congress, congress, congress we need you to come and help us. it's not about wall street or main street. we need our streets to be taken care. the federal resources included in the america rescue plan would enable county leaders to make strategic investments to get to the task of vaccinia residents mitigating the spread of the deadly distractive virus. these unprecedented times for unprecedented cooperation and bipartisanship, both parties and i stress, both parties should work together and pass this american rescue plan. now we'll handed back over to mayor sub tenent thank you all for listening. >> thanks commissioner and thanks to my colleagues for their salient points about why it's so important for congress to work now on the biden land and why we need the rescue now and move as quickly as possible. image before you if you have a question put in your name and which outlet you are within the chad and i will call on you. we also have tom cochran and matt chase of the national association of counties on the call as well if you have questions for

congress approved five bipartisan covid-19 bills provided more than $4 trillion in aid to address the pandemic . conversation now with former congress tom graves and brian baird on ways to modernize congress. this is an event hosted bythe american enterprise institute . >> my name is zachary corser, director at claremont college and it's my pleasure to welcome you all today to a conversation about modernization in congress. this is a follow-up discussion to an event ati held on october 16 and we have the opportunity to discuss congress diminished role in constitutional systems. i'd like to thank you all 11 and nicole penn at the center for constitutional studies for hosting the event and george thomas at claremont salvatori center for sponsoring and organizing this event as well. you're very fortunate to hold this because the timing is certainly right. when we started talking about this in october we had some rather broad discussions, article 1 powers and the kind of well-worn pieces about congress and how it had withdrawn from the separation of powers that it had been dominated by the executive and we kind of discussed reform ideas and we haven't yet had the final report of the select co

congress. and she shows up on the covers of lots of magazines. as a face not just a black women in congress, but women in congress and younger women in congress. she's the first member of congress i think i have a baby while she is serving. and she shows up on the cover and she's holding her little baby. in something that probably the first time there had been such you know a lawmaker holding a brand-new baby. and shirley chisholm also, she becomes a national figure, in ways that are shown by these two buttons. we have here in the collection. they don't say anything about shirley chisholm running for congress, but it surely running for president. surely is our girl for president. shirley chisholm for president. to represent all americans. you can see the woman symbol around her face in the center of this, and it places her in the feminist agenda, and that was something that very much was important to her. the and during the 72 election, she was very much putting together she was put together with a group of interesting people. and if you look at film clips of her at the democratic convention, it's interesting to see her see her talk about deleg

congress congress makes the laws. put that your notes, it's important. congress makes the laws. the president, carries out the laws. passed by congress. the president, gentlemen, does not make law. the president carries out the laws, made by congress. and, the courts. the function of the courts. the main responsibility of the courts. is to make sure, that no law has, -- passed by congress. put this carefully notes. no law, passed by congress, and carried out by the president violates the constitution. no law, passed by congress, carried out by the president, violates the constitution. that, gentlemen, is a simplified overview, of the constitution of the united states. but functions. the third part of the constitution, preamble, articles the third part. the bill of rights. the bill of rights. and the subject of our lecture, this afternoon. gentlemen, as i go through these riots, if you have questions or comments about them, stop me, and ask them. i don't want you to wait till the end of the class, you might fine we may run out of time. well by the time we are done, you forgot the question you are going to ask anyway.

congress doing what they are supposed to do according to the constitution, which is be responsible for individual spending in their district. the constitution clearly gives congress the powers of the purse. members of congress are the federal representative of their constituents in congress and their job is to advocate, be the top advocate for their constituents. most earmarks were very good, a very small portion of the budget. there were egregious examples that led to condemnation. host: after an article by politico, they write about the democrat effort to bring back earmarks. patrick lahey, the new chair for the panel will announce in the coming weeks democrats will reinstate member directed spending in the next fiscal year bill '22. they will be transparent and disclose details of each earmark, who requested it and which entity would get the money. members cannot request earmarks to entities for which they have financial ties. what were some of the issues that brought about the moratorium of earmarks when republicans took power in 2011? guest: it is not surprising. they are the appropriations committee. the vast majority of funding was member of the defense appropriations subcommittee. they got the lion'

congress. as a face not just of black women in congress but of women in congress and of younger women in congress. she's the first member of congress to have a baby while she's serving. and she shows up on an "ebony" magazine cover sort holding up her little baby in something that probably the first time there had been such a cover of a lawmaker holding a brand new baby. shirley chisolm also becomes a national figure in ways that are shown by these two buttons we have here in the collection. they+++÷2t early '7 on 0s, something that brings them to more prominence than just yet another caucus in congress is that they really place themselves in a national context. this is the first annual benefit concert for the congressional black caucus and was held at the capitol center and featured such fantastic people as cool in the gang. and gladys knight and the pips and was really part and parcel of the congressional black caucus being a real power. there are thousands of objects in the house collection of art and artifacts. and these are just a few of them. you can learn a lot more about them on our websi

on, she does, is elected to congress and very much shows up on the covers of actually a lot of magazines as a face not just of black women in congress but of women in congress and of younger women in congress. she's the first member of congress to have a baby while she's serving. and she shows up on an "ebony" magazine cover holding her little baby in something that probably the first time there had been such a cover of a lawmaker holding a brand-new baby. shirley chisholm also becomes a national figure in ways that are shown by these two buttons we have in the collection. they don't say anything about shirley chisholm running for congress, do they? they are about shirley chisholm p running for president. shirley is our girl for president. shirley chisholm for president to represent all americans. you can see her woman symbol around the center places her with a feminist agenda. and that was something that very much was important to her, and on the national stage in the 1972 election, she was very much putting together a very interesting group of people. and if you look at film clip of her at the democratic convention, it's really interesting to see her real

congress. congress makes the laws. put that in your notes. that's important. congress makes the laws. the president carries out the laws passed by congress. the president, gentlemen, doesn't make law. the president carries out the laws made by congress and the courts, the function of the courts, the main responsibility of the courts is to make sure that no law passed by congress -- put this carefully in your notes. no law passed by congress and carried out by the president violates the constitution no law passed by congress carried out by the president violates the constitution that, gentlemen is a simplified overview of the constitution of the united states, the functions. the third part of the constitution preamble, articles, the third part is the bill of rights, the bill of rights, and the subject of our lecture this afternoon. now, gentlemen, as i go through these rights, if you have questions and comments about them, stop me and ask them. i don't want you to wait until the end of the class, we may run out of time or you may find by the time you were done you've forgotten the quest

