Government officials to testify on the need to pass disaster relief before the end of the year.
That's live at 10 a.m.
And later at 2, we'll hear testimony from Health and Human Services Secretary Javier Becera on his department's Office of Refugee Resettlement before a House Judiciary Subcommittee.
You can also watch our live coverage on the free C-SPAN Now video app or online at c-SPAN.org.
C-SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including WOW.
The world has changed.
Today, a fast, reliable internet connection is something no one can live without.
So WOW is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice.
Now more than ever, it all starts with great internet.
Wow.
WOW supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Coming up on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, we'll take your calls and comments live.
Then, Republican Congresswoman Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, a member of the Judiciary and Natural Resources Committees, discusses the incoming Trump administration agenda and House Republican priorities.
And Maryland Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivey talks about the Ethics Committee investigation into former Congressman Matt Gates and looks at the incoming Trump administration.
Also, Wall Street Journal National Security reporter Laura Seligman gives us insight on what President-elect Trump's second term could mean for U.S. defense and national security policy.
Washington Journal starts now.
Good morning.
It's Wednesday, November 20th.
Former Congressman Matt Gates has been nominated by the president-elect for Attorney General of the United States.
The House Bipartisan Ethics Committee had been investigating Mr. Gates since 2021, probing allegations of sexual misconduct involving a 17-year-old girl, illicit drug use, and accepting improper gifts.
He has denied any wrongdoing.
The committee meets today behind closed doors on whether or not to release their completed report.
This morning, we're asking you for your thoughts on that nomination and should the ethics report be made public?
Should senators who will vote on confirmation have access to it?
Give us a call on our lines by party: Democrats 202-748-8000, Republicans 202-748-8001, and Independents 202-748-8002.
You can send us a text at 202-748-8003.
Include your first name in your city-state.
And you can reach us on social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
Before we get to your calls, I'll show you this from ABC News.
It says ethics committee to meet, but it's not clear if vote on Gates report is on its agenda.
It says that the bipartisan House Ethics Committee will meet Wednesday, that's today behind closed doors, where it's poised to discuss its report on its investigation of former Representative Matt Gates, who resigned from office last week after President-elect Donald Trump chose him as his nominee for Attorney General.
The fate of the Gates report is in the hands of the committee, which has a reputation for being tight-lipped.
It's not clear if the committee will vote on whether to release the report.
If there is a vote, a majority of the five Democrats and five Republicans on the committee must approve its public disclosure.
In other words, at least one Republican must break party ranks to join Democrats to force its release.
Well, Speaker Johnson was on Fox News Sunday just this past Sunday talking about that ethics report and arguing that it should not be released.
Yeah, so I don't know anything about the contents of the report because the way the rules work, of course, the Speaker of the House can't put a thumb on the scale or be involved in an ethics committee report.
What I do know is that the comments about this being there's a precedent for releasing reports is not exactly accurate.
Yeah, there are two breaches of the tradition in the past under very extraordinary circumstances.
I don't think this meets that criteria.
Look, Matt Gates is a colleague of mine.
We've been serving together for more than eight years.
He's one of the brightest minds in Washington or anywhere for that matter.
And he knows everything about how the Department of Justice has been weaponized and misused.
And he will be a reformer.
And I think that's why the establishment in Washington is so shaken up about this pick.
But with regard to the report, there's a very important reason for the tradition and the rule that we always have almost always followed, and that is that we don't issue investigations and ethics reports on people who are not members of Congress.
I'm afraid that that would open a Pandora's box because the jurisdiction of the ethics committee is limited to those who are serving in the institution.
That's its very purpose.
And I think this would be a breach of protocol that could be dangerous for us going forward in the future.
And also on Sunday, Delaware Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat, was talking about that.
He's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he was asked about his opinions of that ethics report.
But to that House ethics issue, you have obviously called for it to be released.
You're not the only one.
There are Republicans, including John Cornyn on the Senate Judiciary Committee with you as well, saying that he'd be open to a subpoena.
Do you think there would be bipartisan support from the committee to do what you needed to do to get your hands on that report?
Yes, and to be clear about what Speaker Johnson said before, the Ethics Committee loses its jurisdiction to discipline a member when they're no longer a member.
On several occasions in the past, the House Ethics Committee has released a report when someone, as Matt Gates just did, resigned at the last moment in order to avoid the release of a report.
Some might say, why is it relevant now?
It's relevant because the Senate has a constitutional role.
It's called our advice and consent role to make sure that a president-elect mostly gets their choice, their nominees, but doesn't get to put people in who are unqualified or who lack the requisite character and capabilities to lead an incredibly important agency like the Department of Justice.
And we're talking specifically about that report on Matt Gates, the former congressman from Florida, who is up for Attorney General.
Getting your calls.
We're going to start with David, who's in Clinton Township, Michigan, Democrat.
Hi, David.
Hello.
Absolutely, we should see the report.
We should have full disclosure.
This man is going to be the Attorney General of the United States of America.
How can the Senate do their constitutional job without the report?
We should not let the Republicans do a cover-up.
It's simple.
All right.
And here's John in Idaho, a Republican.
Hi, John.
Hey, good morning.
I think we should release the Epstein reports and maybe the reports on all the fresh money paid out for the House and the Senate for the sex stuff that they do.
Thank you.
And there is, let me get that for you.
I will pull that up.
There was a tweet by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene who says this.
She said, for my Republican colleagues in the House and the Senate, if we are going to release ethics reports and rip apart our own that Trump has appointed, then put it all out there for the American people to see.
Yes, all the ethics reports and claims, including the one I filed.
All your sexual harassment and assault claims that were secretly settled, paying off victims with taxpayer money.
The entire Jeffrey Epstein files, tapes, recordings, witness interviews, but not just those, there's more.
Epstein wasn't, isn't the only asset.
If we're going to dance, let's all dance in the sunlight.
I'll make sure we do.
And this is Debbie in Wisconsin, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Yes, it should be released.
And it's kind of funny that you talk about Jeffrey Epstein.
It seems to me that his involvement with political figures, former and past, you know, I'm not going to name names, but I think you know because you've probably reported the fact.
It doesn't make any difference, Democrat, Republican.
If it was the other way around and it was the Democrats, you know, the Republicans would be asking for that.
So, yes, it should, everything should be released.
And I'm not a big fan of Margie Taylor Greene, but I think she's right.
Let it all fly.
Thank you.
All right.
And here's Carmen, South Florida, Democrat.
Hi, Carmen.
Yeah, how are you doing?
Yeah, so I believe it should be released.
So I feel like we vote, you know, we vote and we elect these people to do a job.
So I don't necessarily think like it needs to be released to the whole public, right?
But every congressman right now should see that report.
And sorry, I got a chess cold.
So what the Speaker of the House is saying, weaponize the DOJ, and Matt Gates is fully qualified to do that.
That's why I called, because they're keeping up with this facade that they were attacked.
And what it comes down to is the DOJ, what they do is they go after unlawful acts.
And if people are doing unlawful acts, then the DOJ is going to come after you.
They don't come after you because you're Republican or Democrat or Independent.
They're coming after you because you did something wrong.
And for him to quit right before the end, right before they were going to report, it isn't like suspicious.
It's a member of truth.
It's him saying to the country, I guess this is a bad report.
I did it.
I got to quit now so you don't see it.
So I can have Trump get me in.
So yeah, not only see the report, but stop the nonsense.
Stop the lies about the DOJ.
Thanks.
All right.
And that's Carmen in South Florida.
This is the Florida Sun Sentinel, a piece of the editorial that they published.
This is from Matt Gates' former district.
It says this: It seems highly doubtful that a Senate majority would confirm Gates, but his selection lays bare the depth of Trump's contempt for our vital national law enforcement apparatus and his determination to use it as a blunt instrument to seek revenge on his opponents.
Gates, age 42 of Niceville, is a provocateur who's good at delivering rhetorical red meat on the MA speaking circuit.
And Trump puts a premium on performative skills.
Gates has long been a caustic critic of the Justice Department that was investigating him.
That's from the Florida Sun Sentinel, an editorial.
And Joe on the Republican line in LA J, Georgia.
Good morning.
Mimi, I've been calling C-SPAN for over 30 years.
Love your network.
Y'all do a super job.
I just want to say that my county, LAJ, Gilmer County, went 81% for Trump, as did most North Georgia counties.
And I think that I have total confidence in Donald Trump.
He want an overwhelming landslide.
I think Gates ought to be approved.
I don't think if you start to release all these reports, we'll never get Trump's cabinet approved.
I say go ahead and confirm Gates and all of Trump's nominees.
He was elected in a huge landslide.
And so the American taxpayers deserve to have the people that Trump wants to put in office.
So I'm certainly supporting Matt Gates and all of the Trump nominees.
Sarah, an Independent in Maryland.
Hi, Sarah.
Yes, good morning.
I think they should just release it at least, and we can all see who this person is in private life.
And that's all I have to say.
Thank you.
And Mary's in the Bronx.
Democrat, good morning, Mary.
Good morning.
How are you?
You do a wonderful job.
I love your show.
Listen, I'm calling because, yes, Gates files should be released, okay, number one.
And the White House should be changed from the White House to the celebrity house because he's got all these celebrities now coming out.
Okay, and this is, I never heard of such a thing.
In all the years that there was a president, I never heard of such a thing of all these people, all these actors, actresses, you know, to be to be in office.
You know, I never heard of such a thing.
But anyway, thank you very much and have a wonderful day.
And we are taking your calls this morning on the Matt Gates ethics report.
If you think it should be released, should it be public?
Should it just go to the senators?
Should it not be released at all?
The numbers are 202748-8000 if you're a Democrat.
It's 202-748-8001 if you're a Republican, and 2028-748-8002 for Independents.
The Senate Majority Leader, the current Senate Majority Leader, outgoing, is Mitch McConnell.
He addressed the process for confirming President-elect Trump's nominees.
Here's a portion from yesterday.
Given how important the Attorney General nomination is, shouldn't senators have access to all the information, including everything the House Ethics Committee found its investigation into?
Look, the Constitution gives us a role in personnel called advice and consent.
My view is that's exactly what will unfold here when these nominees are actually sent forward.
And we'll treat them like we've treated all others with the proper vetting.
