we are joined now by elie mystal , a justice correspondent and columnist for "the nation." guest: thank you so much for having me. host: i want to start with this associated press article with the headline "trump administration once a supreme court to let the firing of whistleblower agency had proceed." could you get us up to court on -- up to speed on what that case is about and what the question is? guest: trump likes to fire people and he think because he is president he can fire anybody wants for any reason whether they were not just because he feels like it and remembers it from his tv days, right. there are laws regarding how you can fire people when they work for the federal government. who you can fire, what the proper process is and all that sort of thing. he wants to ignore those laws, a north people who have the positions that are authorized by congress, and fire people

willy-nilly and he is hoping for the supreme court to let them let them do that. there are specifically laws in place to protect whistleblowers from retaliatory firings. one of the reasons why we have whistleblowers is because we have these laws, but trump because he has that kind of mobster mentality, he wants people to have america and never say anything against them, so he thinks that it whistleblower law is completely ridiculous and he should never be bound by it, and so we have classic set up of trump vs. american law and he is once again hoping the supreme court allows them to escape the realities of american law and quite frankly the supreme court has done that for him before and might well do that for him again. host: so when do you think the supreme court would rule on this? guest: the timing right now, i cant quite no. there is so much percolating through the lower courts to the supreme court. we've seen in the past the supreme court can move very

quickly, especially when it wants to help trump. we see in the court can move very slowly, when extending the timeframe is in his benefit. and i don't know how they will play this one. what i do know if the supreme court has the conservatives, the republican justices, the most extremist ones believe in this very impactful theory called unitary executive theory which basically holds that the executive branch of government, article two of the constitution is the president of the united states and nobody else, that he is the entire executive branch and everybody in the executive branch from a whistleblower to the department of justice, everybody serves at his pleasure. that is something they have been trying to push over the years. trump is going to give them many opportunities to push that theory, to stretch that theory even further and make him an

even more powerful present, and people often wonder why would the supreme court give him so much power, aren't they concerned about their own power? and of course they are, but the idea here is that if you make the president kind of the very most powerful person in the world, and the only person who can tell the president know is the supreme court because the supreme court then becomes the only body that is able to say. if they make up the theory, then they are the only people who can tell you if somebody has gone too far against their made theory, right. it's not congress, it's not the people voters elected who can restrain the president, it is the court and only the supreme court, so that is why giving the executive more power actually rebounds to give the supreme court itself even more power, and that is what roberts has always been about, chief justice roberts has always been about

arrogating as much power to himself and his court as he possibly can. host: you said that the president does not have the legal authority to fire whoever he wants whenever he wants, but he and elon musk have been making the argument that the people who are being fired and the federal government are in unelected bureaucracy, that we are trying to restore democracy by getting rid of these people, and that yes, the president should have the right to fire people that are not on board with his policies. guest: first of all, i don't want to hear anything from elon musk. you can't be an unelected bureaucrat talking about the dangers unelected bureaucrats i voted many times in my life and never once have i seen elon musk's name on a ballot. i don't know anybody who has pulled a lever for him, so he needs to shut the hell up. he's going to talk about unelected bureaucrats running america. number two, of course the

president has the power and should have the power to assign people to work with him and advance his agenda. we have an entire process for this. it is called the cabinet and if you think about the cabinet, this idea that the president can just hire or fire anybody wants at any time, we know that's not true because we know that even for his own cabinet, even for the people that he put in charge of executive agencies, they have to go through a senate confirmation process. that has happened throughout american history. the secretary of state, the secretary of war, now the secretary of defense, the attorney general, all these people have to be confirmed by the senate, and the senate doesn't want to confirm somebody then the president can't have that person in that position. hello, mr. matt gaetz, i hope you are well wherever you are in florida. but we know just from a basic

understanding of american civics that what trump and musk are arguing for is provably wrong and inconsistent with american law. host: i'd just like to say, elon musk right now is a special advisor to the president, and the president can have whoever advising him he likes, and they are not seven-confirmed. guest: yes, elon musk is an advisor so he cannot talk to me about being in unelected official holding our. and sure, the president to have advisors. the president can talk to whoever he wants. he wants to put his body -- buddy musk on the payroll, his daughter or his son-in-law on the payroll, that is fine, he can talk to whoever he wants. but there is an entire government that he represents. there is an entire government that he works for any does not have unaccountable power to hire

and fire every single person in the federal government. he just doesn't. and they just prove to you why he doesn't. the idea that just because you are the president can reach all the way down into a lowly civil service person working in the gao and fire them if they happened to be black, that is insane and that is again against the entire thrust of american civics. not even law, just a pacific structure of how the country works. this isn't how it is supposed to work. trump is claiming authority that no other president has had, and you know that he is asking for something that no other president has had because he has to ask for it. if this is how we always did it, then trump wouldn't have to ask the supreme court to let him do it, because it would just be the thing that is always done. it is not always done, this isn't have a supposed to work and there is a really good reason for why it is not supposed to work because we like to think of the president as one

official among many. he has a specific job, a unique job, an important job, but he is not the only person who has authority in the federal government. host: elie mystal is our guest, a justice correspondent columnist with the nation. if you'd like to join the conversation, you can. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. it's president trump has said that he will abide by court orders that block parts of his agenda. do you see that as likely, and what happens if that doesn't happen? guest: he's already lying, he's not abiding by court orders against him right now. the federal funding freeze, the