congress. you can imagine the presidential election is decided and the incumbent is thrown out but in the old system thrown out of party congress is still sitting there supposed to be the new congress which is counting the votes on the election results from november. so democrats are in charge with the 50/50 senate to have a new congress which is a look like that this is the big one and ultimately it usually goes without much fanfare the house and the senate appoint a couple of tellers that were important committee chairs that democrats and republicans to read out loud and do so alphabetically. start with alabama and here we have the electors that believe the state is certified for donald trump and they could hear objection but presumably she goes to the on - - to go to the alphabet and at of the votes and then you have the most official president-elect and now we have a president. i mentioned objections you hinted at them but there is the possibility. and they lay out that process have a goes forward, the basic point a member of the house of representatives and a member of the senate to lay out by an objection to really be considered by the house and session. >> as the body those

congress doing what they're supposed to do according to the constitution which is to be responsiblefor spending in their district . the constitution clearly gives congress the power of the purse so members of congress are the federal representative of their constituents in congress and their their job is to advocate for their own e, constituents. most earmarks were very good. they were very small portion of the budget and there are two previous examples that led to a combination of them and theeventual moratorium . >> the issue of earmarks coming up after a article by politico and they write about the democrats effort to bring back your marks read patrick leahy and the new chairs of the house and senate appropriations panel respectively announced, will announce in the coming tsweek democrats will reinstate earmarks, also known as member directed spending in the next fiscal year's bill. they write the democrats say they will be transparent and disclose the details of your, who requested it and which entity would get the money. numbers cannot request earmarks for entities to which they have financial ties. what were the issues that brought about the most moratorium on earmarks when republicans took p

congress. congress did not want to reform itself. 40 of them were. one of the largest reorganizations of the u.s. government in history. it worked, we have not had a problem since. host: when it comes to the staff totaled doing the bulk of the work, what is the recommendation as far as numbers or money that is going to be involved to make this happen? guest: i do not think -- in the 9/11 commission, we went to saudi arabia to investigate. we found out the seeds of the problem of al qaeda and all of that. this is narrower. you probably do not need a stem of that size. what you need is a staff that knows the commission. you do not need staff who have worked in the republican campaign, the democratic campaign, you need people who are respected, knowledgeable, whose work can be trusted, and if they have been republicans or democrats, that is fine. host: as far as that is concerned, do they have to come outside of washington and how much of the commission or outside for your commission? guest: some of them were outside, somewhere inside washington. they were people who'd did the job. -- who did the job. we know that most people -- that is fine. it does not matter what party you belong to. if you worked in a recent campaign, republicans or democrats, then we cannot have you. because you have been partisan too recently. if you have the expertise, we want you and we screen the staff very hard and we are proud of it. host: tom kean, the former chair of the 9/11 commission, he served in that commission from 2002-2004. governor, someone asked the question about the people who will eventually come in front of this commission if they should be questioned under oath. guest: yes. we question everybody under oath. host: from johnny in louisiana. republican line. hello. caller: yes, governor. we need a big reality check. comparing 9/11 commission to this is 3000 deaths to two. you guys -- the idea that anybody thinks this is going to be anything other than partisan has been asleep in the last 25 years with the media all on one side. do you really think nancy pelosi is going to let anything happen that does not have a big slant to the left. if it is, you guys are either on drugs or you have been asleep for the last 30 years. it is disgusting to hear you compare the 9/11 3000 deaths with an attack on a building in washington, d.c.. the last thing i have to say, the u.s. capitol of is not the symbol of the democracy. democracy in this great nation exists in the hearts and minds of 350 million citizens, not some dam building. host: that is john. thank you, john. governor, go ahead. guest: john, look. it does survive in our hearts. you cannot compare 9/11 as an event with the attack on the capitol. those are different things. but i am saying, -- i grew up to revere the capitol because i walked around it and you can see where webster's had, you can see where john quincy adams made a speech as he died attacking slavery. i knew the people that the buildings are named after. i remember -- i took my grandchildren around there. you see where these american events happen. you were very democracy -- you revere democracy because of -- i'm not saying they are similar events and in any way at all. what i am saying is that the capital represents many people in that it democracy, not only here, but around the world. the way that it was violated made me sick to my stomach. i think that was true for a lot of american. i think i had to get to the bottom of it. you cannot have a democracy at the seat that represents democracy is under attack. host: you talk about the role of the support staff that will do the work. give us an idea of what the job is of the chairman during this process and what are the jobs of the members of the commission themselves? guest: the job of the chairman is to simile make sure you are doing the job. -- is to simply make sure you are doing the job. we have nine great people, 54 democrats. -- five for democrats. the job is to make sure the commission does not go off course. that is a balancing act. you have the congress who wants to know what is going on, you have the american people, you have to use the subpoena power widely. you have to always keep the mandate in mind. my vice chair i used to go all the time to the members and say, what are the facts? let's get back to the facts. when we are writing reports, we found out a lot of the things people were arguing over were not the facts. they were the adjectives. we take out the additives and -- host: democrats nine. allen, hello. caller: good morning, i am honored to speak with governor keene. -- governor kean. one of my points is that you are looking for people who are no longer actively ambitious about advancing in office, but there is a big difference between the kinds of public servants we have in the young crop of elected officials today and those who were raised before -- since i believe that is part of the reason that these events happened, i wondering, can we not have an artificial cap on the range of history you can look at as relating to th