Senator Flint, should you say you were quoted over the weekend as saying there would be no recess appointments?
Can you clarify what you said and what you meant?
Well, we'll see.
I don't haven't addressed that issue.
In any capacity?
No, there have been all kinds of rumors floating around, but I haven't addressed that issue.
We'll just see how this unfolds.
We've got six weeks here, or actually two months.
Would you oppose any efforts?
I'm going to do a recess appointment now.
As a practical matter, do you think the President, President Trump, could actually force the Senate to take a recess?
And what do you think about the idea of appointing some of these high-level cabinet positions during a recess and circumventing the Senate's advice and consent role?
Well, if you're asking basically the same question I just got, my answer remains: we'll see what happens between now and the new administration.
And at that point, nominations can actually be sent forward.
And we'll figure out how to handle them then.
And I'm confident that we'll engage the same kind of vetting process that we have historically done under both parties with these nominees.
That was Senate Majority Leader, sorry, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from yesterday.
And here's a couple of things that we've gotten from Facebook.
Here's Anne, who says, simple answer, yes.
What's the point of an ethics committee if they're able to just hide the results, good or bad?
And Jeff says, yes, the report is needed for the Senate to fulfill their role of advice and consent.
However, the report won't be released and Gates shouldn't be confirmed.
And Karen says, no.
If you were in this position, you wouldn't want information that has not been confirmed in a court of law to be released about you.
And Greg says, for once, Marjorie Taylor Green is correct.
Release the results of all background and ethics reports.
Let's talk to Marjorie in Meadville, Pennsylvania, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'm with that other lady that says, for once, I would agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene.
If we want to release it, go ahead and release it, but release them all.
So this sexual assault thing seems to have become the third rail, so to speak.
Everybody heard all the comments and all the things about Clarence Thomas.
That didn't work.
He still was confirmed.
Also, Brett Kavanaugh was still confirmed.
So I feel it's a last-ditch effort thing.
I'm 87.
I'm not naive.
But let's be honest.
If some girl, where was her parents, was at a party realizing the power of her, shall we say, sexuality among drunken men is taken advantage of, and I don't think she probably was.
So, Marjorie, Marjorie, hold on.
So in this case, the allegation is a 17-year-old, which means she's not old enough to give her consent.
Do you still think it's okay and that it's her fault?
Well, I won't say it's her fault.
I think she was using her newfound powers.
And four days shy of her 18th birthday, you know, it doesn't, all of a sudden she gets religion 10 years later.
You know, I'm sorry if I offended people that are actually assaulted, but in this case, I imagine it's just somebody shouldn't have been at a party at her age, regardless of how close she was to 18.
A few days being close to 18 is just silly.
All right, Marjorie.
Glenn in Roanoke, Virginia, Independent Line.
I would say not to release it because it would more than likely hurt his chances of getting confirmed.
And I think the basic effort Trump is putting forward is he had indicated before the election, he said he wanted to terminate the Constitution.
He felt that he needed some retribution.
He wanted to go after his political enemies.
And so by bringing in people like Gates and all of these other folks that we're seeing being presented to be a part of the cabinet, it's going to hurt Trump's chances of essentially becoming the autocrat and dictator that Americans voted for.
They want someone that's going to be the strong man who has total control over all of the different departments and social and political and military issues that come forth.
People want that.
And so releasing this would just hurt our chances of someone that's going to follow Trump right down the line.
And here's Mike.
Sorry, May in Miami, Florida, Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Go right ahead.
I think they should leave it alone.
If Trump is in there and did what he did, let this man be there, too.
So do you want to see the report or you say it should be.
They got Trump.
They ain't got all the Trump report out, so they're all the same.
I don't see where this is going to cause any difference.
Trump is in there, so let this man be in there.
Let the rest of them be there.
Okay.
And here is Ronald in North Carolina, Republican.
Hi, Ronald.
Hello.
Hi.
I've kind of think that this witch hunt the Democrat Party started way back, and it just keeps on and on.
It's all fake.
It's all made up.
That's what I think.
So, Ronald, do you not believe the allegations against former Congressman Gates?
No, it's all a witch hunt.
They're doing anything, singing bud, and see if it sticks on the wall.
That's all it is.
So what is the Democrat Party sick?
And they don't have common sense or sick.
Okay.
And this is Tony in Riverton, New Jersey, Independent Line.
Hey, how are you doing?
I would say, yes, it should be released.
It doesn't seem like the Trump administration is interested in doing any serious vetting of their candidates.
So someone has to look at it.
And Margo in Highland, Indiana, Democrat.
Good morning, America.
Absolutely, it should be released.
And the fact of the matter is, why wouldn't a criminal, an assaulter, go ahead and kill all of his likes for a cabinet?
So it should be absolutely released because we already know, and there's no any window.
The fact of the matter is that that Gates individual is certainly unfit and unqualified to be the head of the Department of Justice.
And here is House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on the need for transparency on that House Ethics Committee report.
So the House Ethics Committee is supposed to meet tomorrow to discuss whether or not the report concerning the former Representative Matt Gates should be made public.
Do you feel that the public should be able to see all of these details or at least members of Congress as this man is being put up for consideration to be a part of the cabinet and especially lead DOJ?
Yes.
And that was yesterday.
And this is Patty in Juneau Beach, Florida, Republican.
Hi, Patty.
Hi, good morning.
Morning.
Well, let's see.
Do I think it should be released?
Yes.
Do I?
Is it going to make any difference?
Probably not.
I think he should get confirmed.
I've, you know, I'm so sick and tired of hearing this person, you know, did this and this person did this, and they seem to come out of the woodwork typically when a Republican is running.
You know, why are they going to parties and being 17?
Why are they there?
What do they look like?
What are they doing?
Why?
So, Patty, so let me ask you this because another caller had said something very similar.
If these allegations prove to be true and they're just allegations and he has denied that any of this happened, but if this is true that these parties did take place, that the sexual misconduct took place, that the drug, illegal drug use took place, would you still be in favor of him being the Attorney General of the United States?
Illegal drug use.
They smoke pot.
I mean, pot has been around.
No, it wasn't, I don't think it was pot, but yes, go ahead.
It was illegal.
Illegal drug use.
I mean, I don't know how many, I wouldn't surprise me if most of the people in Congress have done illegal drug use.
Does that make it okay for the Attorney General?
No, I mean, well, I mean, do I wish he hadn't?
Yes.
But it doesn't disqualify him.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
I mean, we jaywalk, we speed, we do stupid things.
Does that mean he's going to continue to do stupid things?
I mean, who hasn't done really stupid things?
But cocaine is a little different, though, Patty, than jaywalking.
Are you making an equivalence there?
Well, no, I mean, of course it's different, but I've never tried cocaine, don't want to try cocaine.
But I mean, that, you know, I'm 70.
I mean, how old is he?
I mean, this was so common.
Yeah, this was so common.
I mean, it was just like, I mean, it's just what you did.
You weren't thinking back then that you were going to be doing this kind of thing.
I mean, you were just stupid.
But does that mean he would not hold the line and continue to do stupid things because you did a stupid thing even several times?
Does that make you a stupid person for the rest of your life?
I mean, Trump has been through so much.
I mean, from the spying on him, you know, listening to the FBI and the tapes and the Russiagate.
I mean, it's just been unmerciful.
All right, Patty.
Let's go to Eric in Dellington, New York, Democrat.
Eric, you there?
You got to mute your TV, Eric.
Russia Gate.
Dale in Charlotte, North Carolina, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Go ahead, Dale.
Good morning.
Yes, I just wanted to express my view that, yes, it is important to release documentation like that, but it's the same old story.
We're playing games when you don't need to play a game.
You need to just get the job done.
And Trump has already started doing that.
So I say go forward and get everything accomplished that needs to be accomplished right now.
And it means eliminating more Republicans from what the need is right now to do the job, and we have to do that.
I'm sorry, but you look at the bottom line.
Bottom line pays bills for everybody, no matter if you're Republican or Democrat.
And if we wait around and worry about that, you're never going to get the job accomplished.
It's just going to be a Mickey Mouse arena again.
So I appreciate you listening.
And have a good day.
And let's talk to Mark next in Waterville, Maine, Independent.
Mark.
Hey.
Hey.
I think the guy shouldn't be in there.
Trump's person.
I don't think he should be in there.
Why is that?
Because he's done a lot of stuff.
I don't know what he's done, but he's done a lot of stuff.
He should be held accountable.
And so a previous caller said, you know, he was just doing stupid stuff.
Maybe that he was young.
He's only 42.
What do you think of that, Mark?
I think he should be punished.
Okay.
Well, he was investigated by the Justice Department and they did not press charges.
So, Robin, in Seymour, Tennessee, Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
What do you think, Robin?
I'm pretty disgusted by the whole thing.
I have a couple of different views.
Like, number one, we have a president-elect who has been repeatedly accused of sexual assault.
Of course, he would pick an attorney general who has done the same thing.
It's becoming more and more clear to me as I listen to these people.
Two kinds of people exist in the United States right now, which is causing us a problem.
Number one, these old white women who think that young girls are asking for it.
And if they were at a party they shouldn't have been, then that's their fault or their parents' fault.
It's not the adults' fault in the room.
And the other kind of person is like your last caller who's just like, well, you know, boys will be boys, you know, and we let them get away with stuff that women would never be allowed to get away with.
And I think that we're currently supporting sex offenders as the leaders of our country.
Don't you guys think that that's just going to encourage other pedophiles saying, well, it doesn't matter that I screw kids.
I can be president.
I mean, I don't understand how you can do an ethics report when there's no more ethics.
And I personally don't know what to think about the majority of our country saying women don't matter.
Women's rights don't matter.
Little girls, little boys, their sexuality starts whenever men say it does.
And I'm just disgusted because people think it's okay for a 30-something-year-old to screw a 17-year-old or even an 18-year-old.
And they're at parties with cocaine and whatnot.
And they're not even 21.
They're not even allowed to drink yet.
I think our country's got priority problems.
I think that the ethics is out the window.
I'm so sorry that people allowed this kind of hate toward women and girls.
I just hate it.
I'm so sorry.
All right, Robin.
And this is Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville.
He was on the Senate floor urging his Senate Republican colleagues to get in line.
In addition to sending President Trump back to the White House, Americans delivered a mandate to every single Senate Republican.