put on is being blocked. the republic did a report on this last week. if you go to organizations that are expecting federal checks, they will tell you in many cases, the money hasn't been turned back on. that is a clear example of trump lying to everybody's face. and all of us are pretending like it's normal. it's not normal. he said he will abide by court orders. this is a court order against him. he is not abiding by it. a, b, c. so do i think he will abide by future court orders? well, hell, i don't know. he's not abiding by this one. maybe he'll abide by some other one he finds more amenable to him. here's the rub, mimi, here's my real issue. whatever trump says he is going to abide by, there has so far been no at all indication he will enforce court orders against his owner elon musk. we haven't seen any indication

of that at all. there's no suggestion at all that trump will impose a court order against elon musk telling him to rein it in. that's what i'm most worried about. but that's because i already know that trump is lying about whether or not he himself will follow court orders because he's not following a court order right now. host: i want to play for you white house secretary caroline leavitt when she was responding to people who say that trump's actions are causing a constitutional crisis and then i'll get your response. [videotape] karoline: i'd like to address a narrative we've seen emerging. many outlets have been fear mongering the american people in believing there's a constitutional crisis taking place here at the white house. i've been hearing those words a lot lately. but in fact the real constitutional crisis is taking

place within our judicial branch where district court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block president trump's basic executive authority. we believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law and issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration the past 14 days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits. this is part of a larger concerted effort by democrat activists and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against president trump. quick news flash to these liberal judges supporting their obstructionist efforts, 77 million americans voted to elect this president. and each injunction is an abuse of the rule of law in an attempt to thwart the will of the people. as the president clearly stated in the oval office yesterday, we will comply with the law and the courts but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to

ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure president trump's policies can be enacted. host: your reaction to that? guest: if i can translate that gobbledygook, every judge i don't like is a constitutional crisis. she's obviously wrong. it's a well established part of american law that when you do something you can be sued and that lawsuit will go to a judge and that judge will make a ruling and that ruling will be appealed and once you get to a final ruling, that ruling is final. that's just how it works. there is no constitutional crisis with judges imposing the law. there is one with presidents ignoring the law. that's the inversion leavitt is trying to gas light people and

it is very simple to have a court order and follow it. that's normal. it's easy. it's trump who doesn't want to do the normal easy thing and trying to say these judges doing their job is a constitutional problem. republicans have been saying trump was elected with 77 million people. so that somehow means he won a majority of the vote he gets to do whatever he wants. again, that's not how it works. that's not how law or civic works. the president was elected fairly. congratulations to all your success, donald trump. he's still part of a system. he's still part of the legal structure. he's not above that legal structure and there are therefore limitations on what he can do no matter how many people

want him to do it. there are things he can do and things he can't do. the judges are saying in many cases he is exceeding his constitutional and legal authority. just because 77 million people ostencibly want him to exceed his constitutional and legal authority doesn't mean he can. it's that simple. host: let's go back to the supreme court, your cover article for "the nation" how trump could remake the supreme court for a generation with the subheading donald trump is poised to become the first president since f.d.r. to have appointed the majority of the high court justices, his potential picks are terrifying. guest: so liberals generally think the supreme court can't get any worse because it's already stacked 6-3 with republican appointees over democratic appointees, and i write to remind people it can always get worse and worse right now is taking that republican

6-3 majority and making it permanent for the lifetime of my natural life and everybody reeling this program's natural life and two older justices are republican, clarence thomas is 76 and samuel alito is 74. if both those two men retire in the next four years, trump will have the opportunity to replace them with those men 30 years younger, thus at some level, i can't say permanentizing but giving him control of the supreme court long after trump's life. these are justices that are going to outlive trump. these are justices that are going to impose the maga legacy on the rest of us through unelected means for the next 30 or 40 years and trump is in position if alito and thomas retire to become the first

president since f.d.r. to appoint not just supreme court justices but the majority of the supreme court if these two men retire will be appointed by trump and that is what keeps me up at night. stthere's a question to you from dave in elmira, new york, for the following court orders p. if i'm not misken, biden did not follow court orders either giving forgiveness of millions of dollars in school loans. guest: he did follow it. they said he can't do it that way so he did it some other way. he followed the letter of the law and spirit of the law and because he got an adverse court order he didn't give up on the program and tried to find another legal way to achieve his end. trump did that last time. the first muslim ban overruled by the court, the second muslim

ban overruled by the court. did trump say no i'm going to stop banning muslims. no, he didn't say i'm going to stop banning muslims but tried again and again until he got a muslim ban the supreme court was willing to uphold. i think that was a horrible decision by the supreme court in trump v. hawaii but that's a problem with the supreme court, not donald trump. donald trump when he was trying to amorally ban muslims coming into the country did it the right way. joe biden trying to relieve student debt relief did it the right way. what trump is doing now by ignoring the court orders ordering him to restore the funding he illegally and unconstitutionally took away, that's different in kind than anything that biden did and anything that trump did the first time and frankly that anything that any other american president has done until we have to go all the way back to andrew jackson or abraham lincoln to find somebody who openly defined a court order.