congress. congress newsom states allowed trials of the former officials and some states did not. they could have explicitly said that some can be tried and some cannot. the constitution says that the president, vice president, and all civil officers can be convicted in an impeachment trial and only if so convicted can have a separate vote about being disqualified. donald trump is not the president, vice president, or a civil officer. it is not true that he is somehow getting off scott free. he is the only president to be impeached twice and history will record what happened. they can decide how much blame, if any, lands on the shoulders of donald trump. as well, he can be criminally prosecuted. there is nothing about this trial that would prevent that from happening if the authorities think he committed a crime. host: our guests will be with us for the hour. if you want to ask questions, 202-748-8000 if you support impeachment. 202-748-8001 if you oppose it. you can text us at 202-748-8003. you can post on twitter and facebook. mr. malcolm, one of the examples of a former being impeached goes back to president grant's secretary of war. is that a good example? guest: it is an example of the senate trying somebody who is a former official, but that precedent cuts both ways. he was caught in a corruption scandal, he was clearly guilty at the time that he resigned. he acknowledged his guilt. moments after he resigned, the house impeached him and had a trial in the senate. as the end of the day, even though everyone knew he was guilty, he was acquitted because 26 senators said he is guilty but we do not believe under the constitution he can be tried in the senate. although a majority thought he could be tried, not enough to convict him. i would say a better precedent would be richard nixon. in 2010 was a federal judge who was impeached but he resigned. then the trial was dismissed. that is far more recent and i would say it more compelling. host: same question to you, elizabeth wydra. guest: i think the example you mentioned is illustrative because it shows the dangers if you don't allow a senate trial of someone who is no longer in office. he raised his hand to try to avoid the impeachment remedy within the constitution. we don't want to incentivize our leaders to abuse the public trust and try to avoid the constitutional remedy of impeachment by handing in their resignation before an impeachment vote. the impeachment here was passed by the house under their authority while trump was still in office. when we are talking about what the constitution required, we look to the constitution itself. as i thought chuck cooper argued very well, essentially a mandatory minimum using the language of criminal law or impeachment which is a mandatory minimum in the constitution is removal from office. there is a second penalty if someone is convicted under articles of impeachment which is disqualification from future office. that is important in this case. maybe the other cases like president nixon, the threat was no longer there to our constitution and our democracy. here there is every indication that donald trump is not remorseful and continues to press lies about the election being rigged that are very dangerous and detrimental to our constitutional democracy, and that he intends to continue to try to seek public office. after what we saw on january 6 and the links that he is apparently willing to go, i think is this qualification from office is a constitutional remedy could not be more appropriate. guest: can i respond briefly? host: go ahead. guest: richard nixon was not particularly remorseful either and there were talks about him having a comeback. that was a remote possibility because history judged him the way it did. but what this comes down to is -- disqualification is not an alternative remedy. senators don't get to disqualification unless they vote to remove him. elizabeth's argument would say that is not a condition precedent. you can still go ahead after you convict him by having disqualification. the argument is no, the constitution says as an appendage to removal you can vote on disqualification. it is only people who have been so removed who can be subsequently disqualified. he can no longer be so removed because he no longer holds that office. guest: i disagree with you and so do a vast majority of constitutional scholars. guest: i realize it is a close question. host: we will examine that further in the hour and invite callers to participate. this is stephen in indiana who supports impeachment. what is your question or comment? caller: impeachment is for political offenses related to the abuse or violation of public trust to harm the public for personal gain. is there any better example than what happened on january 6? remember no man shall be above justice. host: mr. malcom. lm. guest: thank you for the question. no man is above justice and the authorities -- and if the authorities believe trump committed a crime, he can be charged with it. nobody is defending what happened at the capitol on january 6. the question is not was it a good thing or a bad thing that happened. it is a question of did the president's statements insight that insurrection? i will not say what trump said which is that his words were appropriate. he said we're going to fight and fight like hell, that is standard political speech. "i'm going to elect so-and-so, he is a fighter." no one believes that they will actually going to punch up their fellow senators. that is core political speech that both sides of the aisle have used. there is a fact that this riot was preplanned before donald trump gave his speech january 6. host: elizabeth wydra? guest: wow. i do not endorse what donald trump said january 6, but i think there is no defense for it. i think the caller is right, if this is not an impeachable offense, what is? this is not just encouraging a mob and encouraging violence, this was encouraging an angry mob of people. some were armed, to go to the capitol to disrupt the duty of congress in a sacred transfer of power that had up to this point in our nation's history had been peaceful. that is a shame. it is a stain on our democracy. yes, as john said, history will judge donald trump harshly, but so should the senate when they take up their duty to consider the article of incitement to insurrection. this truly -- i remember watching and i live in washington, d.c., i love this town and our constitution. watching the attack on both that day was terrible and terrifying. the jurors that will be considering these articles of impeachment were there too. there were 100 witnesses in that senate chamber that was taken over by some of these insurrectionists. this is a serious constitutional crime. as john mentioned there could be other consequences. there could be a criminal procedure later, but it should not be an excuse to not use the constitutional mechanism that we should take when there is a betrayal by the executive of our country and such a violation of his oath of office

congress? next congress could be next congress penalized action that we passed in could be repeals veto this congress. a statue that we passed in this there are congress. there are certain things we are going to certain things they have to set in would have to set in concrete, the only way to do concrete that, it's and the only to amend the way to do that is constitution. to amend the and, it's constitution. from that, and it's from that the that we see we see the the 14th and then the four we -- 15th amendments emerge. johnson of course wants to fight them to the nail. the more he fights them, the more ridiculous he looks. because, however johnson might have wanted to pass him self off as a second lincoln, all you had to do is watch andrew johnson in public, especially after that drunken inaugural. johnson would often self-destruct himself. speaking in public was not his long suit. he went on what he called a swim around the circle. this is this was supposed to be a visit to the city of chicago, though early was to chin up votes for the next congress sympathetic to himself. he makes an idiot of hims

congress. we can get to when congress count thursday votes later but congress has a role in counting votes and when they came to this it isn't absolutely clear what you do when -- sounds easy to just count but when you have two lists in front of you, one voting for one presidential candidate, one for the other, from a state, what do you do? you can't just count you have to figure out which is the right one and they had some grave difficulties doing that, and so the electoral count action written years late but in reaction to 1876, tried to lay out ways in which maybe we could avoid problems with this again. one of them. is by setting the safe harbor deadline to have states get their results in more quickly. other things as well. so, we have had some tough elections. the book does try to cover these tough elections, essay in there which looks at our 19th 19th century elections with problem. wrote one on the 2000 election, so the book tries to cover the history and answers to these questions. >> 1876 was something else to say the least. so i said i would try to keep this chronological. i'll take

first thing in the continental congress and frankly now vacated putting a chaplain in opening the continental congress in prayer, there was prayer in chaplains in congress before the bill of rights and freedom of religion. >> you mentioned bill right has anybody seen a first amendment tension there? >> a lot of people do and i will tell you that that brings in the state and looms over the whole project. why and goes back to your question why do you pray in the government, there is no prayer that opens the white house, no chaplain in the white house god is invoked in the supreme court but no chaplain in the supreme court, prayer is very much part of what the legislative branch does, the supreme court has ruled several times in support of opening legislative session then prayer, that is congress, local communities, local boards in many lawsuits challenging this but it's always been upheld as you can open a legislative session in prayer and the practice goes beyond that to, state assemblies have chaplains the convention opened with prayer every night so it's very much both protected but also a tradition of the process. >> who gave the first blessing? >> th

producing it exactly and look fox news issued the statement they declared for individual members of congress congress to highlight political speech they do not like and demand cable distributors engage in a viewpoint discrimination viewpoint discrimination sets a terrible precedent actually it's sad that this thing is making me agree with things that fox news says but i do i do agree with that because where does it stop like if you don't like the news that you know even if it's garbage news if you don't like the news that one station is putting out do then turn around and say you know what cinemax i don't like that fictional program you put a. because it says something bad about the republicans or says something bad about democrats or says something bad about a political figure that i like you know when you get into that world of censorship the only way to really make this work if the call out the consumers who actually watch this if ever than to change their minds but also to call out the ed these of these these shows don't get any air space if they don't have the advice to keep them on and let's be

congress in terms of african americans, but also in terms of hispanics. in the case of the, latter two thirds of all hispanics who had ever served in congress were elected after 1976. so that is tremendous growth. we are now up to hundred to his top spanish members who have served in congressen the voting rights act was passed, there were just five hispanic members, four representatives and a senator. and a 113th congress, there are 30 in the house and three in the senate. the numbers have gone up. and these numbers have cheered powerful committees and subcommittees. they have authored important legislation. they have been party leaders. they've directed national party organizations. mel martinez, former senator, and they have held cabinet positions. -- indeed, this hispanic population in the united states has grown from 6% to 1980 to 16% according to the 2010 census. as their advocates when powerful seats at the federal level, hispanic americans have become one of the most influential photo boxing the country. but getting that representation has never been, easy and likely won't ever be easy or simple or straightforward. the experiences of the hispanic numbers in that post 1977 period illustrate very clearly that there is no 1% or caucus that can drive the agenda or deter