They want President Trump's America First agenda, and they want it now.
As a result, Senate Republicans should embrace this mandate in supporting every single one of President Trump's cabinet picks.
You'd think this would be a no-brainer.
Not one Democrat broke from their party in supporting Joe Biden's nominees in 2021.
Not one.
However, over the last few days, I've heard some of my Senate Republican colleagues express concerns about who President Trump is picking for his team.
I would expect this from my colleagues on the left, not on the right.
What's surprising to me is that I'm hearing grumblings from Republicans.
My advice to them is get on board or get out of the way.
And this is, we got this on X from Ellerby who says, of course they should release all the dirty laundry on all members of Congress.
Anything rumored, alleged, or outright lied about should be fair game.
Wasn't there once some funding that paid members' accusers?
Bring it all out.
Epstein comes to mind.
And Ajika says, should the victims of sexual assault get justice?
And Judy sent us a text from Waynesburg, Pennsylvania.
Release the report so Matt can point out its errors and get rid of rumors.
And here is Dee, the Republican in New Lenox, Illinois.
Hi, Dee.
Good morning.
I wanted to respond to the topic of Matt Gates being approved.
I believe he should.
I don't believe there's a necessity to open up these files.
He was accused of this years ago when he was already on the scene on behalf of the Republican Party in the state of Florida to support Donald Trump's presidency.
This was, to my mind, if people do their homework and look at it, he was found innocent.
Okay?
You want to go and bring this up?
That's fine.
You want to talk about cocaine at a party and there was a 17-year-old there?
That's absolutely probably accurate.
However, we've just endured how many months of finding cocaine at the White House, in the White House, and nobody's done any homework.
Nobody cares.
That has to be critical, too.
So to the one previous caller's point, yes, I'm not saying it's acceptable, but it happens.
If a party happens and there's drugs there, yes.
You want to open the guy's files?
Fine.
Go to Pelosi.
Find out what happened to Paul Pelosi.
There are so many incidents that are shoved under the rug because it's another party other than Republicans.
So that's.
Mary in Pensacola, Florida, Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
And yes, I do feel like Matt Gates should be exposed.
I've followed ever since Trump came into office, and I've been listening to everything every single day.
Another thing I wanted to say, they may put a man on the moon, Mars, wherever you want to put him.
And you may buy a ticket to go to Mars or the moon or whatever.
But I want to tell you one thing.
You cannot buy a ticket to heaven.
If you are a religious Christian person, you know who's right and who's wrong.
You've seen too much on this TV to shut your eyes and say, it's okay.
All these things that are coming out, all these people that are put in all these offices that Trump's go put them in, we do that they are not qualified people.
We need to wake up.
This is crazy.
Other countries are going to take over us like Russia, and they are playing Trump just like he's a puppet.
And I think Elon Musk is really going to get rid of Trump.
I really do, and I hate that.
How would Elon Musk get rid of Trump?
The reason I think that is because Elon Musk is a very, very intelligent person, or else he wouldn't be where he is.
And look at Trump.
You know he's really not that intelligent at all.
He really isn't.
And I think that all these votes were bought.
That's how they won the election.
All right, Mary, this is Ruth now in Plymouth, Indiana, Independent Line.
Yeah, it used to be that we held our people in Congress to higher standards, but that's obviously not the case anymore.
They should release whatever they know about any of them because we need to know.
Matt Gates got up there, whether it's, you know, I don't know why he's lying about it now, and he talked about this party and what he'd done and the fun he'd had.
And so if that's not true, why is he denying it?
A few weeks ago, you had a question as to whether morals or policy was more important.
And I was really stunned and upset that three-quarters of your callers called in and said that morals didn't matter anymore, that policy did.
That's how low our country has fallen.
Ruth, tell us why you think morals are important then.
Well, I think that it makes people do the right thing and serve their people.
We've got such self-serving people up there now.
You know, I'm still stunned at the results of the election that people would elect this man who has been involved in every criminal activity he could be, and he's going to get away with all of it.
You and I'd be in jail if we'd done the first thing that this man has done.
I'd just like to see us get back to some moral standards and help one another and so forth and rid all this fooling around.
I'm just thoroughly disgusted with government and the people that we send up there.
When you vote, you should be looking into who you're voting for instead of just pulling the R tab or the D tab.
You know, we do have some good people up there, but it seems like the morally bankrupt are winning out.
It's just a shame.
All right.
And here is Tom, a Republican in Ohio.
Hello, Tom.
How are you today?
Good.
I think that anybody who does stuff like us here, And it's proven.
It's got to be proven now.
Should be shouldn't be in office, you know.
Here's Bill Clinton got a pupper in the White House and they make a hero out of him.
And that was a young girl, wasn't 17, but it was a young girl he took advantage of.
Hecking truck just about like making the White House a whorehouse.
Thank you.
This is the New York Times has this article.
Hacker is said to have gained access to file with damaging testimony about Gates.
It says that the computer file is said to contain testimony from the woman who said she had sex with Matt Gates, President-elect Donald Trump's choice to be attorney general when she was 17.
It says that the unidentified hacker has gained access to a computer file shared in a secure link among lawyers whose clients have given damaging testimony related to Matt Gates.
It says the file of 24 exhibits is said to include sworn testimony by a woman who said she had sex with Mr. Gates in 2017 when she was 17, as well as corroborating testimony by a second woman who said that she witnessed the encounter.
That's at the New York Times.
And this is Carol in Iowa City, Iowa, Democrat.
Good morning.
Hi, good morning.
Well, Trump has certainly picked the bottom of the barrel for all of his appointments.
And Matt Gates is definitely at the top.
I think probably the records are going to come out whether he likes it or Trump likes it or not.
But most of it's already been on TV.
Some hacker has already put out some of this stuff.
So I don't think this is anything new.
This is all the news.
All these people that go into office in the high-powered places, all they're in it for is the money and the sex.
And then when it comes out, they want to stand up there and deny, deny, deny, which is what Trump has done his entire life.
This didn't happen.
Look at me, people.
I'm okay.
So he's going to fix it.
He's going to fix us and the rest of the country for the next four years.
And all you Republicans who voted for him, you better watch out for your Social Security, your Medicare, and anything else that you think you might have been getting from Trump because it's not coming.
All he wanted was your vote.
He got the vote.
And now you sit there at your table and you try to figure out how you're going to be going on for the rest of your life.
All right, Carol.
Here's Annette, an independent in Massapequa, New York.
We lost Annette.
Let's try David in Minnesota, Republican.
David?
Yes, when everybody says all this, it surprises me that it seems to me that our president back while had two sexo scandals in the White House.
And then if you actually would probably go back beyond the White House, how many times has he done those stuff?
So I think that people should actually wake up and look at these allegations.
And if Gates was per se, already had reviews on him.
So has he actually been convicted?
Well, they should have convicted him back then instead of having all this stuff come out now.
Like everything else they've done, they blame everybody and then when it really comes down to it, there isn't as much to it as they say.
So thank you and have a good day.
Bye.
Ann in New York State, Democrat.
Ann, you're next.
Good morning.
Thanks so much for taking my call.
Three quick points on this topic.
Number one, Tommy Tubberville, it was reported when he got into the Senate that he did not, could not even name the three branches of co-equal branches of government.
So that stunning level of ignorance should disqualify him.
Two, yes, Trump barely won the popular vote.
He did not even breach 50%.
Yes, he came close, but was not over 50%.
So he hardly has a landslide nor a mandate.
And three, I am old enough to remember when not paying taxes on your nanny or accepting a car from a donor was enough to disqualify someone from being a cabinet member.
Oh, how far we have fallen.
Thank you.
Let's talk to Jack next in Tallahassee, Florida, Independent.
Good morning, Jack.
Good morning.
I'm a little nervous.
I call in about once a month now.
And this Gates situation is just when I was growing up, I was taught you do not want to bring shame upon your name.
And you would step aside and wait till this, whatever, you know, whatever this commotion or whatever it is is over.
And I'm 87 years old, and it's just a shame how this country is going from what it used to be to what it is today.
It doesn't matter what you do today.
Everything's fine.
Well, my observation, this is not an opinion.
My observation is this country is in real deep trouble with the people that's going to be running our country in January the 20th.
Thank you.
That's all I have to say.
All right, Jack.
And this is Fox News that says this.
Matt Gates is, quote, working the phones, speaking to GOP senators despite difficult confirmation odds.
It says Gates is dedicated to winning the support of senators for his nomination for the Attorney General.
You could read that at Fox News.
And here is David in Sacramento, California, Republican.
Yes, ma'am.
I'd just like to say one thing is let he who without sin cast the first stone.
I bet you'll find there's a lot of people who can't cast a stone.
You know.
David, do you think that that biblical principle applies to confirmation hearings for cabinet positions?
Well, I believe we could quit playing pin to tail on the donkey.
You know, that's basically what you're saying.
You don't play pin to tail on the donkey.
There's a lot of donkeys out there, you know.
So there's not that many people who can throw a stone either.
Okay, and here's Tommy in, is it Brookneill, Virginia, Democrat?
Yeah, can you hear me?
Yes, go right ahead, Tommy.
Okay, so my comments are a couple of callers a while back referenced President Clinton.
First of all, Monica Lewinsky was of legal age, and he was impeached.
Another thing is Matt Gates, whether he committed a crime or not, what he did is unethical.
And if you're going to be the attorney general, you should be of the utmost character.
And he's not.
If he's going to be opening up investigations on other people, he should have an investigation opened on him, to whom much is given, much is required.
That's all I got.
All right.
And this is Chris in Philadelphia, Independent Line.
Yes, good morning.
So I'm just driving to work, and what I've been thinking in my head is I want to compare it to George Santos.
When I look at the actions of George Santos, I mean, they all voted to get him out, and who knows where he's at now?
Hopefully, he's writing a book somewhere.
But, you know, let's speak about that.
Is there any comparison to Matt Gates's actions?
I mean, when I look at George Santos, I mean, there was no accusations.
There was no minors.
There were no nothing.
There was no drugs involved.
I mean, he just clearly lied.
And there was some mismanagement of the funds, from what I believe.
But I'm sure if they look hard enough under Matt Gates's funding, I'm sure there's some mismanagement of the funds there as well.