host: let's talk to callers and start with maria in atlanta, democrat. good morning, maria. caller: good morning c-span family and mia and elie, i was wondering whether they'd bring you back again. i bigtime follow you. nevertheless trump gets on tv and says all kind of stuff and a wild man got on tv and talk about how elon musk helps him and swing states and how he went over there and worked on his computer and said he's awfully good at computers. do you actually think because i never heard none of the media ever pick this up again and comment, you think he was trying to say the election was stolen? guest: no, i don't. thank you for the love and for your own mental health, try very hard to stop watching trump on tv, it's not good for you. he's going to say the same thing. once you see a dog bark and the

dog run, you don't need to hear it the rest of your afternoon. go out and touch grass, man, because it will get in your soul if you listen to that man too much. as opposed to the specific allegation, no. trump is not the most rhetorically cautious individual. he's not trying to say elon musk helped him steal the election and i do not think elon musk help steal the election but i actually think that democrats and liberals somehow sometimes roll into or protect themselves with feelings that maybe something fishy or something untoward happened because it's easy to believe 77 million americans voted for a convicted felon crazy person, right. it's easier to believe something had to be fishy there than no, they knew who trump was and just wanted to do this to the

country. the latter is actually true. no, i don't think elon musk helped him steal anything. i do think now he's in power, elon musk is helping him do some serious illegal activity with musk wielding power he never should have but that's a different problem. host: let's talk to a republican in clifton park. caller: trump won the election fair and square and he has a mandate to govern conservatively. he's allowed to govern conservatively for at least the next two years until the midterm and the next four years until a republican successor will have to run again. so trump is given the latitude because he won the election by the popular vote and a landslide electoral vote. guest: we agree he won fairly

and doesn't believe he won the mandate. that's a word, who cares. he won fairly and is allowed to govern as a conservative and the conservatives are allowed to like the crazy things he d. what he's not allowed to do is illegal stuff. surely, we can agree he's not allowed to do illegal things. that he's not allowed to do unconstitutional things. surely we can agree on that. while you and i might disagree on what's legal and constitutional, surely we can agree a federal judge is the right person, is the person who should be able to tell us what's legal and what's constitutional and what is not. so mark, can we not agree that trump, while yes, he's allowed to govern conservatively, while yes, he's allowed to do what the people elected him to do, he is not allowed to break the law. host: are you still there? do you agree with that?

caller: what trump is doing is the right thing. he's doing the right thing. guest: is it the legal thing, mark? who is supposed to decide whether or not it's the legal thing? is nobody supposed to decide whether or not it's a legal thing. is anything trump says is legal? are we back to nixon now. when the president does it, it's not illegal? is that literally the best can you get to, mark? or do you think maybe somebody who is not the president should have a say in whether or not what the president is doing is legal or illegal? host: let's give mark a chance. go ahead, mark. what did you think of that? caller: i think what trump is doing is great right now. he's cutting waste. host: that's not the question, mark. as far as legality. caller: i think that he has a large latitude and we're going to have to find out because obviously these court orders and judges blocking things, i think they will eventually work their

way through the process, i suppose. host: the court system. caller: yeah, that's it. host: got it. elie mystal. there's a posting on x i'm sure you're aware of by vice president vance who said this, if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. if a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. judges aren't allowed to control the executives' legitimate power. what's your response to that? guest: i was harvard and j.d. vance went to yale and i'm feeling really good about my choices if that's the best j.d. vance can do right now. if j.d. vance was right, the dobbs decision canceling the right to abortion was illegitimate and illegal on its face and joe biden should have personally performed abortions for the last four years if j.d. vance was right. of course j.d. vance is not

right. j.d. vance sounds like an idiot when he says that because the idea that judges -- that the third branch of government doesn't have a legitimate check on the power of the other two branches, the legislative branch and the executive branch, again, flies in the face of basic american civics, all right? i have many problems with the supreme court and how it wields power. in the past i'm in favor of what the scholars call jurisdiction tripping and a way to limit the power they may have on constitutional issues and all for reform of the supreme court. i don't think it's the greatest body on earth but it is a legitimate part of american government and acting what it can say or constitutional or not is just not something we do in

this country. we understand the judges have a role and the rest of us have to follow the judges rule. if you don't like it, there are many ways to reform the supreme court and many articles i've listed j.d. vance is allowed to read but to say he can do it because he's president flies in the law of civics. j.d. vance knows that. he's saying what he's saying because it's in his best political interest to lick trump's boots even if it flies in the face of all law and reason and civics. host: here's lewis in new jersey, independent. good morning, lewis. caller: good morning, sir. this reminds me when trump was in his first term and had judges blocking him from building the wall. it's politics and judges should

not be involved in politics. he's an executive and can fire anybody he wants. maybe. guest: maybe you feel good inside knowing there's a strong daddy person firing people. maybe that's what you want but he doesn't have the power to fire anyone he wants no matter how many times he beats his chest and says he's the president and he's the executive. caller: i'll lick anyone's boots. guest: why can't he fire people the right way? why can't he use that process, lewis? caller: i agree with you there, ok. host: let him address his second point. guest: you were saying the