, then i embrace it, and i the congress, then i embrace it, and i take _ the congress, then i embrace it, and i take it _ the congress i embrace it, and i take it as an honour. most professors never even get a doctrine named _ professors never even get a doctrine named after them. sol professors never even get a doctrine named after them. so i will accept that _ named after them. so i will accept that. finally, the council goes back tojulian _ that. finally, the council goes back tojulian bond's case, because i think— tojulian bond's case, because i think in— tojulian bond's case, because i think in the final analysis, their final— think in the final analysis, their final argument, as pathetically weak as it is, _ final argument, as pathetically weak as it is, is _ final argument, as pathetically weak as it is, is about first amendment. but remember, they'd keep talking about— but remember, they'd keep talking about cycling president trump's speech — about cycling president trump's speech. somebody tell me when his speech— speech. somebody tell me when his speech has— speech. somebody tell me when his speech has ever

congress, congress shall make no law abridging theti freedom of speech but no law has interpreted to be mean no action. you cannot impeach a president or former president for making a speech that is protected by the first amendment. that is my view. i know one of 44 scholars who disagree with me but they are wrong and i'm right and i'm happy to debate any one of them and i've offered to debate them in a single one of the 144 scholars has been prepared to debate me on why they should change from what they said in their letter. i've known what it would be legally frivolous. you're not allowed to make that. >> host: mr. dershowitz, i hate to interrupt you but the camera is off on your computer so if you could go ahead and attend to that so we could see you as well as hear you and we will appreciate but as you do that we will keep taking calls and we will hear from peter and democrat line and peter, go ahead. >> caller: first of all, id want to commend c-span and the coverage and the coverage you brought to this event is exceptional and i hope you win an emmy and professor dershowitz, i feel honored to speak with you about this trial that is unfolding in congress and i think one of the things while the managers have done a very good job of putting their case forward to video into the way it'ss being presented and handled i believe the managers have done an exceptional job and my one question is president trump has a relationship with the proud boys or they were cofounded by canadians and the government of canada has designated the proud boys and the terrorist organizations akin to ices, akin to al qaeda, akin to any number of terrorist organizations and we do not know enough about them and i am very surprised and somewhat disappointed the managers did not bear down on the whole issue of the role of the proud boy and whativ are their motivations and why didd canada and why did canada designate them as a terrorist organization. >> host: caller, we will leave you there and let mr. dershowitz bresponded. >> guest: i think you're right about the proudud boys. they are an awful, awful organization and good reason for designating them if they indeed

congress _ happen ever again. it looks as though congress is _ happen ever again. it looks as though congressugh congress is going to i though congress is going to have to do it.— though congress is going to have to do it. no, nancy pelosi the speaker — have to do it. no, nancy pelosi the speaker of _ have to do it. no, nancy pelosi the speaker of the _ have to do it. no, nancy pelosi the speaker of the house - have to do it. no, nancy pelosi the speaker of the house has i the speaker of the house has agreed that we need a properly independent commission very much like ours on 9/11. it can be independent, bipartisan, they can ask for the fact without fear or favour, and they can ask for the fact without fear orfavour, and get to the bottom that way. we did that once and 9/11 was successful. it is still used by oncologists. many measures were adopted. we were successful and we can be successful again but we need that kind of commission.- we need that kind of commission. . . ., . ., commission. what chance would an independent _ commission. what chance would an independent commission - an indep

congress does. the one change we made is until earlier in the 20th century, it used to be the old congress that did a lame duck congress you could say you could imagine what if it was decided and the incumbent is thrown out of the landslide and the incumbent's party is thrown out by a big landslide. that party is still sitting there having to vote. it's counting the votes. we would have a new congress despite the counting so they do meet occasionally but this is a big one where they meet this way and ultimately it usually goes without much fanfare, but the vice president is in the chair to appoint a couple of tellers that are important committee chairs and ranking members who democrats and republicans read out loud the results that come from the states and do so alphabetically. so start with alabama and say here we have the electors that we believe the state of alabama certified are for donald trump and they could hear objections. that's where it gets tricky but presumably and for the most part you tend to go to get the final count, add up all the votes and at that point, that's when you have the most official you coul

congress to confront this _ -- said. now it is up to congress to confront this egregious _ -- said. now it is up to congressegious assault on our democracy. and _ confront this egregious assault on our democracy. and after - confront this egregious assault on our democracy. and after this, . confront this egregious assault onj our democracy. and after this, we are going — our democracy. and after this, we are going to— our democracy. and after this, we are going to walk— our democracy. and after this, we are going to walk down, _ our democracy. and after this, we are going to walk down, and - our democracy. and after this, we are going to walk down, and i- our democracy. and after this, we are going to walk down, and i will| are going to walk down, and i will be there — are going to walk down, and i will be there with _ are going to walk down, and i will be there with you, _ are going to walk down, and i will be there with you, we _ are going to walk down, and i will be there with you, we are - are going to walk down, and i will be there with you, we are going l are going to walk down, and i willi be there

congress and lincoln had fought over that periodically. and the fremont case, he's saying i don't have the power constitutionally to do some of these things i want to do. congress needs to do it. that's why even when he takes a step of the proclamation, he's pushing the amendment, having congress, the lawmakers decide. well, congress, after lincoln's death, continues to try to dictate reconstruction policy. they think that's their role is to decide how the nation is supposed to be reconstructed. they start passing various pieces of legislation. one of the first ones is the freedman's bureau bill, the extension of the freedmen's bureau. and this idea was to create an agency that was going to help african-americans adjust to freedom. provide money for schools, provide people who can negotiate between former slaves and former slave owners for them to work together. and that's economically get jobs, to be able to help resettle them on millions of acres of land. and johnson vetoes it. this came as a shock to many of the republicans, the author of the freedman bureau's bill was a moderate. almost the definition of a moderate republican. he had specifically written the bill trying to keep it as conservative as possible, to bring on more conservative republicans to support it. and the

