, as far as leadership is concerned, number one, he evidently was in charge of some corporations, and [indiscernible] in this budget is so high, i would not trust them with that. also, i do not believe that he has the military background, or not only that, but the background to serve as defense secretary because he could not answer several questions about the specific. he was vague on it, and i think he must have forgotten that, but the democrats did have a bill up

that we would join the pacific coalition and the republicans voted that down. so now it becomes an issue. obviously, i do not believe he was well prepared to answer, and the most important thing, too, is honesty. i taught leadership at a college here in pittsburgh, and one of the main things about doing leadership is you have to be honest. he evaded talking about his personal problems and he also blamed everything on anonymous. i don't know -- i do not trust him. i do believe we need somebody -- and i agree with what one of the republican said, there are better republicans. i'm not against him because he's republican.

i'm against him because i do not believe he has the qualification. host: that was angela. this is angela, former military. caller: hi, can you hear me? pete hegseth, regarding pete hegseth, you guys are comparing wanted to put people like the five versus pete hegseth in charge. if you got dropped down on the ground in a war zone, which i have been to, as a female, do you want pete hegseth, do you want toxic masculinity covering your back or do you want the five covering your back? i guarantee if there was a choice if you are getting dropped down on the ground, boots on the ground in the middle east, you are going to

choose pete hegseth, toxic men like the six, toxic men being your verbiage, not mine, versus these little pansies like the five? host: ok, angela in north carolina. let's hear from republican, tom, connecticut. caller: that caller was hard to follow because she is right on, i think pete is going to do a good job. he would like to rebuild the military and it is like she's doing and remarked because there's nobody there. i don't have much to say because i'm not a senator, but i do appreciate the republican senators fighting back this time. leaning back and let the democrats tear them to pieces. i appreciate them fighting back

and i wish pete hegseth all the luck in rebuilding our military to be a fighting force and bring back that toxic, toxic whatever. host: democrat line, you are next. caller: good morning. i'm not against him being a republican, pete hegseth, my concern, and the concern that should have been his we have to get ready to hold that position and be honest to do what you are supposed to do, for the military and the country. i do not approve of him being donald trump's puppet, doing what donald trump tells them to do. he needs to think with his heart, his conscience, and his mind when it comes to making decisions. if he feels it is wrong, do not do it because donald trump says do it. do it because you feel it is

right for the country. and if he does that, i think you would hold that position with more upstanding. it is not being democrat or republican, it is just being for the country, not for donald trump. host: that was sharon in south ca, kristen, saying this aocra watching the hearing embarrassing. democrats wasted so mh time bring up his character, when we know and donald trump's michael world, morals, honorndespect for women means nothing. we are about to get a very unqualified person at the head of the military, and the democrats did not ask the appropriate questions. long response offook from paul noving when it comes to pete hegseth, easily very qualified but more importantly brings the correct mindset and principles to the position. at its core, the military is to kill those who was to the u.s. that requires a focus on the job, period, not "equity,"

"diversity." if he can meet the dards and pass the test, you can become part of the team, regardless of your race, sex, color, period. you can post on facebook.com/c-span, and you can do that at c-span wj or text us like one of the viewers, (202)-748-8003. you can use that same number if you are active or former military, and if you would like to give a direct thought on the phone, call us on the regular line, democrats, (202)-748-8000 .republicans , (202)-748-8001. s, -- independents, (202)-748-8002. washington state, independent line, david, hello. caller: thank you, pedro. i think it is a great service you guys are doing. i would like to see that the military is supposed to have much higher standards or moral turpitude than what we see

amongst those who are not uniform. hegseth pete simply does not meet those standards, but even if you wanted to put that aside, he just does not have any qualifications to run a large organization like the military. we have got to get someone there who actually knows how to do the job, and i think the soon to be once and future president, that is, is trying to beat the senate republicans into other submission with someone so unqualified as hegseth. if can ram him through, they can put anyone into any position. thank you. host: bob, pennsylvania, line for active and former military. caller: good morning.

host: good morning, you are on. caller: alright, i'm actually in massachusetts. i'm concerned with people saying that mr. hegseth is not qualified. the secretary of defense we have now had a medical issue and disappeared, and, boy, with the chain of command with all the things going on right now, that is pretty insane. so pete hegseth is a qualified is insane. at least he is not going to be going places and not telling anybody he's in the hospital getting care. have a nice day. host: elizabeth warren, the senator from massachusetts, part of the questioning yesterday. in her line of questioning, talking to mr. hegseth, asking and questioning him about public comments on women's service in the military. here's part of the exchange. [video clip] >> for me, this issue has always

been about standards. unfortunately, because of some of that -- >> excuse me, let's just stop right there. mr. hegseth, i'm quoting you from the podcast, "women should not be in combat at all. the -- combat at all." where is the reference to combat that they should be there if they can run. what i see is a 32 day time in which you suddenly have another description about your views of women in the military, and i would just like to know, what changed in the 32 days that the song you sang is not the song you come in here today to sing. >> the concerns i've had and many have had, especially in ground combat units, is that in pursuit of certain percentages or quotas, standards have been changed, and that next combat --

>> so what do you think is the question about what happened in the 32 days? you have got a nomination for president trump, have you ever heard of -- i've heard of deathbed conversions, but this is a first time i've heard of denomination conversion, and i hope you understand that many women serving in the military right now might think that if you can convert so rapidly your long-held and aggressively pursued views in just 32 days, that 32 days after you get confirmed, may you will just reverse those views and go back to the old guy who said straight up "women do not long and combat boots." [end video clip] host: again, a lot of questions yesterday. that video available on our website and app, if you would like to see that exchange from senators participating. the associated press and university of chicago conducted

a poll specifically on hegseth, asking do you approve, or disapprove of him? 19% of those responded from the pole saying approve of mr. hegseth becoming the secretary of defense. 12% said neither. 30 -- 35% disapprove and 33% say they don't know enough. amongst republicans, 41% approval, versus 10% of disapprove of. independent, 11% support, 33% disapproval. democrats, 6% support, 54% disapproval. there is more there, not only on mr. hegseth but other nominees, today, the focus on pete hegseth , as far as you telling us if you think you should be the defense secretary. stay close to our website and are up to follow along when the

hearings, including pam bondi to be the next attorney general, senator rubio to be the next secretary of state. gregory in minnesota, independent line, high. caller: good morning. i voted for some democrats and republicans, but pete hag seth grew up in the town i live in, and he is a fine, fine person. he without sin is who should cast the first stone, is what jesus said in the bible, so pete will be the finest person. he lives and breathes for military activity, he was a fine soldier, decorated, he did a

great job. there isn't anything about him or his family that you could criticize at all. anybody that has any moral compass at all would recognize that when he got out of the military, he saw some really awful things, saw soldiers dying, he reduced some ds, i mean, he had to transition back into regular life with not being in the military. my goodness -- [indiscernible] host: ok, gregory, we are starting to lose your signal, but thank you. marianna, georgia, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. oh my goodness, the last caller,

do you not realize that he seemed to be more partying with women and cheating on women. i'm not sure if that is the upstanding moral guy you think he is, but my concerns, and i listened to the entire hearing because i really did not know much about him until i watched it, my first concern was that he did not go to the democrats -- you know how he went and spoke to all the republicans beforehand, went to their office, but he did not go to any of the democrats, so that shows that he is very partisan, which is a concern. one of the things that people have not spoken about, it is the little things to me that means something, they speak volumes. they asked him about the generals, hegseth said if all

the generals should not be allowed to lobby after they get out of being a general or retire , and she said she agreed with him, and she asked him, would you also agree not to be a lobbyist or go back to washington after you retire? and he refused, and she said, well, would you please answer the question, would you also do the same thing that you're asking them to do? and he said, i'm a general. to me, that spoke volumes about his character. that is all i have to say. host: mary, georgia. retired military next, mark from pennsylvania. caller: part of my time in the marine corps i spent in hawaii at camp smith, and i will tell you, the representative from hawaii was absolutely disrespectful yesterday.