judges were playing politics with the wall like in the first trump administration. have you forgotten what happened in the biden years because there were decisions from these exact same judges that were averse to biden's agendas and policies and one of the other callers brought up the student debt relief as one. if you think the judges are playing politics, do you think it's politicks that hurts trump? really? because i seem to recall. caller: i agree with you what they did to biden, too, sir. i agree with you there, too. guest: so you think judges shouldn't have as much power as they do? caller: it's politics, that's all. host: all right. and i want to ask you about an article you wrote for the nation with the headline, trump's attacks on d.e.i. are a green light for the government to discriminate. i want to you explain that because critics of d.e.i. say it is discrimination because it's preferring people of diverse races, women over men, that kind

of thing. what's your response to that? guest: so d.e.i. was invented by white people. d.e.i. was invented by white men to try to comply with the civil rights act of the 14th amendment of the constitution. d.e.i. was their white male creation to comply with constitutional law. what diverse people, if that's what we're calling us today, what women have been asking for has not been d.e.i. they've been asking for fair and equal employment opportunities. they've been asking for the application of the equal -- of the equality clause in the 14th amendment and the application of the civil rights act in hiring. that's it. it was white guys that were just like, we don't know how to hire all these people so we're just doing some d.e.i. and makes sure we have to hire black people and women and latinos and whatever.

that was their solution. now they don't like that solution anymore, that's fine. d.e.i. is a policy. it's constitutional to change policy. trump has every authority he might need to change the policy of the united states. my question is what are you doing instead? what are you doing instead, trump and meta and musk to make sure you're in compliance with the civil rights act and 14th amendment and there they never have an answer. host: we'll hire the best person for the job and therefore we knorr compliance. guest: is that what is happening? d.e.i. was amended and it wasn't happening because they weren't

able to highway the most qualified person for every job and only able to highway the whitest male person for every job, right? that's what was happening before d.e.i. and now do we see them hiring the most qualified person for every job? do we see them only firing the least qualified people for every job? no, we don't see that. in your last segment with armstrong williams, there was a caller who specifically asked that man, does he think that every single person who works in the federal government who is of color is a d.e.i. hire and was unqualified for their job and armstrong says no, of course not, that would be ridiculous. of course he said, and i'm quoting him from your last segment, said most people got their job on merit which is an interesting statement because they're firing everybody. they're firing people not based on merit, not based on their qualifications, not based on their actual work history.

and they're firing people. and that violates the constitution. it is legal for you to get rid of d.e.i. policies. what's not legal is for you to fire people just because they happen to be black at work. it's ridiculous to fire everybody who has been hired under a d.e.i. program without any kind of assessment of their actual work performance, their actual, dare i say, merit for the job. but they're not doing it that way. they're firing everybody who happens to be black in government. that's what is what is legal and what the problem is. host: let's hear from jennifer in midlothian. good morning. caller: thank you for taking the time to listen to our calls. my question is piggybacking on what you're talking about with d.e.i., i tend to understand, right, we know there's no statute for taxation, quote, without representation. but what legal recourse do those

of us who fall within these marginalized youth, i.e., youth, lbgtq+, those labeled as marginalized communities to push back on everything being dismantled in the name of d.e.i. if we are federal taxpayers and we're paying our money but every book that represents us is being banned from schools, every program that potentially may create spaces and access for these individuals, special education, all the same, we're paying our money. this is an economic issue. so as citizens and residents of whatever state you're in, commonwealth of virginia, commonwealth of massachusetts, how can we push back and say wait, my tax dollars are going to everybody but my community, and how is that legal that we don't have any recourse because they're doing it in a discriminatory way like you said under the impies of well, that's considered d.e.i. because we just don't want it. no, we have title 6 and title 7

and all these rights we're supposed to have access to and we're paying our money and we're seeing we don't get the services and access and empowerment we should be getting. so do we need recourse? guest: jennifer, i believe it is illegal. you named the statute. i believe that what they are doing is illegal under the civil rights act. again, that's not because they're changing the d.e.i. policy. d.e.i. is not required by the civil rights act but fairness is but equality is and so when they willy-nilly fire everybody for the crime of being black, fire everybody for the crime of being a woman without any individualized assessment of their merit, i believe that is violating the civil rights act and should catch a lawsuit. now, unfortunately, once they catch that lawsuit and i know lewis is still out there, why are they suing the courts, but when they do catch that lawsuit, eventually that goes to the supreme court and the supreme court, my read on the six

republican judge is that they don't think the civil rights act should be constitutional in the first place. they don't like the voting rights act and roberts has done everything he can to eviscerate the voting rights act which is the most important piece of legislation in the american history. they've already gotten through the 1965 voting rights act, i believe next on the chopping block for these conservative is the 1964 civil rights act and don't think the lawsuit that trump deserves to catch because what he is doing and the way he's doing it is legal i know that's going to work at the supreme court. so to jennifer's question, what's the recourse? the recourse is the recourse that the people always have. trump was elected by a majority of americans and the only people who can take that power away are a majority of americans. activating, voting, convincing people. i personally have started to boycott target. i vote with my wallet as well, target specifically because

target has spent a decade telling my community, we like you here, come to target and put your products on our shelves. target is basically jerry maguire. we love black people except when trump is in charge but we hate black people and target deserves to not have my dollars at this moment and doing what i can with my wallet and my feet and my voice. we all have to do that. in the words of kermit the frog, we need more dogs and cats and mum either and chickens and things. host: let's hear from denia, republican. caller: can you hear me? host: go right ahead. caller: i have a question biden didn't do nothing but stay on vacation most of the time and i hear people keep calling in and badmouthing trump and what he's