presidential electors not to take the decision out of the hands of congress, because congress and that is to take the decision out of congress because -- system of presidential electors, and that is to take the decision out of the hands of congress because congress forms cabals. here is the interesting point. the electors were to be chosen by state legislatures. there is nothing in the constitution about popular election at all. there is a possibility maybe state legislatures, out of the goodness of their hearts, they say why don't we have a popular election, but it is not required. the first number of elections, quite overwhelmingly they tilted toward let the state legislatures appoint electors wrigley. -- appoint electors directly. so why have electors at all? the reason given everyone seemed to have accepted was that this was to prevent cabals from forming. and the odd part of this ramshackle institution is that, we are going to make the electors vote on the same day in different states predict can't come together, they can't deliberate in a group that wasn't an afterthought -- in a group. that wasn't an afterthought, tha

congress might have objected. there's only one problem. congress wasn't in session. the new congresse 39th congress wouldn't assemble until december of 1865. so johnson actually has a fairly long breathing spell with which to get all these plans up and running. it's not until the week before congress convenes that republicans caucused together and determined that they're not going to put up with this. first thing they do is they agree that the new representatives from the southern states will not be seated. the clerk of the house of representatives will not seat them because of course congress has the power to determine who will sit in its own ranks. that's the first thing. the second thing, a civil rights bill to enfranchise the black voters of the south. we're going to turn things around completely. and then by march of 1867, a series of reconstruction acts, which will entirely restructure the way that the state governments of the south are going to operate. so this is the republican response in congress to the threat that is posed here, and what does andrew johnson do in the face

congress? lincoln had taken a great deal of power as president during the war. congress and lincoln had fought over that periodically. the fremont casing, i don't have the power constitutionally to do some of the things i wanted to, congress needs to do it. that's why even when he takes a step with the emancipation prologues proclamation, he's pushing the 13th amendment to have congress, the lawmakers decide it. well, congress after lincoln's death continues to try to dictate reconstruction policy. they think that is their role, to decide how the nation is to be reconstructed. they start passing various pieces of legislation. one of the first ones is the friedman's bureau bought -- extension of the friedman's bureau. his idea was to create an agency that was help african americans adjust to freedom. to adjust between former slave and former slaveowners, for them to work together and lets economically get jobs. to be able to help resettle them on millions of acres of land. and johnson vetoes it. this came as a shock to many of the republicans. off of the friedman's bill, trumbull was a moderate, the definition of a moderate republican. he had specifically ridden the bell trying to keep it as conservative as possible, to br

congress. congress knew that some states allowed trials of former some states did not allow trials of former officials. they could've especially said that former officials can be tried but they did not. the constitution says that presidents, vice presidents and all civil officers of the united statest, can be convicted in and impeachment trial and only if so convicted and then have a separate vote about being disqualified and donald trump is none of those but he's not the president, vice president or civil officer of the united states. he is a private citizen. it is not true that he is somehow getting off scot free. one, he is the only president who is now been impeached twice. two, history will record whatnd happened and all the country knows exactly what happened and they can decide how much blame, if any, lands on the shoulders of donald trump. as well, he can be criminally prosecuted. that is a separate proceeding and there is nothing about this impeachment trial that would prevent that from happening if the authorities think he committed a crime. >> host: our two guests will be with us for the hour and if you want to ask questions (202)748-0000, if you support impeachment good if you oppose, (202)748-8001 and then you can post on twitter and facebook as well. mr. malcolm, i will start back to you then in one of the examples of a former being impeached goes back to present grants secretary of war and is that a good example? >> guest: it is certainly an example of the senate going ahead to try 70 who was a former official but that precedent cuts both ways so in 1876 the secretary of war for ulysses s grant was caught up in a corruption scandal and clearly guilty and at the time he resigned he basically acknowledged his guilt. moment after he resigned the house impeached him and then they went ahead and had a trial in the senate. at the end of the day everyone knew that as a factual matter he was guilty but he was, in fact acquitted because 26 senator said look, he's guilty but we do not believe that under the constitution he can be tried in the senate so although the majority thought he could be tried not enough in order to convicted even though on the fact he was clearly guilty. i would say a better precedent would be richard nixon. richard nixon, course, resigned and nobody thought about impeaching him and going ahead and having a trial and in 2010 there was a federal judge was also impeached and he resigned both house and the senate as well so that's it and the senate trial was dismissed. that is far more recent and i was a compelling president. >> host: same question to you, lisbeth. >> guest: i think the bill not example you mentioned is illustrative because itll shows the danger if you don't allow a senate trial of someone who is no longer in office. belknap raced to hand in his resignation to try to avoid the impeachment remedy that is in the constitution and again we don't want to incentivize our leaders to abuse the public cotrust and try to avoid the constitutional remedy of impeachment by handing in their resignation to avoid an impeachment vote or so on. i would also note that the impeachment here never called impeachment did occur or pass by the house under the constitutional authority while president trump was still in office.ti that was a senate trial. i think we talk about you know, what the constitution requires we looked at the constitution itself and the constitution set, as a conservative lawyer chuck cooper argued in the wall street journal was essentially a mandatory minimum use of language of criminal law for impeachment which is the mandatory minimum of the constitution is removal from office but there is also this second penalty if someone is convicted under article two of impeachment which is disqualification from future office. that is extreme importancech in thiss particular case. maybe those other cases like president nixon the threat was no longer there to work constitution and democracy but here there is absolutely every indication that donald trump is not remorseful and the fact, continuesab to press his lies about the election being rigged or stolen that are very dangerous and detrimental to our constitutional democracy and intendss to continue to try to seek public office and so here i think after what we saw in january six and the links into which donald trump is unfortunately apparently willing tohs go i think the disqualification from office acts as conviction on articles of impeachment is a constitutional remedy that cannot be more appropriate and more legitimate. >> guest: could i say something? >> host: go ahead. >> guest: richard nixon was not particularly remorseful either were talks about him having a comeback and that was a remote possibility because history judged him the way it did as i would say the same thing happens with donald trump. some ofme this comes down to dos the disqualification -- disqualification is not an alternative rhonda b. the senators don't get to just qualification unlessdi they vote to remove him so what this comes down to in elizabeth's argument would be that's not a condition precedent even if he is no longer an officer you can still go ahead and act to convict him by having disqualification in the argument to the concrete is no. ... an appendage to removal you can vote on disqualification. it is only people who have and so removed who can be subsequently disqualified. he cannot be removed because he no longer holds that office. guest: i disagree with you and so do a vast majority of scholars. host: i realize it's a close question and are both sides of the issue. >> host: will examine the further in the out and about colors to participate such as steve in shelbyville indiana. what is your question orwh comment? >> caller: good morning. impeachment is for political offenses related to the abuse or violation of public trust. for personal gain. is there a better example of this than what happened on january 6? remember, no man shall be about justice. thank you. >> host: mr. malcolm. >> guest: iq for the question. first of all the man is about justice. people believe, he can be charged with that. nobody, nobody is defending what happened in the capital on january 6 to the question is not what is it a good thing or a bad thing that happened in the capital and ungenerous six. it's a question of did the president's statements insight that s insurrection? insurrection is stronger than right. that's an attempt to overthrow the government and i am not going to say what donald trump might say which is my words were appropriate. use a lot of language. nonetheless what he said is we are going to fight, fight like hell. that is standard political speech. the elect someone socom he's a fighter. no one believes when you say you reluctant elected because he's a fighter they won't get boxing gloves and punch out their fellow senators. that is core political speech that politicians have use both sides of the political aisle and, in fact, a lot of the fact this right was preplanned long before donald trump ever gave his speech at january 6. >> guest: wow. i'm glad to a least beginning here john, not endorse what donald trump said on january 6 although it seems to gear into some defending behavior territory. but i think there is absolutely no defense for it and i think the caller is exactly right that if this is not an impeachable offense, then what is? this wasn't just encouraging a mob. this wasn't just encouraging political violence. this was encouraging an angry mob of people who, some were armed, to go to the capital and disrupt a constitutional duty of the congress led by the vice president of the united states in a sacred transfer of power that has up to this point in our nation's history been peaceful when it comes to the presidential election, and that is a shame on our -- it is a stain on our democracy and yes as john said history will judge donald trump partially. but so should the senate when to take up their constitutional duty to consider the articles of incitement of insurrection to this government. because this truly, i remember watching and others in washington, d.c. i love this town and a love our constitution and watching the attack on both that day was terrible and terrifying. and the jurors that would be considering these articles of impeachment were there, too. there are 100 witnesses in that senate chamber, the same senate chamber that was taken over by some of these insurrectionists. this is a serious constitutional crime. and yes as you mentioned as john mentioned the could of the consequences for this. there could be a crimin