besides tourism, a large amount of income and jobs they have in hawaii are due to military bases a military family that live off base. and i don't believe her constituents would agree with her line of questioning. your last caller talked about making the comment that he said he was in a general. one thing she has to realize is when generals leave office after retiring, they are getting a good pension, and they still go work for contractors. this gentleman does not have the pension of a general, so his expertise would be a benefit after his time with the government services. also, the gentleman who was disrespectful about mentioning his child, and i'm glad he spoke up to himself and mentioned the name of the child. anybody who has to attack someone by going after the child of anyone, it doesn't matter if

you are in the military or not, but to attack and bring something up so hurtful, that was not for any reason as far as the requirements with his job, it was more to insult him, insult his family, and, sadly, insult a child, and her name was mentioned all across the country, on the news, in the newspaper, and did that gentleman think about the embarrassment that could bring that girl -- host: ok, that is mark, pennsylvania. he mentioned the senator from hawaii, daisy hirano, part of the questions she had for mr. hegseth concerned possible operations against panama or greenland. here's part of the exchange. [video clip] >> refusing to use military force to take over greenland, and the panama canal, and

threatening to take canada, the 51st state, would you carry out an order from president trump to seize greenland, a territory of our ally denmark by force? or would you comply with in order to take over the panama canal? >> senator, i will emphasize that president trump received 77 million votes -- >> we are not talking about the election, my question is, would you use our military to take over greenland or an ally of denmark? >> senator, one of the things president trump is so good at is never strategically tipping his hand, so i would never in this public forum, one way or another -- >> that sounds to me that you would contemplate carrying out such an order to basically invade greenland to take over -- or take over the panama canal. [end video clip] host: that was from yesterday.

we told you about the confirmation hearing set for this week, some delay due to issues of paperwork. that is a story in goverent executive, some trump nominees face confirmation delays with ethics an background checks schedules -- with ethicss and background checks schedules. watchdogs and democrats continue to press leadership, not to move forward without first considering the finances and other parts of would be cabinet member backgrounds. lawmakers are hurrying to get some of trump's nominees in place by inauguration day next week, although some senate committee chairs have said they are awaiting background checks from the fbi or reviews from the office of government ethics. some of those steps were delayed after mr. trump's team spent months holding off on the transition process. adding that many of the president-elect's intended cabinet picks were scheduled for the hearings this week, some

postponed, as well as committees background, information on secretary designates, and that likely means mr. trump has fewer pix confirmed on his first day of office. let's hear from tom, new jersey, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i view his nomination from management qualification perspective, and pete hegseth had no experience managing major organizations. from that perspective, thank you. host: angus, maryland, democrat. caller: look, i would like to ask the american people to put the head of the army, navy, air force, marines the same thing

you are doing for that particular man, and that means the president-elect of the united states, he should be able to sit there and go through that same thing. host: so when it comes to mr. hegseth himself, what do you think of him becoming the next defense secretary? caller: the man that appoints him should be the one up there going through that instead of him. host: craig, ohio, republican. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: i love listening to these local democrats. they lost and they just cannot get over it. you would like to fix california, let's start -- host: we are not doing that topic, we are doing mr. hegseth becoming the next event secretary, what do you think of that possibility? caller: first of all, mr.

hegseth is a big criminal. that is all the democrats talk about, that they are criminals. host: you heard the comments and back and forth with senator warren of mr. hegseth when it comes to women and things he said about women in the military. a same type of exchange from joni ernst, republican of iowa, she said in an interview yesterday that she would support mr. hegseth. this is about questioning him on women in combat, fighting sexual salt in the military, she, herself, a veteran and sexual sole survivor. here's part of the exchange with joni ernst. [video clip] >> for the young women who are out there now and can meet those standards, and i will emphasize they should be very, very high standards, they must physically be able to achieve those standards so they can complete their mission, but i would like

to know, let's make it clear for everyone here today, as secretary of defense, will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles? >> senator, first of all, thank you for your service, as we discussed -- >> it is my privilege. >> my answer is, yes, exactly the way you copy audited, women will have access to ground combat roles given the standards remain high and we will have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded. in any one of these cases. one of the persons we do at the pentagon is reviewing that in a gender-neutral way, the standards, ensuring readiness and meritocracy is front and center, but, absolutely, it would be the privilege of a lifetime, if confirmed, to be the secretary of defense for all men and women in uniform who fight so heroic -- they have so many other options and they decide to put their right hand up for our country, and it would

be an honor. >> thank you. very briefly, we have less than one minute left, but we have also discussed this, a priority of mine has been combating sexual assault in the military and making sure that all of our service members are treated with dignity and respect. this has been so important, senator gillibrand and i have worked on this, and we were able to get changes made to the military code of justice to make sure we have improvements on how we address the tragic and life altering issues of rape, sexual assaults, it will demand time and attention from the pentagon under your watch if you are confirmed. as secretary of defense, will you appoint a senior-level official dedicated to sexual

assault prevention and response? >> senator, as discussed, yes, i will. >> my time has expired, thank you. [end video clip] host: let's hear from mike, louisiana, retired military, good morning. caller: i say certainly not due to article 134, it required all acts redirected and disciplined, and it is saying to me that pete hegseth has no discipline, but i think he will be confirmed by those who also have no order or discipline, so certainly not in my opinion. host: kristin, california, democrat. caller: hi, pedro. longtime listener, first time caller. this will be real quick. this is not apples to apples, this is apples to hammers,

senators are voted in by constituents. they spend a lot of money to run, a lot of time running, for democrats and republicans, work for all americans, democrats or republicans in their state. defense secretary is voted in by the senators. they spend no money to be voted in by the senators, so, no, he's not qualified and less all-american people voted him in. senators work for the defense secretary who runs the whole entire military, so, no, -- host: but if the senators have an advising consent role, why not let the senators make these decisions regarding mr. hegseth? caller: unless all the constituents -- they don't raise money, he has a billion-dollar

budget. senators don't have that. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: ben, florida, independent. caller: good morning. i'm a little confused with these callers saying that cost overruns are acceptable. not getting an audit that actually would fail. what we are talking about, the last 16 years, 12 of them, we followed the democrat rule, where we put in high-ranking officials, and they feel that their jobs. it is time to try something different. we have got a young man with military experience, who would like to try and get in there, and change what is going on in

the military. enrollment in the military is down. we need to get that up. we have four countries worldwide lined up against us, and we've got a military that is weaker today than it has ever been. we honestly need a change. as an independent, i choose the best line. right now, it is not lie with the status quo. the status quo has failed us. host: one more call, bill, arizona, independent. caller: hi, pedro, how are you doing? pete hegseth would be perfect for the job because the last time trump did this, the general stabbed him in the back, and