doing and everything, and you know, it's like deja vu. are we going to keep trying to put trump in the courts again during his presidency or are we going to give him a chance? i say give him a chance. i think he's the best president we've ever had. and whatever he does, he knows right from wrong. he ain't going to do anything wrong. look at all the lawsuits they did and all of them dismissed. come on. it's the witch-hunt starting all over. this person you have on your show morning, if they are so smart and think that trump is doing wrong, why ain't they president? they don't they get off their lazy butt and run for president. host: let's get a response. go ahead, elie. guest: i will fight trump with everything i have and fight him on the streets and never yield

to this orangemen us. if that makes denir unhappy i apologize but i will do everything in my small power to fight this man and what he's trying to do to my country. host: but his supporters are saying that's exactly the problem, you're just fighting him for no reason. so give us a reason. guest: you want me to start listing the reasons. host: give us a little bit. guest: that man has been convicted on 34 counts of a felony. the only reason those other cases have been dismissed against him is because he has judges in his pocket like eileen cannon. the supreme court gave him absolute immunity for official acts for the first time in american history. the president was placed squarely above the law by his handpicked supreme court justice. we have been talking about his racist actions with d.e.i. and calling white south africans to live as refugees in this country

while expelling actual black and brown refugees living here. he's trying to overturn the 14th amendment and strip away birthright citizenship from people who have been born americans and those are the reasons i can think of to oppose him off the top of my head. so yeah, i will keep fighting. host: you have a book coming out next month called "bad law," 10 popular laws ruling america. give us one of those, a real brief explanation. guest: let's go with voting registration. all voting registration should be renounced. voting registration does not help keep our elections safe. all it does is increase the participation in our elections and the first chapter in the book, we have a section of the book how voting requirement eligibility requirements and you should be automatically registered to vote and that registration should be portable which means when you move you're

still registered, the registration follows you, you don't have to chase registration. people might think it's a radical idea and i point out to people in the first chapter of that book that's the way they do it in most of the rest of the functional democracies in the world. it's how they do it in england and france and how they do it in argentina and australia. that's how they do it everywhere else. we're the slow people. we're the people who haven't caught up with the 21st century by still doing registration in a case by case basis instead of having automatic and mandatory registration for all eligible voters and if we had that, i wonder if the 77 million people who voted for trump, i wonder if that number would be enough. host: dave in lynchburg, virginia wants end on a positive note. you suggeste what keeps you up at night, conversely, what gives you hope?

guest: i've got two kids, 12 and 9 and beautiful little boys and they're not afraid. they're not depressed all the time and think the world is going to get better. they understand we've got serious problems but my kids think they'll be the people who come up with a solution for climate change. they think they'll be the people who come up with solutions for our problems and i take a lot of strength and hope from them. i do think generally and it's right to say, i do think the kids are right and i think the kids are seeing how my generation, again x is -- gen-x is screwing up and they're committed to doing better and hope it remains the case. host: you can find >> president trump is schedule to address a joint session of congress next month during his

second ter we will have live coverage on tuesday march 4 at 8:00 p.m. eastern and democratic response. the coverage will stream live on our video app and our website at c-span dog. >> saturday our first 100 days and explore the early months with historians, authors and through the c-span archives and plierments and setbacks and ohio events affected presidential terms and the nation up to the present day. saturday, the first 100 days of president roosevelt's presidency. he defeated president hoover. in his speech he said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. he called for a special session

of congress to tackle economic crisis. it was franklin roosevelt who coined the phrase first 100 days. watch "first 100 days" on saturday on american history tv on c-span 2. >> cpan, democracy unfiltered, we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> do you think this is a community center? no. >> comcast is partnering to enable wifi so students can be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a puic service as well as these television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up next, conveations with new members of congress

talking about their early lives, previous careers, their families and what drove. we spoke with representative from virginia. i decided to run and 25 years in the military than serving this country and i continued serving in a different investigating war crimes in ukraine.

the election coming up was critical. i decided to throw my hat in the ring and things worked out. like your brother who made so much years you were born in ukraine and tell us how you came to america. >> we are identical twins. we have an older brother. the five of us, my dad and my brothers and grandma came to 1979 with less than $800 between us and didn't speak a lick of english and former soviet receive fewees from soviet ukraine. we moved to new york city, ethnic neighborhood in brighton beach and grew up there. working class family. my dad for the first eight

months didn't speak any english. and he still has this little notebook where he learned 10 english words a day and passed a technical engineering exam. we grew up and went to public universities and first cans, all three of us served in the military to return the favor in gratitude to country and served in uniform. >> what did this experience teach you? >> hard work. the value of patriotism and love of country. i worked with people of all walks of life. didn't matter, black, white, hispanic, we all serve and we love this country and frankly some of the most patriotic

people i work with are immigrants who had the opportunity to come here whether as refugees or as immigrants and it was a wonderful experience. >> let's talk about 2019, the name vindman is connected with that phone call between thrum and president zelenskyy. where were you at the time and what happened? >> i was a deputy legal adviser and lieutenant colonel assigned to the white house on a detail. and the chief ethics official and so i worked right across the hall from my twin brother and he had the portfolio of russia-ukraine belarus and mall

dova and listened to the president's attempt at extortion and he reported directly to me. we talked about it briefly and we had a duty to report that call and the rest is history. >> what did that episode teach you about washington? >> there are lessons still to be learned. but for us, that phone call was a duty if we had not reported that phone call, we would have been deer like that in our duty. what it taught me, there is no place in washington, even if it is national security, politics does not come into play. that's what i learned. >> that long experience in the army and trump white house at the time how did it prepare you for this particular new role?