But my point is how they all turn, you know, they turn, they're selective on who they turn on and who they want.
And that is part of the problem as well.
I mean, you know, and I've just given up on this election.
I voted for Kamala Harris, but I mean, I have a lot of respect for Kamala Harris, but I also feel like Biden should have resigned and gave her the throne before this all happened.
It just would have showed more unity and things like that.
But hopefully a third party will emerge.
Not of, you know, not the Trump that whatever.
I mean, that's not, that's ridiculous.
And anybody that lives in the South, I ask them to go to Atlantic City, walk the streets of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and look what that gentleman, if that's what you want to call it, did there.
Okay.
I mean, anybody that's, I worked for companies up in that area that were bankrupt, didn't get, he owes thousands and thousands of dollars for seafood and linens, and he just didn't pay, he didn't even pay a penny on the penny, if that makes any sense.
So my point is, you've all been misled.
You're all drinking the Kool-Aid.
And where the hell is JD Vance?
Nobody voted for Elon Musk, but where is he at?
All right, Chris.
And Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullins was on Meet the Press over the weekend, and he says that senators should have access to that report.
You know, there's no question that Matt Gates and I have had our differences, and that's no secret.
Moving forward, I do respect President Trump's right to appoint these individuals.
But underneath Article 2, Section 2, Congress has to advise and consent.
And Matt Gates is going to go through the same scrutiny as every other individual.
And I'm going to give him a fair shot, just like every individual.
And at the end of the day, the Senate has to confirm him.
I do think it's a very, very tough role.
I've got a tough situation, and I've got to set my personal opinions, and they're really not opinions.
I've got to set my personal situation with Matt to the side and look at the facts.
If he's qualified, he's qualified.
I be quite frank, I didn't even know he was an attorney until after he was appointed attorney general, and I had to do my research on him.
And I know that's crazy because I served with him, but I just never did the dig to find out actually his actual degree, what it was in.
Well, and speaking of digging into his background, the House Ethics Committee was about to release the findings of its investigation into allegations of misconduct by former Congressman Gates.
Of course, he abruptly resigned before that could happen.
A number of your colleagues, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have said they would like to see that report.
Should the House Ethics Committee release that report, Senator?
Absolutely.
And I believe the Senate should have access to that.
Now, should it be released to the public or not?
I guess that will be part of the negotiations, but that should be definitely part of our decision-making.
And we are taking your calls for about another five minutes.
A former previous caller asked about JD Vance.
Here's Politico saying that JD Vance is bringing some of Trump's controversial cabinet picks to meet with Republicans on the Hill.
The meetings will take place on Wednesday and Thursday.
That's today and tomorrow.
Here's Kelly in Clemens, North Carolina, Republican.
Hi, Kelly.
Hey, Mimi.
First, I want to say before I address the question, I was really surprised that with the hearing they had yesterday in the House on sex trafficking,
and we have found out that our health and human services and our government has been in cahoots with cartels down at the border and doing sex trafficking of children,
the 320-something thousand children that are missing that they cannot find because they're not, they didn't do any DNA tests to find out if the people they were with were even their parents and they're not doing DNA on the DNA on the sponsors that are picking them up and some of them were found out to be MS-13.
Now, why that's not on this morning instead of Matt Gates, I don't know because that's much worse than Matt Gaetz.
And what's your comment on Matt Gaetz, though?
I don't think the ethics report should be out there simply because the DOJ did not find him guilty of anything.
They dropped the charges.
Why would they drop the charges?
Because they could not find the evidence.
Okay?
Now, you can say rumor, you can put rumors out there about him.
You can do whatever you wish.
And people will go, oh, well, he's guilty.
Well, how do you know he's guilty?
Did God come down and tell you he was guilty?
I don't think so.
So leave the ethics report alone.
And I feel like this gentleman a while ago who said that those without sin cast the first stone.
I mean, who are we on here?
We all act like we know exactly what happened and exactly what went on.
No, we don't.
We don't have a clue.
We're just going by what we're being told.
And you don't know if these people are telling you the truth or not because this country is so divided.
I mean, how do you know you're being told the truth?
We've only person, or I should say, the only entity that we should trust is God and Jesus.
And that's it.
There's nobody left to trust anymore.
Sorry, Kelly.
Go on.
Vince in Lake City, Florida, Democrat.
Good morning, Vince.
Good morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
I just got a couple of opinions.
Probably aren't worth much, but For us to be, we go around telling we're a Christian nation, I think it's about time that our politicians and our leaders started acting like Christians.
I notice a lot of people that talk like, hey, how you doing?
And all of that kind of stuff.
They're the ones that are messing this country up.
Okay?
And they're the ones that are always quoting God and all of that kind of stuff.
Well, if you went and listened to Jesus on the Sermon on the Mountain, okay, or the Beatitudes, you're going to find that the teachings of Jesus Christ is what Christians are supposed to do.
Act like crushed.
That's why you're a Christian.
Okay?
This country is so divided because the billionaires are taking over the world.
I always thought it was a bad idea to allow a man to have, or a woman, a billion dollars.
It's ridiculous.
After the Second World War, okay, when Ike was president, what was the interest rate then on those kind of people?
Like 80%, 90% after the war?
And slowly but surely, the Republicans kept chipping away and chipping away and chipping away at it till you ain't got squat left.
And Social Security, think about that.
Why is it that the billionaires don't have, and millionaires don't have to pay Social Security on all their income like you do, like we all do?
Why?
Because they buy their way through everything.
It should be illegal for a man to have that much money.
Look what's happening now.
All of a sudden, Elon Musk steps in front of Donald Trump, okay, who is supposedly our legitimate president.
I disagree with that.
That guy has been cheating people all his life.
He's a crook.
He can't even play a game of golf without cheating.
Okay?
And this is what we're bringing into our capital.
This is who's going to run our country.
We got a big problem here.
We really do.
I think that the people in this country ought to stop hating each other and start loving each other.
All right, Vince.
And coming up on Washington Journal, Congresswoman Harriet Hageman of Wyoming joins us to discuss House Republican priorities and the incoming Trump administration.
And later, National Security reporter Lara Seligman of the Wall Street Journal discusses what President-elect Trump's second term could mean for U.S. defense and national security policy.
We'll be right back.
Visit cspan.org slash results for comprehensive coverage of the 2024 campaign results.
Get the final Electoral College breakdown in the presidential race and see which states each candidate carried.
Dive into our interactive maps to explore the outcomes in Senate, House, and governors races and monitor the final balance of power in Congress.
Plus, watch acceptance and concession speeches on demand anytime.
Stay up to date with C-SPAN, your unfiltered view of politics, at cspan.org slash results.
Attention middle and high school students across America.
It's time to make your voice heard.
C-SPAN Student Cam Documentary Contest 2025 is here.
This is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact.
Your documentary should answer this year's question.
Your message to the president.
What issue is most important to you or your community?
Whether you're passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, StudentCam is your platform to share your message with the world.
With $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000.
This is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work.
Enter your submissions today.
Scan the code or visit studentcam.org for all the details on how to enter.
the deadline is january 20th 2025.
c-span shop.org is c-span's online store Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
Shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
We're joined now by Representative Harriet Higaman, a Republican of Wyoming.
She's on the Judiciary Committee and the Natural Resources Committee.
Congresswoman, welcome.
Thank you for having me.
You are a lawyer and you serve on the House Judiciary Committee.
What do you think about your colleagues in the House Ethics Committee?
Do you think they should release the report on former Congressman Matt Gates?
I think we should follow the standard that has typically been followed and follow the rules.
So if his resignation means that the report isn't typically released, I don't think it should be released.
I think that the same standard should apply to everyone.
So there is precedent actually for the House Ethics Committee releasing reports on members who have resigned.
Do you think that senators should be able to see that?
A lot of House Republican, sorry, Senate Republicans are saying we should at least get access to that report.
Again, I'm going to say that they should follow what the precedent is and follow what the rules are.
And I'm not involved in that process.
And so I think that we need to let the process play out.
And how do you think those allegations should be handled?
What do you think should happen next?
So one of the things that I'm very troubled by is we seem to get where there's an investigation done, the matter is resolved, and then we move on.
And then something like this comes up where he's nominated for a position and people kind of want to drag him through the mud.
I've worked with Matt Gaetz for the last two years on the Judiciary Committee and the Weaponization Committee.
He's an incredible, brilliant legal mind, and he is someone who I think would go in and stir up the DOJ, which is what we need.
We have uncovered a substantial amount of information of how the Department of Justice and the FBI have been weaponized against the American public.
And Matt Gates has been instrumental in exposing that and trying to hold people accountable for the decisions that have been made.
And I think that's really why they're attacking him and trying to derail this nomination, because they recognize that he's someone who's going to go into the Department of Justice and actually do what needs to be done, which is clean out a lot of the dead wood, if you will, and also root out the corruption that we know has been going on.
What we saw with the Hunter Biden laptop, what we saw in terms of how they treated Hunter Biden, the amount of money that they gifted to him by refusing to prosecute him for the tax evasion that he engaged in with the money that he was receiving from foreign countries.
Matt Gaetz is somebody who's going to expose this, and I think that that's why they're attacking him.
Do you have any qualms about his character for the position of Attorney General?
I don't.
There are Senate Republicans that are rejecting a proposal floated by some advisors to President-elect Trump to take the job of conducting background checks away from the FBI and give it to a private investigation.
What do you think of that?
You know, again, I think that this is a reflection of the fact that we have lost faith in these hallmark institutions.
Again, because of my work on the Judiciary Committee as well as the Weaponization Committee, when we brought in Christopher Wray, when we saw what happened in 2020 with the effort to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop, even though the FBI had had it by that time for almost a year, when we look at the Russia-Russia-Russia hoax and the nonsense that the FBI engaged in with all of that, what you're seeing is an effort to try to hold these agencies accountable.
And if we can't do that, find an alternative to their ability to engage in this kind of nefarious acts.
There's an article, Congresswoman, on the Hill that says Trump's vows for revenge take on new seriousness.
It says that Trump routinely calls for adverse actions against his perceived enemies and often makes veils threats, a dynamic present during his first term in office that accelerated as he battled for re-election.
I just want to get your reaction to that and if you think that that will actually happen.
So as an attorney who practiced for 34 years, words matter.