only interested in embroidery. host: that is bill in arizona. last call on the topic, people all of you who participated. 9:38 the start of the hearing with pam bondi, the president-elect's choic become the next attorney general, 10:00 for marco rubio, the president-elect choice to become the secretary of state. a lot of other hearings, too. stay close to our website and the app for more information on the confirmation hearings. coming up and joining us next, we will talk to aidan smith of nebraska, the top member of the ways and means committee, discussing the incoming administration trade and tariffs agenda and the and the prospect of extending those trump era tax cuts. later on a conversation with peter montgomery from the group people for the american way about why he and his organization oppose pam bondi's nomination for attorney general. those conversations coming up on

washington journal. ♪ >> stay tuned to the c-span networks for comprehensive coverage for confirmation hearings for trump's cabinet nominees. today florida senator marco rubio heads to the senate foreign relations committee and john radcliffe, the presumptive nominee for cia director testifies before the senate intelligence committ. former florida attorney general pam bondi begins her confirmation hearings. she will testify across two days , today and thursday. also thursday scott bessent testifies before the senate finance committee. watch on c-span networks or online at c-span.org. >> the presidential inauguration

set for january 20, wash the conclusion of the american history tv historic inaugural speeches. listen to speeches from franklin roosevelt through barack obama. on saturday here speeches by president bill clinton in 1993. >> there is nothing wrong with america that cannot be cured by what is right with america. >> president george w. bush in 2001. >> this is my solemn pledge. i will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. >> and barack obama in 2009. >> the challenge we face are real and they are serious and their many. they will not be met easily. but know this. they will be met. >> watch historic inaugural speeches saturday at 7:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span2.

>> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse the collection of products, apparel, books, and accessories. there is something for every c-span span -- for every c-span fan. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by representative adrian smith, republican of nebraska and he serves the third district. thanks for joining us. guest: great to be here. host: as chair of the subcommittee can we get your personal thoughts on how health -- on how tariffs should be applied in the united states? guest: tariffs have been around a long time. we found out they can have a varied impact at various times,

impact the economy as well. i cannot say i am a huge fan of tariffs but i will believe they need to be a tool in the toolbox as negotiations take place. it is very important that we are tough negotiators the level of playing field. host: when you say you're not a huge fan is that because of the impact on the economy? guest: that potential. representing a lot of agriculture. we do not like it when other countries put tariffs on our products. we are good exporters of ag products. other countries like our product and value. we do not like when they placed tariffs on us. we need to keep our options on the table. host: president-elect trump has talked about ways to achieve tariffs. what you think of the approach he is taking? guest: it is important we drive a tough negotiation.

i have shared this with a lot of folks that we need to level the playing field. make no mistake. what we have seen over the last four years, a lack of action. some of my democratic colleagues just yesterday in committee criticized tariffs now that trump is coming back in even though nothing was done about tariffs over the last four years. let me say even more importantly there was such a lack of action on trade across the board for the last four years. that in action is especially damaging because our competitors, our trade partners expect more from the united states of america than what they have seen the last four years. host: what would you like to see the ministration do to specific countries when it comes to tariff policy? guest: take kenya. the previous trump administration teed up a trade agreement with kenya.

kenya already enjoys the benefits of the africa growth and opportunity act. kenya enjoys those benefits, basically tariff relief. there other aspects of trade with kenya we can benefit from in terms of market access, agriculture being one. the trump administration teed up a trade agreement with kenya. the biden administration comes in and says we will talk about trade but not about tariffs. i cannot understand why that has been the case when kenya already benefits. let's talk about market access and how our exporters from the united states can get their products into a country such as kenya on a continent that is growing in population. that is what separates africa from summary other continents is its growing population. host: i suppose as those countries go china would top that list. what is the benefit of applying

tariffs or applying other tariffs? guest: the details can be very fine. trade is a lot of work. with growing technology, diversifying economies, that makes trade even more difficult. digital, for example. that is important because the u.s. leads the world in digital trade. other countries say that is a great source of revenue, especially if it comes from another country. that can be damaging in various ways, among them access to information and the flow of information. that is important as well. china as a competitor are engaging in places around the world where we are not. that is a problem. i think we will stand to see a vigorous engagement in this

incoming administration, especially in contrast to the outgoing ministration. host: we have heard the president talk about tariffs as a toll to reduce the amount of fentanyl that comes with the country and other things. is that the proper use of a tariff? guest: fentanyl a dangerous product and if we would become dependent on that revenue, i cannot see a tariff being a good application there on fentanyl. host: if we put these against the country the country can reduce the amount of fentanyl than the tariff achieves its purpose. is that a reasonable measure? guest: that can be the case. i think we need to be careful and not become over on tariff revenue that is probably not very stable. host: this is adrian smith joining us, republican from nebraska. he is the chair of the trade subcommittee. if you want to ask questions

about trade and tariffs and other related issues, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to text us (202) 748-8003. when it comes to an agenda for your subcommittee and for the ways and means, what is on the agenda going forward in these first days? guest: we are looking at pressures on our supply chains. our supply chains for domestic manufacturers, accessing various products and they face barriers. sometimes those are tariffs as well. sorting through all of that the general system of preferences that will say a tariff relief effort. another important program expires later this year and we want to make sure we stay on top of that. let's modernize these approaches as we can. that engagement, sending a

message to the world. we have the review of usmca coming up next year. let's prepare for that. we just won a big case against mexico that i think flagrantly violated the usmca, trying to cite out -- trying to shut out biotech corn. the world is watching. when mexico basically shut out our corn and president biden did not say anything. some of his people filed paperwork two years later win a case, but i think we could have shortened that timeframe had president biden spoken up and said usmca is negotiated, we all agreed during the previous trump administration that usmca was what we were going to work under. the bill violated -- mexico

violated that in the world is watching to see our response. i am glad we are moving into a more vigorous time in trading and engagement. our trading partners expect us to engage more, unlike what we have seen over the last four years. host: on the larger aspect of your service on the ways and means committee, what is the future of taxes in the first trump administration in 2017? guest: the future is bright. we have been having engaging meetings, hearing with our constituents on how important it is to expand and make permanent that what we did in 2017. there might be small tweaks to modernize that, but what we did in 2017 was a result of a years long negotiation and discussion and hearings that teed up our action in 2017 that was the right thing to do. it was thoughtful, it was

effective. revenues have increased as a result of that. we would be very derelict to let that all expire and go away. it would be damaging for our economy. we are very excited to get this done. it will take some work. it is my sense that a lot of democrats who were skeptical before -- they may not vote for this just yet but they have voted for parts of what we did in 2017 in extending that and i think there is broader understanding across america that what we did was the right thing for what we needed at the time and i'm glad we were able to do that before covid. that has made our post-covid recovery a lot better. host: there is a story this morning about the impact of what has been taken in by the federal government and what has been spent for october and november and december. they were saying there was a

deficit of $711 billion over last three months. they highlight the fact that some of the problem with spending with issues such as social security and medicare but they also say part of it was revenue that was taken and sing the federal government collected $1.83 trillion and collected $1.7 trillion. guest: overall i do not hear too many americans saying the federal government spends our money so wisely. the concern is the spending does not get addressed like it needs to be. the american people expect us to look at the spending issue as well. when you see increased revenues to the government over the last several years, that is pretty telling. to take a three month clip there , that is probably a bit isolated in its view. i am willing to look at those numbers. i'm willing to look at criticisms that some folks might