>> the experience in the army was the best operation because every two, three years we have a new assignment and thrown into a path where you may have not done the job ever before. i was a prosecutor as a jag officer deployed to iraq and commanding officers in the field on war issues, working at the white house on national security council. so being resilient, adaptable, doing your homework and putting in the hard work to understand an issue and struggling through what the right answer is. i think all of those experiences prepared me. leading troops, stepping out and leading all those were great experiences. >> were you always a democrat and what does that affiliation mean to you?

>> i came from a working class family. my dad was in a union and those benefits to make sure our immigrant family, three boys, our step mom joined and step prots as well, and four of us that had the benefits in order to survive the scrapes and broken bones we had. that opportunity we had is the type of opportunity i want to provide to my family and every american family in virginia's congressional district. i talked about education and integrity and hard work. but you know, from my time in the military, politics is not a huge factor. i worked for democratic and republican administrations. and i care deeply about this

country and national security and that's what i am focused on. >> and what does your family think about your job? >> i have a 14-year-old daughter and she told me i -- they can tell you what that is. this is something that students. i'm proud of her. and 20-year-old son, third year at william and mary. and married to my wife of 26 years and college sweethearts and after of decades we have made northern virginia our home. our kids have gone. what do you like to do in your spare time? >> spend time with the family. maybe skiing, but hiking and

binge. >> he is a doctor who holds a law degree and legislator and licensed pilot and talks about why he ran for a seat in congress. there are a lot of different issues, rising crime, the economic catastrophes of the last four years, rampant wokeness and poor energy policy and i needed to step forward. >> what's it like being here so far? >> it's exciting and an honor to

represent my people. yesterday was certifying the election of donald trump as the 47th president we are excited to get to work. we passed the laken riley bill to push back and protect americans against illegal aliens. >> where did you grow up and what kind of experiences do you remember? >> south st. louis county. my family goes back several generations in missouri. my father was an accountant. my on mom ran our tax and bookkeeping service and one prots and one sister. i grew up in south st. louis county and close knit. my parents worked hard and valued education, stayed together and married over 60 years. and we -- it was a close

community in south st. louis county back then. you could leave your doors opened and the kids played in the church parking lot after school and we benefited from that american dream of solid. and parents who worked hair hard and something that is missing from society now adays. >> when did you become politicalally aware? >> during watergate, i watched the wear gate hearings and i'm not sure i understood what was going on and i started to volunteer in political campaigns and became more politically active in college, my first election was. >> you have a law degree and

medical degree? >> i'm an internist. >> do you still practice. >> i'm in forced retirement. but i still keep in touch with the folks back home. >> being in public policy and the law and not 100% what i was going to do and stay with meed sin but now i practice law by writing laws.

>> eight years in the missouri senate. some of the issues we tackled back there are very much alive today. and tackled illegal immigration and passed the strongest state law. we worked on issues like life, the second amendment. because we were a state we balanced our budget and lived within our means and reformed entitlements. the skills of being a legislator but the background in those issues will serve me well. >> you represent the 3rd district. >> the third downer district goes from suburbs of st. louis county all the way into central missouri, a lot of farmland and ranchers and farmers and columbia, go tigers, all the way down to the seat of government and jefferson city and into the

ozarks, 16 counties and i'm honored to represent such a great district. >> tell us about your family. >> my wife and family have raised our kids for 25 years and live on a farm there and we have six children. and they are excited as well. >> did you own a small business. >> the medical practice and clinical research and a little bit of commercial real estate. i have signed the front of the paycheck as well as the back. >> you have a pilots license. what do you fly? >> i learned in a small cessna 150, two-seater. and my instructor was a small guy. got my license five guys and

instrument rating, 700. i fly a the plane with the parachute. the only plane that my wife would let me get. i like to spend time outdoors, hunting, running, bicycling, mostly spending time with my family. >> wellsly bell is the first african american to hold st. louis county prosecutor. he talks about his career and first run for elective office and won his office after the protests a decade ago.

i put my hat in the ring and very fortunate to be on the negotiating team with then president barack department of justice helping to create and negotiate the ferguson consent decree and bringing body cameras to police officers, increasing pay for our law enforcement officers and just being a part of the group that helped turn a very tough situation around. >> what did you learn personally and professionally? >> there is no substitute for listening and building relationships not only with your constituents most importantly but also with stakeholders. the first time i ran for city council, i had typical lawyer, i

wrote up this platform that i thought was god's gift to politics. i got in my first town hall meeting and tore it up about five seconds and folks were telling me what their issues were and i created a platform based on the folks i wanted to represent and i never forgot that and that outreach is so important. >> you grew up in the st. louis area. what do you remember? >> football and school. my parents were essentially one of those folks like you can do whatever you want within reason as long as the grades are good. if the grades are not good, everything is shutdown. we played football in the basement and organized pea-wee

but just being part of a great community and great support system. fortunate with the support. >> you have come to congress serving as prosecuting attorney in st. louis. what was your approach and what do people remember about your work? you. >> criminal justice reform. we recognize that serious violent offenders have been held accountable. when you cross the line of harming folks, we are going to hold you accountable. but there are people struggling with opioid abuse, mental health issues that haven't harmed anyone other than the disease they are struggling with. those low-level offenders, we

had a diversion program where we connected our criminal justice system with our health care system. you want to fix your public safety problem, fix your health system. they are struggling with diseases, mental health and address those. >> you were the first african-american to serve in that position as prosecuting attorney and what did that serve to you? >> it is not lost on me as being the first on anything. and i recognize the responsibility of that. you want to set an example for those who look like me who may want to come along and do this 10 years from now, 15 years from now or however long. but we want to do the work.