swam for safety, jefferson served first in the house of vortices then in congress and while in congress, this 15 months in congress, was the principal author of the declaration of independence. almost immediately after independence was declared however, jefferson left congress and returned to virginia because he was interested in reform. the continental congress was simply going to be a managerial body that managed the conduct of the war and the conduct of the army. and hamilton wanted to return -- jefferson rather wanted to return to virginia and carry out as many reforms as he could. he didn't always succeed, but he pushed for reforms in the land a loss of virginia so that land would become more of a available and at one point, he even proposed that all land -less free man in virginia be given land, something that didn't fly with the virginia assembly. what he did push for religious toleration for reform of the criminal statutes in virginia and many of his reforms were eventually realized. in 1779, with the war effort really suffering, washington came to the conclusion that the best man who once served in congre

congresses role is primarily. we are in agreement that the bar has to be high before congress. it should be narrow in my view. congress does reject the votes that probably sit in that exception would be 1872. do you want to talk about that and again this process the objection and they debated whether he was a person in the meeting of the constitution and you want to talk about that historical example? >> one thing to note is not that there was a law and not point but the way we have objections is slightly different. the issue there was more about how the electors cast their votes than the states. horace greeley had died and whether one counts them or not was an issue more properly and congress. if you think about counting. what if there's a problem and there this was a question so there are legitimate areas where congress can and i would try to circumscribe them for the most part. >> a couple of points before we wrap up to move on to the next final phase that could occur. 530 electors could be appointed. if fewer than 538 are appointed, talk about what happened then but also generally what happens if nobody gets a maj

congress. >> why did that it have prayers in congress? why do that in this day and age. >> a heck of a great question and the answer goes back to the very beginning. this is not a modern phenomenal. from 50s the golden era of america, this goes back to 18th century, back to -- praying at congress is their very first thing even the continental congress had, and benjamin wanted a prayer. there was prayer from chaplains in congress before the bill of rights and trying freedom of religion. so, when -- >> wait a minute, though. you mentioned bill of rights. does anybody see a first amendment tension there? >> so, a lot of people do. and i will tell you that that brings in church-state, and that looms over the whole project, why and goes back to your question, why do you pray in the government? there's no prayer that opens the white house, there's no chaplain in the white house. god is invoked sometimes in the supreme court but there's no chaplain at the supreme court. prayer is very much part of what the legislative branch does. the supreme court has ruled several times in support of opening legislative sessions in prayer and that's congress. local communities, local boards, there have been many lawsuits from the -- challenging this but it's always been upheld. you can open a legis

congress? >> in congress, yeah. in congress, there's a bill, hr-1, called the for the people act. big deal. it was the first thing nancy pelosi passed last congress. it should be a priority for this congress after covid relief. but what it basically would do is put a number of measures in place like automatic voter registration in place. we still have a federal system where, you know, states are going to do what states are going to do. but national efforts can make it more difficult for them to suppress the vote. it will also strengthen the voting rights act. it's an important piece of legislation because we need democracy reform. i think we all should know that by now. >> part of the proposal, van, is to end in-person early voting on sundays. i mean that is a blow to black churches who host souls to the polls events. that is a direct hit on black voters. >> well, yeah, because i mean it's an incredible catch-22. when african-americans don't vote, they say, well, see, they don't care. they're lazy. you know, they should get whatever they get because they don't care. then when we lo

congress congress this week and president biden wants to get relief out sooner rather than later. we go now live to our washington correspondent basil john for the latest details >>good evening. eising yes, many americans are waiting patiently to see what parts of the president's covid relief plan will cross the finish line and president biden says now it's up to congress to help the country. as the u.s. reaches 500,000 covid deaths president joe biden is pushing to get his 1.9 trillion dollar covid relief package across the finish line we need congress to pass my american rescue plan. >>it deals with the immediate crisis facing our small businesses the relief package includes $1400 stimulus checks in increased the minimum wage money for schools and more if we pass my american rescue plan the economy will create 7. >>million jobs this year, the president's team says this is what the country needs the key components of this bill. >>are addressing the crisis we're facing however republicans like missouri congressman jason smith see another large relief package led to a heavier burden for americans, i'm not trying to kill your legislation smith says the president needs to share how much stimulus from prior relief bills is left over before we use hard working american taxpayer dollars. >>spend another 1.9 trillion in stimulus funding in the meantime the ad