have of what we did in 2017. it is up to us to process that and have the discussions we need to have. let's have this engagement the american people want us to have. at the end of that make a decision. the best thing to do for our country is to have a progrowth tax policy moving forward. host: some of the issue there was less tax revenue. democrats are doing the tax cuts provided less revenue and they wanted to see more tax cuts going forward. make the case at this time more tax cuts or sustained tax cuts are the way to go. guest: we will have the discussions we need to have. what is most appropriate? there are some tax cuts that are more growth oriented than others. that does not mean we just ignore those that are not as productive economically. there could be some fairness in there. let's look at that. at the end of the day we need policies that help grow our

economy. this soak the rich, tax the rich, when you look at the progressive nature of our tax policy already, the wealthy are paying a lot. are there some loopholes? probably. there are loopholes created by the so-called inflation reduction act. some benefits there for the wealthy that i think we can do without as well. host: let's hear from marie in texas. representative adrian smith, republican of nebraska. your first thoughts. caller: thank you. i called in to say i fully support pete hegseth, 100%. i resent the way the democrats acted yesterday. they are like a bunch of babies. to disparage him the way they

did is unacceptable. that is it. host: that is marie in texas talking about that back and forth yesterday. when it comes to nominees, you can express your thoughts? guest: in the house we do not have a vote on that. across america a lot of people are paying close attention and i think the american people want a civilized discussion to process through what the senate is responsible for doing in the advise and consent on the president's cabinet. i am one who believes there should be very serious deference to the president to select a cabinet that he was elected to select. caller: from tom in florida, democrats line. caller: how are you doing today. we appreciate washington journal. i would like to -- i would like

the gentleman to expand more on the teed up comment. he used that a number of time. using the kenya example, what did they propose? we want to know more detail. the second thing i would like to ask is if he understands the warren buffett rule. jamie dimon and goldman sachs, or if the rich pay the same percentage the middle class does we would have a balanced budget. does he know about that and he doesn't like that idea? those are the two questions i would like to ask. guest: the teeing up terminology i use, that is not a technical term. it is preparation before presenting a piece of legislation or an idea. the fact of the matter is that previous trump administration

prepared to lay out a trade agreement with kenya. it requires a lot of work. there is a lot of diligence necessary because like i mentioned the growing technology and a lot of moving parts to this type of negotiation. often times a trade agreement will be presented and start out with nowhere near the votes to pass. it is my sense that the opinion trade agreement would have received a strong bipartisan approval. i sense there are more democrats all the time looking at growing opportunities in america by engaging with our trade partners, in this case kenya would be an example. host: he also asked about collecting more from wealthier americans to benefit the middle class. guest: when you look at various dynamics of the tax code,

wealthy americans pay a greater percentage of the revenues into the coffers than lower income folks. there is a large segment of the population that does not have a federal tax liability. when we double the standard deduction in 2017, we doubled the child tax credit, a lot of things that were important, especially for folks on the lower end. we get criticized for what is called that salt cap, the state and local tax deduction. that used to be fully deductible. the billionaires could fully deduct their property tax on multiple vacation residences and we said no, let's cap that. in 2017, the average state and local tax reduction across america was about $5,000. we double that to 10000 and put

that cap. we will take a look at that. that was not indexed for inflation. we want to make sure those numbers are up-to-date, but still within the framework of let's not give away a huge deduction, especially to the very wealthy that would cost other taxpayers a lot of money. host: this is karen in alabama. republican line. caller: good morning. i have heard a few -- i don't know if they are trump people, but i am assuming they support trump. they had talked about abolishing the irs, abolishing our current tax code and having everyone in the country pay 10% of their income for the income tax and maybe a national sales tax. i am curious if you think that is a legitimate thing we could do and if so how could we do it? guest: that is a fair question.

i think a lot of folks across america understand the complexities of the current code. i want to always look for opportunities to simplify the tax code. i also want to make sure we do not have inadvertent efforts that would result in putting a larger segment of revenue on a smaller number of people who cannot afford it. i always want to look at ways to simplify the tax code. we know the irs has struggled, even today with the immense resources and additional resources they've received in the last few years to supposedly add new employees so more audits can be done and supposedly focus on compliance. the concerns i have and many others have is audits would be done on folks who already did the right thing and yet they

have to ramp up a defense because of the additional resources coming from the irs. the irs has not been able to find employees, not a unique situation across our economy. the irs has struggled. i hope moving forward that we can see a modernized irs that utilizes technology to improve customer service so that ultimately folks who have questions, legitimate questions can get those answered in a timely basis. we are told that maybe the weight is less than it used to be but there is still a lot of room for improvement at the irs from what needs to be done to improve their customer service. ultimately foster an environment where compliance is easier. compliance is faster. let's focus on that technology. host: that is the internal

revenue service. the president-elect wants to create something called the external revenue service to collect money from trade. how would this differ from what is currently done? guest: the irs is internal. it exists today even without an external revenue service. the president is focusing on the fact that we have an unlevel playing field for our country competing against other countries, a significant point is these other countries that levy a value-added tax, they levy that on products in their own country. when they go to export their products to our country, they waive the vat, making their products cheaper coming into our economy than for their own people. that is unlevel.

that is an uncompetitive situation we need to address. i think the incoming president trump is interested in this as well. he is a fierce negotiator and i think we could be better for it. host: who is responsible for collecting tariffs? what body does that? guest: ultimately treasury is. irs's list involved. -- irs is less involved. commerce is involved. united states trade representative and a member of the president's cabinet. for a small as the ustr is as an agency they have significant jurisdiction. i see it as important. i think we will see an effective coordination among the agencies coming in because president trump really leaned in on trade.

less conventionally than other presidents, but the fact of the matter is that brought people together. the usmca is a great example. when president trump said he wanted to renegotiate nafta, like several candidates had said prior, he actually did it. he marched forward with right folks in place to elevate the issue of trade. across america i think the coffee shops across america elevated their discussion in terms of what trade is. the usmca is a great example. the usmca was shepherded through the house by then speaker nancy pelosi. if that can be done i think a lot of other things can be done. host: scott is from kansas. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i do see the deficit going up and up. at one time we had eliminated the earmarks that they used to call pork spending. we also had a balanced budget amendment. i think when they talk about revenues going up after cutting taxes on the rich, what would they have done if they had not cut the taxes? you still go back to the original founding fathers, those that enjoy great fruits and privileges in this country go back to the nation not at the same rate but at a rate much greater. we are seeing a rift between the haves and have nots. i do not see a lot of action taken by congress to get their financial house in order. they harvest wheat somewhere in the world every single day of the year. i know our agricultural products need to be exported at a fair price but there is so much detail in how the government is

ineffectively managing our taxpayer money. it is earmarks that bother me the most. host: scott from kansas. guest: i appreciate your question, especially on the debt. there are many of us in the house and senate very concerned about the debt. this is something that has been looming for some time and growing. that is a major part of the discussion on the tax reform extension or permanence that we are looking at. we are wanting to bend that curve and get our house in order. let's be very honest. there are various spending parts of the federal budget. we have discretionary spending, mandatory spending. the discretionary spending are those programs congress revisits every year. the mandatory spending on the programs that exist when things happen across america.