we want to keep our region safe. i don't care what letter is in front of your name, as well as democrats and republicans, everyone is caring about the safety of their loved once. i took that job very seriously and will support our local prosecutors as well as d.a.'s and law enforcement to make sure they have the tools. but some of those tools are about treatment. >> do you remember the moment you decided to run this seat? >> it was a culmination of events. my time inferring uson opened my eyes to the need across st. louis county for criminal justice reform. and as a former professor,

teaching our young people and recognizes ing that a lot of folks are looking for opportunities and want to make certain they grow this opportunity hopefully in my district but as a former judge, i saw folks at their lowest in many cases and what i have seen consistently whether someone agrees or degrees, they need to be treated fairly. i bring those experiences to my role in the house of representatives and honor and pleasure to serve and i'm looking forward to it. >> how would you consider yourself politically? >> a commonsense public servant laser focused on gettings ing things done for my constituents

and work with anyone who has the interest of the st. louis region in mind. i look forward to working with my fellow democrats and reach across the aisle and work with republicans because we agree on a lot more than we disagree. >> finally back to your family and brothers of yours. what does everyone think about this? >> it occurred to me swearing-in, 50 to 60 people in town, they are more excited than i was, it is humbling and also exciting to know that i can serve the folks back at home and what they are go to go get from me is put the st. louis region first and focus on getting things done. creating good jobs and lowering

the cost of food and drug costs, but every day, waking up and thinking about what can i do for our region. >> ron. mr. bresnahan: of pennsylvania is one of the new members. he owns a real estate development company and his electrical business dates back. first time in elected office. >> i have absolutely no political experience. no one in my family ran for dog catcher. our family business is and was traffic signals, electrical contracting. my grandfather started in 1973 with a station wagon and grew the company and 2008 we got clobbered with banks and surety

and looking for a succession plan. i was going to go to drexell university and my grandparents we will sell you the company, university of scranton checked the box and i knew i would be back in the family business but not at the age of 19, to whom much is given, much is required and i took it very and it grew up at $400. 19 different states and i am excited to represent my home in washington ddz. >> you turned to politics. where did the political bug come from? >> i tried to help the right people for the right reasons, people that wanted to make northeastern pennsylvania and represent my home and my values. so i have been watching the

political hand scape and came to washington, d.c., for a legislative fly-in with the electrical contractors association. talking about 529's and how imperative it was to create a worker and i met with a member and he wasn't interested and i was thinking i could do that job never thinking i could do it and i had a girlfriend at the time that tolerated me and throwing myself into a political gauntlet wasn't something i was looking at doing and to whom much is given, much is required and i want to give back to northeast pennsylvania. >> having run a business that lends itself to be a lawmaker. >> we are a union electrical

contractor. come from the engineering background and grow so quickly was because of our relationships with our trade partners. but i have considered myself a pragmatic, commonsense-oriented solution. i'm not from a lynnage of legislators but have looked at decisions. and entrepreneurial mind-set, but i think it comes down to being approachable and listening to people. when you are running a company, you are thinking what is best for your company and district. i think just being pragmatic and common sense is a fundamental presume you need to be here. >> how would you describe yourself?

>> fiscal conservative but i'm pragmatic. i look at issues and not a believerrer of one size fits all. i have always considered myself to be a rational independent their. so i don't know where i fall in that landscape on the climate or the temperature, but i'm a regular person that came through and was born in my district and went to school in my district and created in my district and i know i'm going to die and get buried in my district. my job and my voting card is owned by the people of northeast pennsylvania. >> what do you like. >> ran two marathons. we ran the new york city marathon. beaches are my worst vacation because i'm not a person to sit still and idle.

i used to golf. i only played four rounds of golf in the last 15 months since we ventured into the campaign. but i love being part of my community. we went to a par af medic fundraiser for one of our emergency responders who fell ill. but just being home. >> you are 34 years old. >> i am. >> longer term fans? >> i came from butler street in wyoming, pennsylvania and representing his family's home that we call home for five generations. i focus here. >> emily randall is more than one of 60 new members. she sterved in the washington senate and talks about her career which includes work as a

community organizer. >> i work in nonprofit health care and building community support for expanding health care access for kids, for women, lgbtq folks. i worked for planned parenthood and ran for office in 2018. >> you were born in seattle area. what was it like growing up there, who were your key influencer? >> i grew up in the house that my mom grew up in. i'm the first in my family to go to college. my role models my family that worked in the trades. they were my indicators and faith leaders. my grandma was a hospital health

keeper and moon lighter. at that time she spoke spanish and made sure they knew what they needed to know from a doctor. and that taking care of your neighbors no matter what. >> did you hear politics being discussed growing up? >> my dad is republican and my mom is a democrat. we had vibrant kitchen table conversations. but i didn't really know my elected leaders. i didn't really think that i was going to run for office some day but i wanted to give back. >> were you always a democrat? >> no. i have a sister who has born

with koment flex disabilities when i was 7. my mom jokes now but her pregnancy is the only one that was planned. and olivia had gsh born with severe disabilities and the twin died, my doctor encouraged her to have an abortion and wasn't the right choice for her and made me -- i was -- didn't identify pro-choice and i felt my sister's life was just as important. as i got older and i met pearce who became pregnant unexpectedly, you hear supposer about folks are faced with.