And when I hear the kind of terminology that they used in that article, that article is intended to convey a certain meaning, which is that he somehow is doing something wrong by attempting to hold people accountable for engaging in bad acts.
Again, I'm going to go back to Merritt Garland, Christopher Wray, Mayorkas.
These people have failed the American public.
It's why the American public threw Biden and Harris out the window in terms of this last election.
They don't trust these institutions.
They don't trust these agencies.
So Donald Trump has been given a mandate to come into Washington, D.C. and clean out a lot of the corruption in these agencies.
So the Hill is going to refer to that as revenge.
I'm going to refer to that as accountability.
No one is above the law.
No one is above being held accountable for the decisions that they make.
So whether it is Mayorkas and his failure on the southern border, his failure in terms of the fentanyl flooding our country, the illegal aliens flooding our country, or it is Merritt Garland and his efforts to persecute certain individuals based upon their political beliefs, or it's Christopher Wray, or I could go on and on and on.
Depending on how you want to interpret that or how you want to describe what President Trump is doing, the left side is going to see that's revenge.
I'm going to say he's actually coming into Washington, D.C. and holding people accountable for violating the law, for undermining the security of the American public, for using the FBI to go after political enemies, which is what we saw in the Russia-Russia-Russia hoax.
Do you realize that in August of 2016, the FBI was well aware that the steel dossier was a hoax?
They knew before they ever went and applied for the first FISA warrant that that was political, dirty tricks from the Hillary Clinton campaign.
They knew that in August of 2016, and they continued to pursue the Russia-Russia-Russia hoax for another three years after that, despite knowing that it was a hoax.
So when Donald Trump comes into Washington, D.C. and holds people in the FBI accountable for that, I don't see that as revenge.
I see that as being held accountable for their bad decisions.
Do you think former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, who you replaced in Wyoming, should be prosecuted?
No, but I think she should be investigated.
For what?
What she did on the January 6th Committee.
There are several things that we know that she did.
Number one, they have deleted files.
They deleted the actual videotaped depositions of people.
Again, as an attorney, the evidence is the videotaped deposition.
They deleted those.
The other thing that she did is, as an attorney, she met with a witness that she knew was represented by an attorney, and she went behind his back and she was meeting with Cassidy Hutchinson and not informing the attorney of that serious ethical violation.
She had absolutely no right to do that and talk about a conflict of interest.
In addition to which, they were covering up information about what President Trump had done prior to January 6th in order to harden the security in Washington, D.C.
So he has.
Do you believe she actually broke the law or are these ethical violations that you're alleging?
I think that they're both.
I think they're potentially both.
That's why I said we need to have the investigation.
I'm not going to prejudge what she did, other than I know that if you're meeting with a witness that is represented by an attorney and you know that, and you're going behind his back in order to meet with that person, and you look at what happened during that June hearing when she came before the January 6th Committee, the June 2022 hearing, and Cassidy Hutchinson came out and number one, it was hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay,
which no attorney worth their salt ever would have presented that evidence to anybody, let alone something that was that significant and that serious.
So do I think that she merits being investigated?
I do, but that's not about revenge.
That's not about revenge at all.
That's about holding her accountable.
And if you'd like to join our conversation with Representative Harriet Hageman, a Republican of Wyoming, you can do so.
Our numbers are 202748-8000 if you're a Democrat, 202748-8001 if you're a Republican, and 202748-8002 if you're an Independent.
I want to ask you about this quote from D.C. lawyer Michael Bromowicz, and he says this, and then I'll get your reaction to it.
He says, I have heard from a number of organizational clients and some individual clients who are very scared that they may be targeted, even though their conduct has been entirely lawful.
They fear being targeted for their views, their statements, and for the causes and people they support.
They're very scared, and I think for good reason.
They're concerned that they could be audited by the IRS.
They could be the subject of a bogus congressional investigation.
There may be even a way to conduct or at least initiate a bogus criminal investigation, and all with the goal of, ironically, for the first time, actually weaponizing the Department of Justice.
How would you respond to that?
I would respond to that: that this person doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of the history of the weaponization of the Department of Justice.
I would encourage him to go and watch the hearings of the Select Committee on Weaponization of the federal government and the investigations we've done over the last two years in terms of how the Department of Justice conducted themselves during the lead-up to the 2016 election from 2016 to 2020 while President Trump was the president and then since then.
So he's either naive or he's being very disingenuous to say that the Department of Justice has not already been weaponized against people.
Number one.
Number two, again, I will come back to if you when you engage in bad behavior, it is appropriate for our law enforcement agencies, if you will, to investigate that.
Again, words matter, and what he's attempting to do is act like there's some kind of a stasi out there associated with Donald Trump.
Well, I haven't seen anything before like what I saw under the Biden administration and what I saw with the Department of Justice and the FBI during the four years of the first Donald Trump administration.
We're going to take calls, but before we do, there have been talk that President-elect Donald Trump wants to take the FBI out of the Justice Department and make it a direct report to the White House.
What were your initial reactions to that?
Well, first of all, the FBI, we need to fundamentally change the way that the FBI has been operated.
And prior to 9-11, the field offices had much more authority in terms of what their responsibilities were, what they investigated, and how they conducted those investigations.
After 9-11, under Mueller, they brought most of that power and they stockpiled it all in Washington, D.C.
And that's when you have seen the kinds of nefarious actions that we've seen.
The investigations against conservative Catholics, for example, the investigations against the people at the school board meetings.
But, Congresswoman, not to cut you off, before 9-11, I mean, that was a massive intelligence failure.
Absolutely, it was a massive intelligence failure.
What I'm telling you is that maybe those failed officers weren't doing what they were supposed to be doing.
Well, Washington, D.C. wasn't doing what it should have been doing because that was Washington, D.C. failure.
That was a Washington, D.C. failure.
So they stockpiled more and more power here in Washington, D.C., and then they've turned that agency on political enemies.
That has been established over and over and over again through our Select Committee on Weaponization of the federal government.
Again, I would encourage people to go and watch the videos of those hearings where we brought in people, not only from the agency, but the victims, the whistleblowers who have been victimized by the FBI in their effort to try to hold that agency accountable.
And all those videos are on our archive, cspan.org.
Let's start with Brittany in Washington, D.C. Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I just wanted to ask, you know, you keep mentioning being held accountable, but do you not think that Donald Trump has not been held accountable for any of the things that he does?
I don't know what is going on in the Republican MAGA party, but it just seems like this man can do anything, say anything, and he is never held accountable for anything he does.
Everybody else is a liar except him.
And my second point is with the Matt Gates ethics investigation, the report should absolutely be released to the American people.
First of all, we probably paid for that with our tax dollars.
And secondly, he needs to be vetted in the traditional way so that we can feel comfortable with him being in one of the highest, in the highest power of the Justice Department.
That's ridiculous to me that.
All right, Brittany, let's let the Congresswoman respond.
Well, first of all, I don't think that there is any political official who has ever been persecuted the way that Donald Trump has over the last eight years.
What we saw in the New York case in terms of they actually lifted the statute of limitations on a 20-year-old allegation so that they could turn around and try to find some way to allow a woman to bring a civil suit against him who couldn't even remember the year or the date of the incident that allegedly happened.
You have this situation with Alvin Bragg bringing a lawsuit against him for alleged fraud when all of the banks themselves said there was no fraud and you had a judge who excluded evidence that was not only relevant but was highly probative of the issue that was at hand.
You had a judge who excluded expert testimony on what was actually or what should actually be considered some kind of an election type of fraud.
The judge excluded the very expert testimony that would have demonstrated that nothing that Donald Trump did in relation to Stormy Daniels or any of these allegations had anything to do with the election.
So in terms of holding him accountable, I don't think that there has been any man who has been more investigated or more vetted than Donald Trump.
I just think to argue otherwise is not reality.
The Fawnee Willis thing down in Georgia, the graft associated with that, the fact that she's hiring her boyfriend and taking trips.
I mean, all of these, the effort to destroy Donald Trump is something that I have never seen in my life against any Republican or Democrat, either one.
So when you say to hold him accountable, I think what your frustration is, is that they cannot actually prove the allegations that are being made.
And the only way that they can do so is by cheating, by having a court case that we know is going to be reversed on appeal because the reversible error is absolutely off the charts.
Again, I was a trial attorney for 34 years watching these cases play out, watching the judges make these decisions.
It has been stunning to me the way they have been willing to manipulate the court system in order to try to railroad Donald Trump.
Brittany also asked about the Gates report, that this is taxpayer-funded, that we have the right to see.
So again, I think that the process has to play itself out.
I've not been involved in anything like this before.
I'm not the expert in this area.
And if they don't typically release the reports, then I think that that's the standard that should continue to be followed.
George, a Republican in Hudson, Florida.
You're next, George.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
Representative Hegman, you are a ray of sunshine.
You got rid of that clown.
And Liz Cheney, I'm glad she's gone and you're in her place.
I wanted to ask you about the Trump's cabinet choices.
Specifically, Pete Hegseth, Matt Gates, and I can't think of the fellow's name that's in transportation now.
But overall, what do you feel about the cabinet picks?
What's happening?
Yep.
Well, I'm very heartened by them.
I'm optimistic about them.
I'm excited about them.
I think that he is bringing in some professionals to address what needs to be addressed in these agencies.
One of the things that I have worked on for decades now is the way that the administrative state in Washington, D.C. has expanded and exploded well beyond what was ever intended with the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act was adopted, and also under our form of government with the separation of powers.
And I think one of the most important things that Donald Trump needs to do when he talks about it is, number one, we need to return power to the states.
That's the framework of our government.
We also need to make sure that the legislative branch is the one that is legislating.
And so when I look at these various cabinet picks, and I'm not going to talk about any particular one, but what I'm really hoping is that they will go in and actually focus on what the Constitution says.
It is only the legislative branch that should be legislating, not the executive branch.
The executive branch is only there to carry out the legislation as written by members of Congress.
And so when you look at things like the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act, or you look at the FLITMA, the Federal Land Policy Management Act, these are all issues that are very important to the state of Wyoming.
What has happened is that the EPA, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM, the Department of Interior, all of these agencies have really moved to where they're ignoring the language of the statutes and they're attempting to enforce an agenda that typically changes every four to eight years.