they send the bill to the federal government and the federal government pays that. we need to revisit all of this. a lot of folks think if you close the pentagon we balance the budget. no. it will see where it is called crowd out. mandatory spending is crowding out other spending such as defense. i am not saying there should not be any efficiencies or tracts within -- or cuts within the defense department. let's not kid ourselves into thinking we can slash away at various things and fix everything all of the sudden. it is not that easy. we have not addressed mandatory spending like we need to and that is in the health care sector. i think we can make sure that technology can develop in a way to help us on the health care

front without barriers taking place. for example i have a bill right now that would reimburse pharmacists test and treat things like strep throat, covid, and flew. right now these pharmacists cannot get reimbursed by medicare even though medicaid will reimburse and private insurance companies reimburse. there is a barrier to pharmacists receiving that payment. it would be a reduced payment from what md would get reimbursed as well. there are barriers that exist to applying technology and the opportunities for our health care professionals. we are the envy of the world in terms of health care training and professionals. let's let them treat who we know they can treat effectively. host: you also have something

called the family and small business taxpayer protection act, what is that? guest: various efforts to help small businesses, there is the expensing and interest provisions i have been working on part of the tax reform. we know small businesses were a major part of our country and economy. we want to make sure they don't get pushed to the side as we have so many things facing tax reform. host: the president wants to see a reconciliation bill. what is that and how would it work in achieving the policy? guest: the process has been around since the 1970's. it allows congress to revisit budget numbers as the definition would go. the house is always a simple

majority and even the closeness of the majority right now, i think it is pretty good chance we could move something out of the house. the senate will need to act accordingly as well. it limits what could be in the bill. new policy cannot be in the bill. there will be changes made to existing policy that will affect numbers in the budget. moving into a reconciliation process, the budget committee will give us instructions. we fill in from there. there will be a lot of effort underway soon. host: his tax policy part of that? guest: yes. host: what could change? guest: timelines, sunsets, dates , as they impact the budget. host: representative adrian

smith, he is the republican representative for nebraska. thanks for your time. we will do open forum. if you want to participate you could call (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will take those questions when "washington journal" continues. >> witness democracy unfiltered with c-span, experience history as it unfolds with c-span's live coverage this month as republicans take control of both chambers. on january 20, tune in for our lives all day coverage for our presidential inauguration as donald trump becomes president of the united states. say with c-span -- stay with

c-span this month for coverage of the 119th congress. c-span, democracy unfiltered. democracy, it isn't just an idea, it is a process, a process shaped by leaders and entrusted to a select few guarding its basic principles. it's were debates unfold. democracy in real-time. this is your government at work. this is c-span, giving you your democracy, unfiltered. >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books, current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller list as well as

industry news. you could find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> democracy is worth dying for. >> democracy belongs to us all. >> we are here in the sanctuary of democracy. >> american democracy is bigger than any one person. >> freedom of democracy must be constantly guarded and protected. >> we are still at our torque. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: we have about one hour left in this show before we take you to the pam bondi hearing. president biden's farewell address to the nation. you could see coverage starting at 8:00. he's expected to reflect on his 50 years of public service and his hopes for the future of the country. it will be the president's first oval office speech since he announced his withdrawal from the presidential race last july. you could see this farewell address tonight at 8:00 on c-span. you could follow along on our app and also at c-span.org. this is open forum if you want to participate. we start with rob in florida, democrats live. go ahead. caller: this is rob.

i appreciate the representative coming on the show. no offense but he is your standard corporate establishment politician. you could tell that he's lying because he starts to stutter when he explains a certain position. i understand he's trying to defend the billionaire rich class, the donor class. i listen to scott galloway the other day. he claims 10 years ago we only had 400 tax codes and now we have 4000. the wealth disparity that is happening is because of our tax codes, this whole thing with the external revenue service that we

are trying to do. what are we going to do with that money, are we going to give those back to the people? to the billionaires, the oil companies? host: let's hear from david in texas, republican line. caller: two things. i want your show frequently and i see these politicians talking about money and taxes, how many corporations at this time have their businesses have a po box in bermuda to avoid paying taxes? i had a theory after watching the confirmation hearings, the democrats being unethical.

are the republicans that afraid of donald trump? thank you so much for your time. host: pam bondi expected to go through the hearing at the senate judiciary committee. a shot of the room. it will fill up as the hour goes on. c-span, you will be able to watch a little bit of it before it transitions to other channe 10:00 when the homesn, this hearing will move to an2. follow along on our app at c-ow. pam bondi up for confirmation as the attorney general nominee for the president when it comes to the secretary of state. wi marco rubio.hat hearing

u will be able to follow along there on c-span3, c-span now, and c-span.org. tony is next in pennsylvania. caller: good morning and thank you for having me on the air. you guys had on a person the other day looking at the funding of our think tanks. he had some really disturbing information, the ways in which we need a lot more information about think tanks that could not be trusted. i hope they do a better job of putting that information on the air. the billionaire money funding the show. the other thing i was going to say, the representative just on, the envy of the world.

what a joke. we are spending double. we are the only nation that has some kind of national health care system. spend twice as much as any other industrial country and get much worse outcome. people are sicker, dying earlier. that is not the envy of the world. there's something very wrong with the democratic party and republican party. if you are voting for either of those parties you are not an independent. we need to move away from that two-party system. there is no relationship between voter preference and what legislation -- the only relationship it showed is when

billionaires want something, they get it. caller: that is tony there. caller: good morning, i can't believe i'm wasting my 30 day call on this. i really wanted to talk about literacy in america. a previous caller mentioned something about bring back toxic masculinity to our military. it really bothered me. i was raped by a military man. being raped is a very violent thing. you will have your clothes torn, furniture tipped over, glass breaking. you have to show up to work the next day. you will have bruises, bite marks, the long sleeves in 100 plus degree weather.

it doesn't affect you just physically but also mentally. for me anyways, after being attacked, you are shaken mentally. i can't believe somebody would say that, bring back toxic maxilla and -- masculinity to the military. come on, that's what i have to say. host: mike is in ohio, independent line. caller: i'm someone that is disappointed that pete hegse th wasn't asked the following question, what side would you have been on in the capitol on january 6 the act out that of donald trump or that of mike

pence. i wish that question would have been asked. they need to be asked, whose side would you have been on? host: that is mike in ohio. it is open forum if you want to participate, (202) 748-8000 for the democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. you could always express your thoughts on our various social media platforms. if you want to text the soap -- show it is (202) 748-8003. one of the things coming out from house speaker saying he has ordered the flags at the u.s. capitol to be raised to their full height on inauguration day

following the death of jimmy carter. donald trump will take the oath of office under a half-staff flag. it mirrors action taken in recent days by republican governors that have announced flags will be raised on inauguration day. that story coming out yesterday. house speaker talking with reporters on disaster relief funding it comes with the california wildfires. here are some of that exchange. >> we are watching the people of the california area. we are devastated by this disaster. we deal with hurricanes, floods, tornadoes all the time. we all feel that, the americans desperately need and deserve help. we talked about the concerns with the governance of the state of california.

to the state there is complicity involved, the scope of the disaster, we think something needs to be carefully regarded. we've heard the word conditions on aid. you have to understand, the fires are still raging. no one knows what the ultimate cost will be. that delivery process will go forward. the way it works is the administration will submit a request to congress that goes through the office of management and budget. this is a long process we have gone through many times. it is premature to say what that number will be or what the scope of that would entail. i heard this morning as well, i spoke to president trump. i think he's planning to make a trip himself to southern california to see the disaster himself. we will follow the

administration's lead on this. we have to make sure there are safeguards for the american people. there are natural disasters. if they are made much worse by human error and delivering policy choices that are stated as such at the time, that is something that needs to be carefully regarded. host: that is house speaker mike johnson yesterday. caller: good morning. i'm just calling because i realize both democrats and republicans use the echo chambers through social media to push their messages. it has created little bubbles, this information. everyone has their own truth but it is not the truth.