i realize that what bothers me as a young person that someone was trying to impress an idea on my mom. and so now i have worked on really strong abortion protections in the state of >> i want to the ask you about your experience in the state senate. was from a specific moment that you said i'm going to run for office. >> the first time? yeah, i was at my college campus at wellsly college after being in nashua, new hampshire with planned parenthood action fund and we were waiting for the election results, 2016 and it was like 1:30 in the morning.

east coast time and i knew that the candidate i had fought for had lost and knew that the trump administration was going to come for medicaid, come for the affordable care act, come for lgbtq rights and the pell grant and education support that had made the difference for me and the people they care about and i knew that i had to do more and that night is when i decided to run for the state senate in hawaii home community. >> how many years did you work with planned parenthood? >> six years. i worked on medicaid expansion for postpartum parents and for immigrants. i also worked a lot on education and opportunity. as a first-generation college i

would worked on access to affordable four-year degrees and i spent a lot of time also working on transportation and infrastructure, which was new for me. i took a bus sometimes and i drove by car but i wasn't an expert in transportation and then got the chance to negotiate washington's transportation package that invests in roads and bridges and all sorts of things. >> you started making news back home by being one of the two lgbtq women in the state snap. how has that laid an -- for you? >> claire and i were elected the same year. i think it testified to the caucus that there were some gaps.

you know it matters that we bring our voices and our neighbors' voices with us into the halls of power. because we get to shape legislation, whether through amendment or just educating our colleagues about the way we talk about community that makes folks in community feel more seen and heard and respected. we passed a lot of lgbtq protections in the legislature in washington during the first trump administration in advance of this one and now i'm bringing those neighbors' voices with me, those experiences to keep fighting for all of our community. >> when you ran for the house seat that you now occupy you did receive a number of high-profile endorsements in washington. what was it like campaigning for the ho us? >> it was a different adventure. i had run two of the toughest campaigns in the state so i knew what tough campaigning was like but the congressional district

is once bigger. running in a democratic primary was new for me but i went out and talked to my neighbors as before. showed up at their front doors and asked them their concerns and what they hoped for and tried to bring those stories along with me. i think that's part of why senator patty murray endorsed me because she saw me doing that work and i'm here to make sure folks feel like they've got real representation. >> i always like to ask our cross-country folks how often they hope to get back home to the district. what are you thinking? >> most weekends. it is a big agree graphic district so i captain just go home one weekend a month and be in everyone corner with it. i have family i want to spend time with. a baby. nicole: who's almost 1. my wife, my sister, my mom.

i'll take those cross-country commutes with my little dog and rack up the air miles and come back here and get to work. >> what do you see as the toughest part of negotiating washington, d.c.? >> this is my first time as a minority. i always served in a democratic fry tecta in the senate senate but even when i was a member of the majority, i knew that bipartisan relationships made my policy better so i'm going to try and draw on experiences to draw on folks on both sides of the aisle to make sure the policies we pass reflect the needs of all americans. >> vice president j.d. vance is scheduled to give remarks on thursday at the conservative political action conference or cpac. watch live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at

c-span ok. >> looking to contact your members of congress? c-span is making it easy for you with our 2025 congressional direct rip. it contains bio and contact information for every house and senate member of the 115th congress. the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. its costs $3.959 plus shipping and handling. scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to preorder your copy today. >> non-fiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling non-fiction authors and influential interviews on the

afterwards podcast and on q&a, hear wide ranging conversations with authors and others who are making things happen and book knees is our weekly hour-long conversations over nonfiction books on a wild variety of topics. download the free c-spannow app or wherever you get your podcasts or on our website. c-span.org/podcasts. ♪ >> democracy is always an unfinished creation. >> democracy is worth dying for. >> democracy belongs to us all. >> we are here in the sanctuary of democracy. >> great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. >> a great democracy is bigger than one person. >> democracy must always be

guarded and protected. this is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom. >> several democratic members of congress spoke at a rally against cuts to the health and human services department out of the agency's washington, d.c. headquarters. key speakers included maryland senator chris vann hollen and north dakota representatives jamie raskin and glenn ivy. in runs about 30 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. good morning. hey, i brought you guys a chance. back when i was in school i wasn't very good at making posters because they were ill lidgeable so i became the chant master. how about this one? hey, hey, r.f.k., hands off the

f.d.a. [chanting] [cheers] >> not bad for a first try, huh? how about hey, hey, r.f.k., we remember j.f.k. [chanting] that's right, john f. kennedy, a champion of science, a champion of medical research, a champion of democracy and nato. a champion of human rights all over the world. that's the kennedy we're standing up for today. my name is jamie