congress ted lieu talks about air strikes in syria. should congress have been consulted on that one and at 2:00 eastern, congressman roh khanna on the fight for a $15 minimum wage. first check in with reporters and analysts and more of the big headlines on this saturday. we begin with shannon pettypiece in wilmington, delaware, ahead of the president's arrival. food saturday to you, my friend. what did we hear from president biden a short time ago? >> reporter: you can hear him keeping pressure on congress, particularly the senate, who gets this bill on their table next, to get this passed and get it passed quickly. there's this march 15th deadline, when extended unemployment benefits run out for millions of americans. the white house has been pushing to get this passed before that deadline. here is what president biden had to say last hour. >> for a few weeks now, an overwhelming percentage of american public has made it clear that they support my american rescue plan. >> -- for my american rescue plan, and the house of representatives took the first step toward making it a reality. and i want to thank and i called her just a few moments ago, nancy pelosi, for her extraordinary leadership, speaker pelosi, and all those who supported our plan and with their vote, we're one step closer to vaccinating the nation, we are one step closer to putting $1,400 in the pockets of americans. >> reporter: this is stripped out because of senate rules and bathe house for another procedural vote. the e

congress. we elect members of congress too there's supposed to be a deliberative process there's no deliberative process whatsoever. i would like your input on this. >> absolutely. we have a system of separated powers of checks and balances, and the idea that the founders lifted up was balanced government. and if a president is to exercise unilateral power he better be careful because the president may be exceeding his lawful powers under the constitution. and that's what the courts are there for. so let's stay tuned because we already know that a united states district judge has not joined deportation suspension order as utterly in violation of a specific law that congress passed here absolutely you're correct in saying it is not his prerogative the president's prerogative any president's prerogative to ignore the law. his job is to execute the law into the constitution. and if he goes beyond that i think he'll be held to account in courts of law across the united states. mark: but this goes to the core of our system a upon the to the framers did, back in the 1500s famous writings jon locke talked about it and mention from federal papers several times that this was the key to get ratification of the constitution. they didn't want a parliament they didn't want a monarchy yet i feel we're getting both a parliament and monarchy in other words whatever biden doesn't get done by executive order, his democrats in the house with the slimmest of majority are promising to get done by roller coasting over the barriers that are in place even for congress. so we'll use the reconciliation act to pass whatever we want to which wasn't intended for that or pass a stot

congress. congress we with always know is not as educated -- >> but we're talking about -- liz: you know what, actually, what did you make of robinhood and vlad tenev saying, and let me get you his quote, he said -- ken griffin, rather. he said we had no role in robinhood's decision to restrict trading, i only learned of it after it was publicly announced. >> makes total sense. why would they care? liz: right, i agree. >> they want to buy as much -- look at it this way, if ken griffin doesn't want to stop robinhood from trading, it wants more trading so it can buy the order flow, match them and make money that way. that's how they make money, paying for order flow so that robinhood can give free trading and make money. this isn't just total -- this is logic, and it's factual. by the way, one thing i think is interesting, vlad tenev talk thed about having settlement, momentarily. we have the technical know-how to do that. if you do that, if there isn't a two-day settlement, there won't be any short selling probably. if there's no short selling, all that do is help robinhood -- liz: that's a problem. >> and that's a problem. remember, he's being incredibly self-serving when he says this. he's saying, you know, instantaneous settlement, that's good for everybody, everybody can just settle their trades immediately. guess what? that means in that time, that two days' settlement time now, you can't borrow the stock and engage on short selling. that's good for his business model because his business model's about hype. laz. liz: thank you very much, charlie gasparino. when we come back, you've got to see what's happening in the electric vehicle world, speaking of tesla. today tuned, more on that. dow is down 98 points. stay restless with the icon that does the same. the rx crafted by lexus. . . . living with metastatic breast cancer means being relentless. because every day matters. and having more of them is possible with verzenio, the only one of its kind proven to help you live significantly longer when taken with fulvestrant, regardless of menopause. verzenio + fulvestrant is for hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after hormone therapy. diarrhea is common, may be severe, or cause dehydration or infection. at the first sign, call your doctor, start an anti-diarrheal, and drink fluids. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor about any fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, . . or if you are pregnant or nursing. every day matters. and i want more of them. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. good morning! this is where everything started. the four way is engulfed in history. you're sitting in the place where giants ate. the four way is the heart and soul of the community. ♪ ♪. liz: some of the pot stocks taking a beating at this hour include palantir which is headed toward a record six day losing streak as its lockup period expires. that means owl outstanding share of the enterprise software, data analytics giant will be available to trade. meaning those who got in early can now sell their shares. that increases supply of the stock. palantir down 6.7%. let's look at walmart shares. they are leading the dow downward. lower by 6% after walmart gave its outlook for the first time since the pandemic began and it was a disappointment. the retail giant expects fiscal 2022 net sales will rise in the low single digits. they reported bumper online sales during the fourth quarter but profit missed on higher covid-19 related costs. walmart also announced it will raise wages to $15 an hour. >>> as oil prices spiked lately, currently hovering around $60 a barrel. in fact we look what is happening to the electric vehicle sector, it is trading lower. if you look at tesla, it is down just one%. nio is down 1 1/2%. workhorse is getting clipped by 2 1/2%. you look at ev related shares, candy technologies, blink technologies all being global they are all in the red this hour. there is a stock in the green in the auto sector. volkswagen. volkswagen reports are considering listing a chunk of 25% of porsche that it owns. analysts plotting the move it could boost the value of the entire vw group and raise cash for investments in, electric vehicles. volkswagen getting a bump up of 3.8%. i wonder what the tickle symbol will be poirier that? quick look at the markets. at one point today the nasdaq was down more than 200 points. it is well off those lows. now it is down just 64 points. we do have technology trying to fight its way back. s&p down 11. dow jones industrials down 79. we are continuing to monitor the house financial hearings. this is around the trading frenzy that caused a massive spike in the company and then a very precipitous fall. congressman vincent gonzalez questioned the reddit ceo on his problematic forum where all the chatter began. retail investors bonded together to start buying the stock. let's bring in two of our expert traders. gentlemen, you watched this saga unfold, kenny, you've been a long time trader. as we found citadel founder ken griffin testify will we see something like this happen in the markets again and is there anything you can really do about it? >> listen, is it possible that something like this could happen again? i guess it is but i have to tell you this has created so much buzz and so much conversation that i think a lot of things are going to change on the landscape. first of all i think people will have more of a plan b in place if they play from the short side it starts go against them much more so than some of these sort of guys that were in it clearly did not have. but i also think that the, that the hysteria that it created when the stock traded up to $450 a share. people on reddit we're going, we're buying it, we're buying it, we don't care we lose our money, we're in it for the fight. that mentality doesn't make any sense. i think in retrospect. it was a tough lesson for a lot of people to learn. in retrospect people realized how difficult investing can be especially when you go in there with no clue what is going on. liz: you know, steve huffman, the ceo of reddit has not got a lot of attention during the hearing. he was barely asked any questions. there was a point, david, he was asked what about that moment in the third week of january things went absolutely crazy in the subreddit room wall street bets? he said specifically they piled in the employees. they made sure that some people were joining this, this room they wanted to make sure there weren't any bots jumping in, there weren't any bad actors, russians, no knows, whatever, happening in there. that is about all when you talk about social media. who is the real focus here and what should it be on, david? >> liz, i think this is the age-old question we've been asking you know since the stock jobbers were working the streets around the new york stock exchange in the early 1900s. at the end of the day there is no substitute for discernment, common sense. people will be selling you stuff all the time. there are infomercials on tv. that is not illegal. they should understand the quality of the source. there should be no law people congregating on reddit doing wall street bets or no law of individual investors having their will to say in the big world of investing banding together to push stocks around the way intutions have for a long time. what is clearly revealed, liz, is reliable fundamental research. at what point do we need to pull the plug here? gamestop at 450, $500, is ridiculous. no one should be buying at that point. the fact we saw individuals beinglessly pushing the envelope too far is the real story here. liz: okay. liz: do you really stop somebody in the casino when they're losing all their money? caveat emptor. kenny, david, thank you. we have this question for everybody. who is really in control of the trades that are out there that you make? that's the question. we're posing next with the a former morgan stanley deutsche bank software programmer who helped design the trading platform. she will tell us who is in really in control of your trades. ♪ moving forward. they guide me with achievable steps that give me confidence. this is my granddaughter... she's cute like her grandpa. voya doesn't just help me get to retirement... ...they're with me all the way through it. voya. be confident to and through retirement. at t-mobile, we have a plan built just for customers 55 and up. saving 50% vs. other carriers with 2 unlimited lines for less than $30 each. call 1-800-t-mobile or go to t-mobile.com/55. some say this is my greatest challenge ever. but i've seen centuries of this. with a companion that powers a digital world, traded with a touch. the gold standard, so to speak ;) ♪upbeat music♪ transitions™ light under control. ♪upbeat music♪ transitions™ signature gen 8™ available now, in 4 vibrant style colors. transitions™ how great is it that we get to tell everybody how liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need? i mean it... uh-oh, sorry... oh... what? i'm an emu! no, buddy! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ ♪. >> so if you get an order from fidelity and you get an order from robinhood and you're paying for the robinhood or the flow, is that customer getting, is the robinhood getting as good of a price as the fidelity customer? mr. griffin. >> so, congressman i believe that is an excellent question. the execution quality that we can provide as measured in terms of price improvement is, heavily related or coral lated to the size of the order that we receive. so, if i were to speculate -- >> don't tell me that there are other factors involved and take us down another road. i'm asking you a clear question. >> because the robinhood order comes from a community, a community of traders who tend to trade in smaller size. >> that isn't my question, sir. you're evading my question by making up other questions. let me -- liz: there you have it. congressman getting very frustrated because he wanted a specific answer to that question. you know, hillary vaughn earlier played the end of that exchange. we wanted to play the beginning where congressman brad sherman, the chair of investor protect subcommittee, questioned ken griffin, head of hedge fund citadel and sid at that at cital securities. market makers insure a trade between a traders and a brokerage such as robinhood. we have policy analyst alexis goldstein. she developed trading platforms when she was at morgan stanley they gave to hedge funds for free in order to get business back from the hedge funds. good to have you, alexis. what is your gut reaction? is there anything specifically that popped out you during this entire hearing so far? >> i think first of all the ceo of robinhood has had a couple of places where he didn't have very good answers. there were a number of members of congresse purchasing of certain stocks such as gamestop in late january and in my opinion he didn't give anymore information than they previously said on the blog. he sorted talked about needing to provide capital to clearinghouses is sort of way all different brokerages participate in what are called clearinghouses to manage risk. if one goes bankrupt, everybody else is in trouble too. that is it not a great answer. i suspect robinhood might not have their own internal books in order. that might have been the real answer. he cannot say that the other time he got into hot water he tried to brag how much profit the user base had, 35 billion in profits, he didn't say what percentage profits that was. that is the real number. 35 billion out of what, right? you really need to know. that is one thing that stuck out. the other thing stuck out to me i think citadel is taking heat are they essentially too big to fail in the marketplace. are they too important? that is interesting ken griffin bragged h