And that's why we're seeing the uncertainty and instability in some of our markets and in some of the things that we have to deal with in Wyoming with a state that has 48% of our surface estate owned by the federal government.
So the impact of these regulatory agencies can have, it can be enormous in a state like Wyoming and our ability to actually have economic development, for example.
So when I look at these cabinet picks, what I'm excited about is that we're putting constitutionalists in place who are going to go in, understand what the purpose of the agency is, and understand that it's only the legislative branch that should be legislating.
So I'm excited by the picks so far, especially Department of Interior, Department of Energy.
Obviously, huge impact in Wyoming.
I think these gentlemen are going to be fantastic.
Dwayne is an independent in Jamaica, New York.
Hi, Dwayne.
Good morning, Mimi.
Listening to you, Ms. Hagins, I'm throwing up.
You know why I'm throwing up?
Ms. Cheney has more integrity than you would ever have.
Dwayne, Dwayne, let's stick with the personal attacks on the guests.
So what did you want to say?
Did you want to say something about the January 6th committee?
I was about to say that, but I have to let her know that she can't just come here and just think that I'm going to, well, anyone independent is going to listen to her say things that's not correct.
And she also mentioned Mayorkis and Gray.
Gates has no integrity, but you're going to defend him over Mayorkas and Gray.
Does that make any sense to you?
Go ahead.
I don't know who Gray is.
I'm not familiar with that.
Maybe you're saying Ray, Christopher Wray.
Having had the opportunity to question both Mayorkas and Ray, as well as Mary Garland in our committee hearings, I can assure you that I have personal experience in dealing with their dishonesty and their refusal to actually provide information to Congress in our oversight authority.
As far as Mayorkas, this is a gentleman who is the head of the Department of Homeland Security.
Just to give you an idea of a couple of things that he's done, according to the Border Patrol, the official numbers coming out of this administration is there are over 12 million.
Now, these are the official numbers, they're not the accurate numbers, but they are the official numbers.
There's over 12 million illegal aliens that have crossed the border in the last three and a half years.
While Mayorkas has been the head of the Department of Homeland Security, one of the highest causes of death among young people in the United States is fentanyl because there has been enough fentanyl to cross that border to kill the population over and over and over again.
When you look at the money, he created an organization where Mayorkas has been giving funding to various organizations that their very purpose is to suppress the free speech rights of conservatives and people who are center right.
When you talk again about Christopher Wray and you look at the FBI, the FBI has been broken for quite some time.
And again, I will go back to the fact that they were obtaining courts from the FISA court that were based upon falsified and perjured information.
So it's very difficult for me to take you seriously when you attack me personally, number one.
But number two, the gentleman that I'm talking about, I have on record as failing to do their jobs and not only failing to do their jobs, but violating the constitutional rights of American citizens in the process.
Marlon is a Republican in Coos Bay, Oregon.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
Representative Hagman, you're such a breath of fresh air.
Always hold your chin up high and don't let people like the one that was just on talk down to you because it doesn't mean anything.
Half of this country have Trump derangement syndrome.
They'll never get it.
They'll always hate him.
And they continuously watch CNN, MSNBT, and the rest of them and get gaslit.
And that's all caused by the Obama administration from the time he walked down the escalator until now.
All these weaponization of the government against him for his four court cases are all fabricated.
I mean, these people say to be they're Christians, but they're atheists.
They're ungodly, or they would be able to see the truth and the light, but they can't.
So that's what I want to say.
Any comment?
Just thank you for your comments.
I think that what we have to see is, I think that we've got an exciting four years ahead of us.
I'm looking forward to the idea of, again, returning more to our constitutional framework.
And I think that the folks that have been nominated so far, that that will be what they dedicate their tenure to do.
Donna is in handover, Pennsylvania, Democrat.
Hey, thank you for taking my call.
I'm a first-time caller.
I just had one question and then I have some comments.
My question is, does the integrity of a person's character matter anymore?
Yes.
Apparently not.
Apparently not, though.
And I say that because you're a lawyer.
You said you were a lawyer, and I'm assuming you believe in the rule of law and jury finds you guilty, then that's that.
And you shouldn't have any opinions on judges and things like that.
This country, half of this country, voted in a convicted felon.
Did we not?
No, right?
No.
No, no, no.
Donald Trump is a convicted felon, right?
No, he's not.
Explained Congresswoman.
Well, he's not because the case that you're referring to has not finally been resolved.
And in fact, that's just been going on over the last couple of days.
Right now, there's a delay in place.
There's a stay in place.
And he has to be sentenced.
That's exactly right.
Technically convicted felon.
That's exactly right.
But the court has ruled against him.
The court has ruled against him.
But again, the reversible error in that case is off the charts.
I could sit down and probably write out 25 different examples of ways in which that judge committed reversible error.
And in fact, the reversible error was so egregious.
There were times that I felt that he was doing it intentionally.
They wanted a conviction prior to the November election.
But they also recognized that the nature of the case that was being brought was so out of line in terms of the allegations made and under New York law that they knew that they also wanted a reversal on appeal.
And so I watched this play out and it was like a basketball team throwing the game.
When you exclude the head of the FEC, the former head of the FEC, as an expert witness as to whether the fundamental question at hand of whether Donald Trump committed some kind of election fraud or failed to properly report something, when you exclude the one person who can come in and give the expert testimony, you know that the game is ragged.
This is the Federal Election Commission.
Yes.
So again.
Donna, does that answer your question?
I was trying to finish my comment.
Okay, go ahead.
You spewed out all this legal term.
I am not a lawyer.
I have no initials behind my name, but I'm not stupid.
He has 34 counts, convicted ballot.
He was found liable for raping someone.
And he's just a horrible vile man.
Half the country, the majority of the country, voted for that.
So it's not surprising to me that Donald Trump would pick people like him, like Matt Gates, with no character, and with all this mess in their reputation.
And then there was a time that if your reputation was blemished and had unseemly things in your background, they would ask you to step down.
It happened to Al Franklin.
It happened to Senator Al Franklin.
Do you remember that?
Yes.
All right, Donna.
Any last comment?
No, there's nothing else to say.
Doug in East Newmarket, Maryland, Independent Line.
Yeah, I just wanted to why we don't want this to come out.
I mean, holding people to account.
Let's see if there's something to be held accountable.
I did nothing of it.
And other man and everyone want to be good.
The only Republicans say you want to spoke out against the home.
All right.
So, Doug, we're having trouble.
You're going in and out.
But I think he said, if you want to hold people accountable, hold everybody accountable.
You know, again, let the process play out.
That's all I'm saying.
You are on the Natural Resources Committee.
Can you talk about some of the energy policy priorities that you are going to be pursuing in this next Congress?
Oh, very important ones.
Wyoming is one of the top energy producing states in the nation.
We're the eighth largest oil and gas producer.
We're the largest coal producer.
We have some of the highest quality, highest reserves of uranium in the United States.
Wyoming has so much to offer in terms of powering our country and making sure that we have affordable and reliable energy.
So I look forward to the opportunity to, again, be working with the head of the Department of Interior, Mr. Bergham, being able to work with the Department of Energy.
And hopefully there's some other folks that are going to be appointed here shortly that will be addressing these issues.
We need to unleash American energy.
You know, I read an article one time where a gentleman was saying that, and it was probably 2014, 2013, this gentleman wrote an editorial and he said the idea that the United States is going to be energy independent is crazy.
It's never going to happen.
We are not going to be energy independent.
It isn't happening.
People need to stop saying that.
And I thought, well, that's a weird thing to say.
And then we get Donald Trump elected in 2016.
And before he left office in 2020, we were energy independent.
Not only were we energy independent, we were a net energy exporter.
What has happened over the last four years is that with the war, the Biden-Harris war on domestic energy production, we have had to turn to some of our arch enemies, Venezuela, Russia, Iran.
Iran has made $110 billion off of oil sales in the last three and a half years.
To the United States.
Is the United States driving from Iran?
Yes, we are.
Because we lifted sanctions, because the Biden-Harris administration lifted sanctions.
$110 billion.
The leadership in Iran was on its knees when Donald Trump left office because of the sanctions.
The wonderful people of Iran don't, they don't like their government.
They don't like the repression.
They want freedom.
They were getting that.
They were going to get that.
The funding of Hamas, the funding of Hezbollah, that is because we have allowed Iran to make $110 billion in the last three and a half years in oil sales because of these policies.
Having domestic energy production, unleashing our domestic energy production, is not only good for the United States, it is good for the world.
A weak America makes for a very unstable world.
It makes for a very dangerous world.
One of the keys is affordable, reliable energy that we can produce right here in America.
Representative Harriet Higaman, a Republican of Wyoming, thanks so much for joining us today.
Thank you for having me.
Coming up, more of your phone calls on Open Forum.
And while we wait for your calls to come in, we'll show you a bit from yesterday's hearing on FEMA's hurricane response.
Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio questioned FEMA Administrator Deanne Chriswell on text messages instructing staff to avoid homes with Trump signs while canvassing hurricane-ravaged areas in North Carolina.
Take a listen.
One of my colleagues pointed this out earlier.
A FEMA official who spoke on condition of anonymity said Ms. Washington likely received quote very clear guidance from her supervisors.
Is that not accurate?
Is that person lying too?
I have not received any evidence outside of the screenshot that Ms. Washington directed.
So those two people are wrong.
They're not telling the truth to it.
We are currently investigating this.
But that's not what you said.
You said this is isolated, reprehensible, hasn't happened.
This is the only time.
And they're saying, nope, nope, nope, it's commonplace.
I am saying that FEMA's mission is to help all people.
Let's look at maybe the best evidence we have is the actual screenshot.
Can you put the screenshot up on the screen?
Let's look at what the text message said.
The text message said, implement best practices.
Like, this is the best practices.
We're going to implement them.
And they talk about making sure you're going in pairs or with more than one person, avoid the Trump homes, drink your water, take your towel, coconut waters.
So stay hydrated, walk with someone else, and don't go to the Trump homes.
It seems pretty common, and matter of fact, in the actual evidence we do have, the text message itself.
But you're still saying Ms. Washington and this other person aren't telling the truth.
When I received this text message, it was not in accordance with the way we conduct business at FEMA.
And I directed it to.