it causes people not to be able to see what is really going on. they are only able to focus on information that is being said. they don't really know anything about that. that is the same thing politicians are doing to those old people. also people coming across borders. they are not used to social media. i was on facebook, i did not get africans from other countries as suggested friends. i only got black people. i live in cincinnati, ohio, why am i not getting other races? host: let's go to bill in kentucky, republican line. caller: i would like to say that i voted for trump but i will also say this, i didn't agree

with everything, i didn't create any chaos or stuff of that nature. it seems like the left does not want to hear what you want to say, it is personal tax, he's a jerk, loudmouth. i have to agree that the economy was a lot better. he's trying to do it for every american. i truly believe that he is america first and that's what we need to be. my father came here as an immigrant in the 1950's, escaping persecution from communism in europe. when i first came here my parents and friends were proud to be americans, they were proud

to be here. you have to embrace where you came from. you have to understand we have to assimilate, this is america. we have to work together. thank you. host: that is built in kentucky. a story today in the washington post about who will be helping him if they are approved and confirmed when it comes to the work of medicare and medicaid. this is a story reporting that chris klumpp would read the $1 trillion medicare program that provides health coverage to about 68 million americans. a veteran of the first trump administration would oversee the innovation center. stephanie carlton, a longtime consultant and senate staffer would serve as men it --

mehmet oz's chief of staff. this story also adding when it comes to chris klump, he served as the ceo of collective medical before its 2020 acquisition he has long criticized america's health care system as complex. pointed out some of the problems with delivering family care in the november 2022 story. more there about those potential changes when it comes to medicare and medicare services. let's hear from mike, independent line in illinois. caller: i think we are being soft enough for a knockout punch. freedom is another word for nothing left to lose.

accused of espionage and now we find out -- not a peep from the supreme court. biden shuts the government down for a funeral. we did sanctions on the world court, putting sanctions on israel for what we are doing. i believe what we are watching little palestine, we are big palestine. texas birds one million acres. this is all setting us up for the final punch. the ransomware, not finding out who is doing it. mgm said we are not doing this

with our system because of ransomware here. host: that is mike in illinois, this is michelle in los angeles. caller: good morning. a couple of callers back, he said the left doesn't want to hear what the right is saying. part of that problem is because i'm confused what they are saying. he talked about qualifications. in regards to women in affirmative action. when it comes to him, what are his qualifications? what is the merit that he brings to that job?

are we lowering standards by hiring someone who hasn't even run an organization like that? the republicans say the democrats are so hard on pete hegseth, the complaints that came in on him on the misconduct when he was running the corporations that he ran, those were conservative organizations and they lodged those complaints. when the republicans say listen to us. it is confusing. host: michelle in los angeles, this is coming over the wire. showing cooling signs at the end of 2024. ticked up by 0.4%.

the story adding that inflation resumed the cooling trend with the optimism for policymakers ahead of an uncertain year. the consumer price index rose at a quicker place -- pace than the prior month as energy prices surged by 2.6% in december alone. axios's reporting that. we will go to jeffrey next. republican line. caller: hello, my name is -- host: let's go to mike in arlington virginia. caller: with the climate change there will be a lot more natural disasters. the republican party whoever is in charge should be aware they are setting a precedent.

the next hurricane that hits florida, they may find we don't want to give any aid to florida. i think mike johnson is being a little nearsighted. i wish him the best of luck. host: coming back into focus according to the wall street journal. president biden announcing he's removing cuba from the terrorism sponsor list part of the deal to free political prisoners on the island. it becomes less than a week before the inauguration it would lead to the release of many political prisoners. cuba's foreign ministry saying it would free 500 53 prisoners. all of the inmates being in parser -- incarcerated.

the move reverses a decision that president trump made to designate cuba as a state sponsor. it isn't clear if you will restore the designation when he returns to the white house. matthew up next in ohio. democrats line. kathy in ohio, hello. you are on. caller: i watch the program yesterday about pete headset. i watched all of his answers and everything. you could tell he was really nervous with all of the water he was drinking and the way he was laughing at people when they talk to him. i can't see him being in there. it's going to be a disaster.

everybody that has talked about him has absolutely nothing good to say about him. he keeps saying that is anonymous. i feel that once he gets in there, trump has all of the sexual problems himself. that is about all i have to say. host: we will hear next from ryan in illinois. caller: the comments i wanted to make was the previous caller said the supreme court should have gotten in and said something about what was going on. he's forgetting that the supreme court is separate from the other

two administrations. the cabinets. the supreme court rules and comments only on law. when somebody wanted to have the supreme court comment on chinese taking over, whether or not they should be able to take over their area, i can't think of the name off the top of my head. the supreme court rules strictly on law and nothing else. host: alexis in north carolina, independent line. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i want to mention the reelection

of the north carolina supreme court. they had two recounts, now they are trying to avoid 60,000 votes in order to make griffin the winner. there is nothing fair, honest, or constitutional about it. they are just trying to shove it in. i want people to call the north carolina senate and know that they are opposed to the efforts to denigrate and make her ineligible. host: that is alexis in north carolina.

reuters reporting tiktok plans to shut down for u.s. users unless the supreme court moves the block according to sources familiar with the matter. the outcome would be different than the law. existing users could still continue using it for some time. one more call, this will be from frank. caller: thank you for taking my call. this whole thing is crazy. how do we let this kind of thing happen to our government? i'm 74 years old. i can't remember ever anything like this ever happening. host: when you say this whole thing, what do you mean specifically? caller: all these people getting elected. the president and everybody else . the head of the fbi and this and

that. it's crazy. the people are not qualified. the leader is putting everything in their heads and make them follow him like he's god or something. my mom is in a memory clinic for a hospital for year and a half. she had dementia. i bought her a little tv. she was watching it all the time. she was telling me what was going on. she knew what was going on and she had dementia. how did our government -- how could we let our presidents from the past and the people that started the constitution -- what do you think they would say if they saw how we are acting and letting these things happen? host: franklin california finishing off this open forum. thank you for all who participated. 9:30 is when the hearing

featuring pam bondi. that is the room filling up. you can see that hearing take place starting at 9:30. coming up next, i conversation with peter montgomery -- a conversation with peter montgomery about why he and his organization opposes pam bondi to be attorney general. washington journal continues. ♪ >> i, franklin delano roosevelt -- >> i do solemnly swear -- >> i will faithfully execute -- >> i will faithfully execute -- >> the office of president of the united states. >> the office of president of the united states. >> and will to the best of my ability -- >> preserve, protect and defend -- >> the constitution of the

united states. >> the constitution of the united states. >> so help me god. >> congratulations, mr. president. >> watch c-span's inauguration coverage on monday, including the historic swearingen as donald trump takes office as the 47th president of the united states. c-span. democracy unfiltered. >> stay tuned to the c-span networks for comprehensive coverage of confirmation hearings for president-elect trump's cabinet nominees. today, marco rubio, nominee for secretary of state heads to the senate foreign relations committee. john radcliffe, presumptive nominee for cia director testifies before the senate intelligence committee. former florida attorney general pam bondi, nominated for u.s. attorney general, begins her confirmation hearings. she will testify before the senate judiciary committee across two days, today and