congress because i wanted to help our country. i want americans to have our american dream. i want to protect our freedoms. this is what i ran for congress on. i never once said during my entire campaign qanon. i never once said any of the things that i am being accused of today during my campaign. i never said any of these things since i have been elected for congress. these were words of the past. and these things do not represent me. they do not represent my district. and they do not represent my values. here's what i can tell you. i am beyond grateful for this opportunity and i'll tell you why. i believe in god with all my heart and i am so grateful to be humbled, to be reminded that i'm a sinner, and that jesus died on the cross to forgive me for -- to forgive me for my sins. this is something i absolutely rejoice in today to tell you all. i think it's important for all of us to remember, none of us are perfect. none of us are. and none of us can even come close to earning our way into heaven just by our acts and works. but it's only through the grace of god. and this is why i'll tell you as a member of this congress, the 117th congress, i am a passionate person. i'm a competitor. i'm a fighter. i will work with you for good things for the people of this country, but the things i will not stand for is abortion. i think it's the worst thing this

congress. c-span, your unfiltered access to congress. >> the 117 congress includes over 60 new members. this diverse group encodes first immigrant -- first-generation immigrants, television reporters, and former college and professional athletes. watch our conversations with new members of congress friday. we feature freshmen members who served in the military before running for office, including andrew cline, peter meyer, ronny jackson, august pfluger, and tony gonzales. watch interviews with new members of congress friday at 8:00 eastern. c-span's washington journal. every day we take your calls live on the air. we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, washington post reporter joins us to discuss a plan for immigration unveiled by congressional democrats. then they former chair of the 9/11 commissioner tom kane discusses calls for an independent commission to review the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. and reconstruction efforts in afghanistan. also ben & jerry's cofounders ben cohen and jerry greenfield join us to discuss their police reform measure.

congress cowards head in their inside — congress cowards head in their inside and _ congress cowards the people. of i away for fear of the people. of course — away for fear of the people. of course they— away for fear of the people. of course they are _ away for fear of the people. of course they are cowards. i away for fear of the people. of course they are cowards. they| away for fear of the people. of i course they are cowards. they can't face the _ course they are cowards. they can't face the people _ course they are cowards. they can't face the people under— course they are cowards. they can't face the people under the _ course they are cowards. they can't face the people under the right i face the people under the right thing — face the people under the right thing mike _ face the people under the right thing. mike pence— face the people under the right thing. mike pence laid- face the people under the right thing. mike pence laid to - face the people under the right thing. mike pence laid to us i face the people under the rightl thing. mike pence laid to us and face the people