Even though it said best practices, even though it said stay hydrated, which everyone would agree with, even though it said go in pairs, which everyone would agree with, even though it said bring a towel, make sure you're covered up.
Even said coconut water is the best way to stay hydrated.
Even though it said all those practical things, the part about avoiding the Trump homes, that's not a best practice.
That's not commonplace.
Is that what you're saying?
That is nowhere in our policy, and I can't speak to you.
I'm not saying it's in your policy.
I'm not going to be able to find what Ms. Washington did.
But it was, okay, now her supervisors, this Mr. Hershey, have you talked to him to find out if he knew this was happening?
I understand that he was in her chain of command and this is under investigation.
Have you talked to the, there's 13 people on this text message.
Have you talked to all 13 of those individuals?
This incident is under investigation.
That's what I asked.
I know it's under investigation.
We know how investigations work when it's done inside the agency.
It takes forever.
I'm asking, did you talk to the 13 people on this best practices text message?
The Office of Professional Responsibility has taken this and they are following appropriate protocol to investigate.
Is the Inspector General looking at it as well?
And I have asked the Inspector General to take a look at this.
I have to say that.
Any idea when they're going to talk to these 13 people since you have it?
Have you talked to them?
How about you personally?
Have you talked to any of these 13 people?
I have not talked to them.
You have not talked to you.
I have an entire team that focuses on this investigation and that's what they're doing.
Seems to me it's part of a mindset that's in government.
This is the scary part because I think it's broader.
And you don't have to take my word.
Take it what people have said.
I mean, this reminds me, we've talked about this many times, but I can think of, well, actually, the same person, let's go back to that.
The same person who said that this likely received very clear guidance, this other FEMA official also said this.
I've heard from other entities who are serving in North Carolina that there was clear guidance to be mindful, quote, of the types of people who are in Western North Carolina.
That's pretty derogatory stuff there, isn't it?
I have not seen it.
But you know what?
It sounds like it sounds like Peter Strzok.
Peter Strzok when he said, oh, I just went into Walmart.
I can smell the Trump supporters.
Sounds like Joe Biden when he said, oh, the garbage I see is the Trump supporters out there.
Sounds like the guys the Democrats had, the professor the Democrats had testified back in 2019 in the impeachment.
Conservatives, especially very conservative people, tend to spread out, perhaps because they don't even want to be around themselves.
This disdain, this mindset that's in the government where everyone's deplorable, everyone's garbage, everyone is, you know, smelly people at Walmart.
And oh, be mindful of those people in Western North Carolina.
That's what it sounds like.
And again, the best evidence is the text message we have, which reinforces that mindset that we have seen from so many people in our government.
The actions directed by Ms. Washington are unacceptable.
And when I received this text message, I directed her termination.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We are in open forum, but before we take your calls, we're going to speak to Representative Glenn Ivey.
He's a Democrat of Maryland and member of the Judiciary and Ethics Committee, as well as Homeland Security Committee.
Representative Glenn Ivey, welcome to the program.
Thanks for having me.
So I just wanted to ask you, since you're on the ethics committee about the Gates report, I understand you guys are meeting today behind closed doors.
Yeah, I can't really go into the details about that, but yes, the committee will have a meeting today.
Are you going to be voting?
Is that how it works on whether or not to release the report?
Yeah, I can't really go into the details about that aspect of it.
What I can say is that the Senate has obviously requested the report and I think supporting documents with respect to any investigation regarding Congressman, former Congressman Gates.
You know, I think it's going to be important for them to get that material because it's relevant to the constitutional decision they have to make on the advise and consent requirement under the Constitution about a nominee.
And there's no nominee more important than U.S. Attorney General.
So I think that's where the larger picture stands at this point.
And Congressman, the Ethics Committee has been investigating Mr. Gates since 2021.
Why hasn't it been, since it was completed, why wasn't it released before he resigned?
Yeah, I can't get into the internal mechanics of what the committee's doing.
The way that works is that there's a lot of, it's like a grand jury, essentially.
So you'll have an investigation going on that could take days, months, years potentially, but you can't talk about what's happened internally in the grand jury until after the material has been released.
And so I'm restricted from speaking about the particulars of what's happened with that investigation or the report for that matter at this point.
Congressman, some advisors to President-elect Trump have been encouraging that the job of the conducting background checks be taken away from the FBI and given to private investigators.
What's your reaction to that?
Not sure why that makes sense.
I think the FBI has been doing background checks for decades now.
I don't think there have been any complaints particularly about bias on their part.
I know that sometimes there are concerns about whether they're aggressive or not.
I remember during the Kavanaugh hearing, there were complaints that maybe the FBI didn't go far enough in the investigation of then nominee, now Justice Kavanaugh.
But I think overall it makes sense to let the investigators at the FBI take care of this and provide the information.
And by the way, my experience while I was in private practice was many of the private investigators end up being former FBI agents.
So I don't know that you're really changing all that much by trying to make it private.
What it would do, though, I think is potentially undermine the opportunity for the Senate to get all the information that they want from another government agency that's relevant to the decisions they're going to have to make on the slew of nominees that President-elect Donald Trump is sending up to the Senate for confirmation hearings.
And would there be information that the FBI would have access to for their investigation that a private investigator would not have access to, maybe classified information or anything like that?
Well, I don't know how the private piece would work, but the way the FBI background checks is pretty much they get access to everything that the Senate needs, especially from the executive branch.
Sometimes the Senate might need to issue a subpoena or something along those lines.
What's unique about this instance is this is the Senate requesting information that the House may have reservations about providing based on Speaker Johnson's comments.
You know, there may be some resistance from the House in providing the information the Senate wants.
That's kind of a unique dispute.
You frequently have disputes between Congress and the executive branch over information.
Documents, for example, we saw a slew of those in the last Congress.
You had a Republican House demanding information from Department of Justice under President Biden.
But those have been worked out over the years.
Frequently going to court, but most of the time not.
They get resolved informally.
Hopefully that'll happen here too.
You serve on the Homeland Security Committee and are the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Oversight Investigations and Accountability.
I want to get your thoughts on the nomination of Representative Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence.
I mean, I don't really know much about her.
What I've heard so far, you know, suggests that, you know, there certainly would be more experienced candidates out there who could hit the ground running in a way that apparently she cannot.
I think there's a lot of nominees out there that President Trump has put forward that maybe pass loyalty tests and have good personal relationships with him, but don't seem to kind of have the kind of experience that we'd want to have major agencies like that,
things that go to national security or the national defense from the standpoint of the Department of Justice, prosecution of spies, prosecution of international cartels, criminal cases, arguments before the Supreme Court.
There's a lot of important things that these cabinet positions are responsible for.
It'd be good to have people who have the experience and can deal with that right up front.
There's also a managerial piece to these too.
The Department of Justice, for example, has 110,000-plus employees.
It's a huge undertaking.
And it's good to have people who've run something at some point in their careers so that they have some managerial experience that they can use going forward.
Congressman, regarding Tulsi Gabbard, The Guardian has the headline, quote, a Russian asset.
Democrats slammed Trump's pick of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence.
This would be Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz using the term Russian asset.
What's your reaction to that?
I've heard those accusations, and I know that there's some evidence to support those claims.
I think it's going to be very important for the Senate to take a very close look at those because, again, you know, this is a national security position.
We don't want anybody compromised with relationships to some of our adversaries overseas and Russia is certainly one of those in the decision-making process and the policy implementation process because the safety and security of the United States stands in the balance of that.
So I think it's going to be extremely important for the Senate to really hash that out.
And by the way, it'd be useful, I think, for President Trump to send nominees who are I'd say just on the whole better qualified than most of the ones he've sent so far.
Marco Rubio, I think, is one where I saw that nomination.
I don't necessarily agree with his policies, but I get the background and experience he brings to the table.
Governor Bergham, I think, from North Dakota is another one of those.
But most of the rest of them are falling short of the mark, I think, from the standpoint of picking people who have the experience, the expertise, and the skill set to really manage these entities in the right way from a conservative perspective or whatever the president wants to do from that standpoint.
I'm not talking about a policy difference.
I'm talking about an expertise and experience basis.
And Representative Ivey, just about your priorities for the next Congress and what you're really going to be working on and hoping to accomplish.
Well, we'll have to see where the Republicans want to go because they control the entire government at this point.
They'll have control of the White House.
They'll have control of the Senate.
They'll have control of the House of Representatives.
And Trump's appointees have basically given control of the Supreme Court to the Republicans as well.
That's a six to three split.
So it's clear that the Republicans are going to drive the agenda of what's going to happen.
Some of the things the President's talking about, I find to be very concerning.
For example, potentially putting loyalty tests for our generals and admirals, I think is problematic.
It's important for them to be loyal to the Constitution, not to any individual, particularly including the President.
And I'm worried about abuse or misuse of the military under an approach like that.
The Department of Justice and the rule of law is another important aspect of what I think we need to be sure we defend going forward.
Talk about using the Department of Justice to get payback against some of his quote-unquote enemies, rolling back cases that he doesn't like, particularly those against him.
And I think willy-nilly issuing pardons to January 6th convicted felons, I think is a bad way to go and not the right way to start his presidency off, but we'll see where he goes on that front.
Now, Representative, his supporters will say that it's not revenge or retribution that he's asking for, but accountability.
How do you respond to that?
Well, we'll see who he puts up, but I mean, some of the names he's put out on his quote-unquote enemies list.
I don't know what the accountability is that he's talking about other than they've done things that he doesn't like.
Like Eric Holder, for example, was one of those that was listed.
And it's a big list.
It's a long list.
We haven't seen anything like this since Richard Nixon.
And even Richard Nixon, I think, would pale at the extent to which President-elect Trump has gone and sort of targeting these folks out.
And he's been pretty explicit in his suggestions about how he wants to use the Department of Justice.
And the appointments or the nomination so far are concerning as well on that front.
So again, we'll see how it plays out, but it's not off to a great start.
And last question before we let you go is about the government efficiency department headed by Ramaswamy and Elon Musk.
When they say that they want to close entire agencies, you know, agencies will be, quote, deleted, how would that work?
And what is Congress's role in that?
I mean, I have no idea what they have in mind.
I will note the irony of creating a government agency to reduce the size of the government, and not only that, having two people run it instead of just one.
So it seems a little counterintuitive, to say the least.