thursday. also on thursd, scott beth ssent testifies before the senate finance committee. watch live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos are key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. the timeline tool meets it easy and quickly -- to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is peter montgomery, research director for people for the american way to talk about what we will see

in half an hour from now. hello. a little bit about your group. what is it due and how does it relate to days like today when we are watching these hearings? guest: people for the american way is a progressive advocacy organization. we are devoted to the idea that the american promise should be for all people. we mobilize community leaders and cultural leaders to defend truth, justice and the american way. our vision is an america where rights are protected for everyone, not just the rich and powerful. guest: when it comes to pam bondi herself and the possibility for becoming the attorney general, what are the concerns? guest: we have concerns about the rule of law in the country under the trump administration. we have concerns about whether pam bondi is going to defend americans' safety, rights and freedoms or whether she will be represented donald trump as she has as his personal lawyer and

the corporate interests she has represented as a lobbyist. host: you wrote that she is bad news for the rule of law. give me specifics. guest: one step back. the biggest threat and the trump administration is donald trump himself. in his first term, is worst and pulses were held in check by people, including conservative republicans who believed their oath to uphold the constitution was more important than their personal loyalty to donald trump. we are concerned pam bondi's record suggests she will do and say anything trump wants, including going after journalists and lawyers who investigated him, people just doing their job. she has threatened to target lawyers at the justice department who investigated trump. she helped trump spread lies about the 2020 election that he lost. she went to pennsylvania and made claims about fake ballots.

insisted on national media trump won pennsylvania and they were not going to leave until pennsylvania declared that to be the case. that wasn't the case. that rhetoric has had a lot of negative consequences about people's trust in the elections to the violence on january 6. she helped trump try to avoid response ability for january 6 by resisting investigations. since she has been at the america first policy institute where she argued in a legal brief that jack smith's appointment was unconstitutional. we are worried she has tried to help trump evade accountability. she has proven herself to be a personal loyalist. we are worried she's more likely to enable abuses of power rather than preventive. host: she served as attorney general in her state. guest: it's a very different

role. it is a different role under donald trump. he is expecting personal loyalty. we have concerns about her record as attorney general of florida where she fired attorneys who were investigating abusive loan practices that were defrauding people of their homes. she opposed to same-sex equality. she opposed legal equality for same-sex couples. she tried to overturn the affordable care act. host: this is the political story about the meetings she's been having with senators on capitol hill. some quotes coming from that. this is chris coons of delaware. "there's no question she has the relevant experience managing one of our large estates'department of justice. other couple, to better experience going into the hearing. are you concerned about what democrats will ask or press her

when it comes information they want to hear? guest: they hearings are important for a number reasons. it's in the constitution. it's an important part of tech sent balances. democrats -- checks and balances. democrats want to talk about her qualifications and character. there's no question she's more qualified than matt gaetz with her record as a prosecutor and a state attorney general. we are concerned about whether her personal loyalty to donald trump and his stated desire to push the bounds of what is legal in his efforts to gut the federal government's ability to protect americans. he has pledged to pardon hundreds of january 6 protesters. we are concerned about whether she will enable all those things. whether she will be giving trump advice that protect the american people or just goes along with what he wants to do with his power. host: our guest is peter montgomery.

if you want to ask a question about this hearing with pam bondi as she faces questioning from senators, you can do so on the lines. (202) 748-8000 for democrats will (202) 748-8001 -- democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. text to (202) 748-8003. guest: i would like to send to ask her what she will do it trump gives her -- asks her to do sending the clearly violates the constitution. there has been reports that trump's team are planning to declare executive orders and policies that are illegal or unconstitutional under the court rulings to see how far they can push the limits. i want senators to asker what her advice will be in that situation.

i would like them to ask her more about her threat on media to go after justice department prosecutors and lawyers. i think those are some of the important questions. these hearings are about qualifications, but also about character. about whether somebody can be trusted to do the job to represent the american people and not just the president. host: what has your organization done in light of this hearing as far as media campaigns and advertising? what are you doing in the lead up? guest: we are putting on information on our right wing watch, a website we have. information about her record. we have mobilized members to sign petitions to senators. we have sent a letter to senators detailing our concerns and urging them to oppose the confirmation. host: republicans, democrats?

guest: our letter guest everybody, all the senators. certainly our contacts and conversations are on the democratic side. host: what is the possibility for getting confirmed by the judiciary committee? guest: i think it is probably pretty good. republicans have not shown a great desire in standing up to donald trump. we don't know what's going to come out. one of the great things about confirmation is in some ways it is very transparent. both democrats and republicans get a chance to ask the questions on the record. the nominee answers written questions senators give their also released to the public. it is hard to guess what might come out, what might sway numbers of the committee about her intentions and whether she can be trusted in the job for all the american people, not just donald trump. host: this is peter montgomery. the first call is dave on the independent line from alabama.

you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: hey. i like pam. she's a breath of fresh air compared to this regime we have now, joe biden regime, the loony bin which is reflected through our media. it is said there are so many federal laws now when you wake up in the morning and open your eyes you have already violated about 500. we need to clean house. trump said in the 2016 debate that we need to erase -- he said two. maybe 10. when they pass a new legislation and it is so complex but we need to erase 10. get rid of them. i'm a proponent of streamlining the federal constitution starting in 1871. we need a congress doing the

will of the people to go back and clean this mess up. pam bondi would be a great asset to getting rid of this swamp. the media. i i have -- host: we will let our guest response. guest: people talk about the swamp or people like pam bondi talk about the deep state or the administrative state. it's important to remind ourselves what they are talking about is getting federal agencies whose job it is to protect the american workers, communities and the environment from corporations. i think there is a major effort afoot by the trump administration and the people advising him to make it harder for the government to rein in misbehavior by corporations and give more power over our lives to unaccountable corporations. that is harmful to americans. i hope people resist that but as

part of the agenda we will see from this administration and one supported by pam bondi. host: how do you think that justice department could be reshaped under pam bondi? guest: it is hard to know how aggressively they will be in following through with threats to fire investigate -- fire, investigate and prosecute civil servants. they have a lot of plans for day one executive order's. one thing we know project 2025 was pushing is that they wanted to eliminate the bipartisan principle that is been held for a long time that the fbi and the justice department decisions about law enforcement, prosecutions, should be independent from the white house. should be insulated from political pressures. they want to do away with that. they want to give trump virtually dictatorial control over every federal agency,

including ones that americans have traditionally understood to be independent. that independence is an important check on the abuse of power. we are worried that independence could be eliminated. host: mary in maryland, democrats line. caller: yes. why not just let trump appoint whoever he wants? we are no longer a country of laws. just let him destroy us like he wants to do. we elected him knowing all the crimes he committed. why not just take the people out of jail and let them run for president? guest: i think there are a lot of americans who feel frustration and despair. that is reflected in mary's question. the country is worth fighting for. the rule of law is worth fighting for.

donald trump, despite talking about getting elected by a landslide, actually won by a small origin of the popular vote. his electoral college vote was nowhere near historic the way he describes it. there's a lot of americans who want to protect the rule of law and are willing to stand up to this administration when it does things that are harmful to our fellow americans or the principles we rely on. host: republicans would say that's amended. should that -- a mandate. should that point to appointive positions? guest: there are checks and balances. it is the constitution that gives the senate the authority to review nominees to make sure they are qualified and they can be trusted to do the job. donald trump is no different than any other president who makes appointments to the cabinet and those appointments

are subject to review by the u.s. senate and public confirmation hearings. that is a great process and we should all be glad it is in place. host: the room is filling up at the senate judiciary committee. 9:30 is the scheduled start time for this hearing. we will show you a bit of the room filling up as we hear from bob in wisconsin, the public,. -- republican line. caller: do you believe that merrick garland was political? he had weaponized the department of justice to go after political rivals like trump and everybody else in trump's cabinet? the fbi lied in order to investigate trump. don't you think the government has already been politicali zed? they went after trump. it is proven. don't you think the case in new york when he goes to the appeals court every thing will be dropped on the condition that he did so much wrong in court?

why would you say pam bondi, a very strong woman, is going to be politicized? they will take the political out of the government that biden put in it. i don't get this at all. don't you think that garland went after schools and parents? they went after january 6 people just walking around. we all watched machines go down. election laws being changed. americans saw it in that is why they were met. it had nothing to do with trump. you people are talking about he's going to weaponize the departments. he's not. you did. the democrats did. you are a hardcore democrat. you will come up with some response. host: let him come up with a response then, bob. guest: trump's conviction in new york was convicted on those counts by a jury of americans who heard the evidence and made the decision against him. i think our conclusion that

trump and bondi, cash motel -- kash patel, will weaponize the government to take reputation on trump's enemies is based on things he has said and things they have said. they have talked about going out to the mainstream media. they have talked about going after lawyers for doing their job to investigate wrongdoing by president trump. steve bannon talks about old testament retribution. i think the american people suggest the american people are not fond of the idea of massive pardons of the people who attacked the capitol. people who attacked police officers. we will see. there has been conflicting word from trump and his allies about how many of those people he will pardon. the spartans send a signal --

those pardons send a signal about the rule of law and his valuing of personal loyalty to him over the constitution. host: you mentioned kash patel. does the organization share concerns about him? guest: absolutely. we oppose his confirmation as fbi director. he has explicitly talked about going after trump's opponents. it seems like he's very eager to turn the fbi into a weapon that trump can use against his opponents. patel published a book, i hit list of people he wants to see punished, including some of those republicans i mentioned who stood up to trump and were not willing to go along with his scheme to stay in power after he lost the election. last year at the conservative political action conference, kash patel told the audience the mainstream media is the most powerful enemy the united states

has ever seen. think about that. the media as the most powerful enemy the united states has ever seen. that says something about his mindset. it says why we think he and the administration pose a real threat to freedom of the press, which is core to our democracy. we have a lot of concerns about kash patel named fbi director. host: a conversation with peter montgomery. lois in pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: thank you very much. obviously, bondi has been his personal attorney. i expect she will be his personal attorney when she is in the justice department. what i would like to ask you is, he has said -- you noted that trump wants to prosecute the media. how would the justice department actually do that for him? what could be done to stop it if she is confirmed? guest: there are a number of

ways they can go after the media. they can target individual reporters. trump could order the justice department to target reporters who have been critical of him. could make claims about leaks. he can file -- they can go after them civilly and criminally. there's a lot of ways they can turn the justice department on reporters. project 2025 also envisioned doing away with the independence of agencies like the federal communications commission. trump talked about taking away broadcast licenses for networks whose news coverage of him he did not like. that is another real threat to freedom of the press that we have heard out of trump and his allies. another reason we are concerned

about not having any guardrails in place. one of the reasons for wanting to do mass firings of professional civil servants is they want to get rid of the guardrails and the checks and balances and people who might resist illegal actions. host: cbs -- she sees it as an overriding objective to return the department of justice to its core mission, vowing to get back to basics, prosecuting violent crime, stopping child predators and drug traffickers, protecting the nation from terrorists, and adjusting the crisis at the border -- addressing the crisis of the border. guest: we will see if that is what she really does. i think trump has a much broader agenda. host: james in atlanta. you are on with our guest on the independently. -- independent line. caller: can you hear me?

host: go ahead. caller: i don't really agree with pam bondi. this is the worst pick since when bush was in office in the early 2000. we know how that ended with bush. he doesn't care about black people. i'm disappointed. i was surprised he chose bondi. i was thinking he might choose someone like howard stern. host: that is james on a prank call. when it comes to the things you are worried about, how much is hypothetical in nature as far as what could happen should she become attorney general? guest: it is all hypothetical. we don't know what they will do until they take power. they have a lot of executive orders plan for day one, for the first week, for the first month. there's a plan to remake the federal government to align with trump's vision. some of that will be really

harmful policies toward a lot of different groups of people. it will be using the justice department and fbi for him to take personal retribution against people he sees as his enemies, whether it is political opponents or the mainstream media or civil servants in the justice department and other government agencies that have been doing their jobs. we don't know how wide they will do the mass firings. so they can replace professional employees with political loyalists. that is something that we are looking at. i will say there is a broad coalition. we are proud to be part of a broad coalition of civil society organizations that see what's coming and are preparing for it. i think there will be energetic resistance to the worst of what the trump administration tries to do. host: the focus is on pam bondi

today. how would you rate the tenure of merrick garland? guest: i'm not an expert on that. i would say -- i will take a pass on that one. i have not given a lot of thought to that. host: terry from minnesota on the republican line. caller: peter, you complained about the potential pardons by trump. you did not mention biden's pardons. i'm curious. oh, trump will nominate people loyal to him and try to put in places policies. i think the american people voted for those. are you opposed to the american people's representative doing what they asked them to do? i think it is clear. you are still fighting the election. it's over. we talked about the media. they will attack the media. what is it? 15% of the public trusts the

media right now. there is a problem with the media. they have to begin by stop having the unnamed sources, they have stories. they become an advocacy for one side or the other and the american seem to no longer listen. i'm sorry. your ideas, the american people and the election pretty much flushed it down the toilet and you are diving in after trying to reclaim it. host: you have made your point. guest: we recognized trump won the election. we are not trying to overturn the results. that is a part of what that means. trump gets the name people to run the agencies. that means he gets the name people to the federal bench as federal judges. we are concerned about the people he will put on the bench and the people he will put in the agencies. we will say the process we are talking about today, the confirmation process is part of

the constitution. it is not re-fighting the election. it is saying that trump won 20 has to abide by the constitution. the people -- but he has to abide by the constitution. we have not given up our rights to raise alarms when we think he is doing something illegal or when you think he's doing something harmful with the policies he's pursuing. i don't know if you're suggesting people who oppose trump should just walk away. we will not walk away. a lot of americans are not going to walk away from advocating for what we believe in an america that reflect our values. host: if pam bondi becomes attorney general, is a step for reacting to decisions she may make? guest: there's is a range of option once policies are put in place. we will look at them. are there opportunities to challenge them legally? are they breaking the law? are they violating the rules

about federal procedures and rulemaking? we will mobilize public opinion to the degree we can. we will lobby members of congress to fulfill their oversight responsibilities, which the constitution also gives them. there will be a lot of energetic back-and-forth once trump takes power and he will move aggressively. people will respond as intensely as we can. host: scott in vermont, democrats line. go ahead with your question or comment. scott in vermont, go ahead please. caller:? hello -- hello? i wanted to comment on with the guest just said. everything he is saying about pam bondi is hypothetical. his whole case is hypothetical. when is he going to realize that