And, you know, how they want to go about eliminating entire agencies like, say, the Department of Education, which play key roles here in the United States and have been for decades, in some instances since the founding of the Republic.
I don't know what they have in mind, but it sounds like it's, frankly, I'm not sure they really know what they're doing on that front, and I think it could cause real problems with respect to the government running efficiently, running efficiently, providing the services Americans need, and making sure America is safe from its adversaries.
All right, Representative Glenn Ivey, Democrat of Maryland, member of the Judiciary Ethics Committee and Homeland Security Committee.
Thanks so much for joining us today.
Thanks for having me.
And we're in open forum and happy to take your calls.
We will start with Perry in Elmore, Alabama, Democrat.
Good morning, C. Bay.
Good morning, Mimi.
Good morning.
Representative Hagelman spoke about returning things to the state.
And I think that needs more exploring.
Because if you look at a lot of these states, the laws, some of these constitutions did back in 1901, like the Alabama era.
And so going forward, if you're looking at Shamari Figueroa, probably would never have been elected now because they would have never withdrawn that district.
And so I think it's important for when they start talking about returning stuff to the states because of the history of this country, that needs to be explored a little more about what they mean about when they say returning something to the states.
And here's Dennis in New York, a Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Am I on?
Yes, you are.
All right.
There are a few things, a lot of things, actually, with the Democrats.
January 6th was avoidable.
Nancy Pelosi, the biggest state in American history, the transfer of power, she was offered 10,000 to 15,000 National Guardsmen.
She declined, knowing Trump had a rally down the road, knowing what was going to happen.
That is one thing.
The gaslighting with the Democrats, as far as Biden's mental acuity, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, these are just people at PTSD, people tired of stupid Democrats.
The gaslighting in the lies is why they're out of office.
Another thing I want to mention: you say Trump's a felon.
Who's the bigger felon?
This administration, under my orchestra and Garland, have lost 325,000 children.
Sex traffic, not even the mention of fentanyl in that.
How do they sleep at night?
Thank God Trump got in, and I hope it's not too late for America to come back from this.
Thank you for taking my call.
Kathleen in Navosta, Texas, Independent.
Yes, Kathleen Palermo.
But anyway, I would have called Deer to ask a couple of questions, if I may, because everybody talks so long and always gets cut off.
But the question is: what is Americans supposed to do with all this transfer?
I mean, we got to get the illegals out.
And I have one other message.
I need to get a hold of President Trump and let him find me in Navasota, Texas.
Very important messages from God Almighty.
And if we don't do something, I mean, every time I call, I get cut off.
And it's just bad, dear.
It's just bad for all the American people.
And nobody's listening to us.
It's all everything about everybody in Washington.
Everybody in Washington are sinners.
Everybody in the world are sinners.
Okay, we all sin.
But I don't understand about Godzilla.
It ain't a war.
I don't understand why our American troops are over there.
And, you know, President Biden put everybody, and nobody questioned his action on anything that he did.
Did you see it last week when he asked everybody, I don't know what program, he was talking to the Middle East people on there.
They had the program on.
And all of a sudden, the camera started going crazy.
They took that man out that was speaking.
And then President Biden walks up there and he says, you know, a couple of minutes.
And he says, you know, everybody can have everybody's houses.
You can take over the White House, but don't touch my house.
All right, Kathleen.
This is Terry in Atlanta, Democrat.
Good morning, Terry.
Hey, good morning, Mimi.
How are you?
I'm okay.
Okay.
I have a couple comments I'd like to make.
First about Harriet Hagelman.
What Representative Hagelman is not telling today is that she was once a good friend of Liz Cheney's.
She supported Liz Cheney's campaigns.
And she also in 2016 supported Ted Cruz.
In addition to that, she was not for Donald Trump.
I think after Donald Trump won, as so many people did in politics, they had to come over to his side, drink the Trump Kool-Aid, which she did.
At that point in time, she completely abandoned her support for Liz Cheney.
And then she also supported the fact that the 2020 campaign was not fair or that it was rigged.
So now that she has become the representative, she's done a total 180, and she's all in on the Trump side.
So Ms. Hagelman, I think if you're going to be fair and if you're going to be honest, you know, tell us the truth about everything.
Don't be afraid and don't be ashamed of your history.
And also, I'd like to make a comment about Matt Gates.
Matt Gates served as a lawyer for two years and then he went into politics.
So he is in a small law firm.
And I really don't think that gives him the experience to be able to be the attorney general.
He's not tried any major cases, any government cases.
And so once again, I think President-elect Trump is doing a repeat of his first term with his appointments.
He has a couple that I'll give a pass to, but the rest of them clearly are loyalty type appointments, people who are loyal to him.
And I just want to say, everybody, the election is over.
The election has to be accepted for what it is.
If you're happy or if you aren't, move forward.
Get involved in your community and get involved in the political process.
Know the people who are representing you and know who represents you and pick people who represent what you stand for, your values.
And I hope at some point in time, this is my last comment: the Republican Party will return to having people with morals and scruple, dignity, and respect because they have fallen short of that and they're definitely morally bankrupt.
All right, Terry.
Let's go to Diane in Florida.
Republican, good morning.
Good morning.
How are you, Mimi?
I'm doing okay.
I just wanted to say that we are all Americans.
And as much as we don't like it, Donald Trump was elected.
I'm glad he was elected, but I just pray to God that he put aside any anger, animosity, and be a real leader.
I do not like his picks for his cabinet, except for Marco Rubio.
The rest of them are basically loyalists, and they're not experienced enough, trustworthy enough to be held in those high positions.
But that's his choice.
If we don't have any Republicans with a spine, then they will be confirmed.
And we just have to pray that the country is not destroyed as a result.
But I pray to God for my leader, whether they're Democrat or Republican, every night that God would bless our country to come together and put aside the hate and stabbing one party, stabbing the other, and just be one party.
I mean, we are the United States of America, which is one party, technically.
But that's about it.
I'm just saying we got to pray that our Democrat.
Ron, you're next.
Ron, are you there?
Yes, can you hear me?
Yes, go right ahead.
Okay, I just want to talk about something about the Afghanistan withdrawal.
You hear so many stories, but here's some fact-checking.
Donald Trump, not Joe Biden, negotiated with the Taliban terrorists and excluded the Afghan army.
Trump, not Biden, drew down U.S. forces from 13,000 to 2,300, making them vulnerable to attack.
Trump, not Biden, wanted to invade the Taliban leaders to Camp David or invited them to Camp David on the anniversary of 9-11.
Trump, not Biden, ordered the release of 5,000 Taliban fighters from prison.
One would become a leader of the Afghanistan people.
Trump, not Biden, agreed to May 1st exit from Afghanistan, then bragged he didn't need an exit strategy.
Trump, not Biden, refused to brief Biden's incoming team on the situation in Afghanistan.
And Trump, not Biden, shut down every air base in Afghanistan except one, crippling the U.S. ability to extract our assets safely.
Like member Paul Harvey used to say, that's the rest of the story.
Thank you.
And here is Randy in Brilliant Alabama, Independent Line.
Yes, ma'am.
I'd like to just say that I think President Trump ought to do the recess appointments on gas and just like the Democrats did on Eric Holder and do the same thing with Pete's headset, just do the recess appointment.
I mean, if Democrats can do it with Eric Holden, then Trump should be able to do it with gas and etc.
Thank you.
And here is Robert in Raleigh, North Carolina, Republican.
Hi, Robert.
Hey, good morning.
And good morning, my fellow Americans.
I don't like to wear labels, and I don't allow anyone to identify me.
But for the sake of demographics, I am a African-American male, and I don't want other people to speak for me on how I voted or how I should have voted.
There are people I see all the time, and they're talking like they speak for all black men.
I am a black man.
Let me speak for myself.
I can't speak for all black men.
I was an independent registered, and I decided to vote Republican.
I am proudly I voted for Donald Trump.
And let me take a quick moment to tell you why.
Because I didn't like Kamala Harris going to so-called traditional black colleges and universities and telling our young people that, you know, to that abortion is okay.
And I didn't like that how when people try to talk to her about the suffering in the economy, that she found everything funny.
And it's okay to have a laughing personality, but this is our lives, our economy, you know, and life is hard.
One other thing why I voted for Donald Trump is, is because he seems to be a family man and he says what he means.
A lot of his policies I did not agree with, but it's one thing I did know that if he said that he's going to do something and I saw it from his first term, he did those things.
And I can always appreciate a man who would do that.
And so I don't want no comedians, D.L. Ugly and all of these, and Steve Harvey, and everybody and all of these, forgive me for naming the people, but buffoons, I say, trying to represent me as a black man.
I didn't like Kama Harris going to a barbershop and hurting her side, laughing and jiggling, pandering to black men like we're stupid.
Thank you for allowing me to finish my conversation.
All right, Robert.
Thank you so much.
And here's George in Oak Harbor, Washington, Democrat.
Hi, how are you doing?
I just want to make a comment.
I tried to call the other day when we were talking about Social Security.
And during the pandemic, we lost a million Americans, of which three-quarters were over age 65.
If they averaged $2,000 a month from Social Security, we saved a billion and a half dollars a month.
And nobody talks about that and the fact that President Trump at the time downplayed the COVID pandemic.
Thank you.
Kevin, Lancaster, South Carolina, independent.
Yes, can you hear me?
Yep.
Yes.
First, I'd like, don't cut me off.
It's been a while since I called.
First of all, I'd like to talk to the black Americans.
Vice President Harris once stated, I'm not going to do anything specific for black Americans if we fair to other races.
Let me get that out of the way.
And like the previous caller said, about all the, she paid Beyonce 10 million.
She paid Al Sharpton $500,000 money for the Road of Mine, $350,000.
Like the previous gentleman, it just salty.
But the cover, they're talking about security of America.
You didn't grant the report.
President Joe Biden have that 12 million illegal immigrants from around the world into America without any background checks and providing housing, cash money, food stamps to people who don't even support to be in this country.
And now they want to criticize.
You see it there?
Yep.
Now they want to criticize President Trump nominees.
May gay, there's a lot of anti-problems in the Senate and Congress, like Menendez of New Jersey, he's still serving.
And you said they're not.
No, no, no, no.
Menendez is definitely gone.
He was convicted and he was forced to resign.
But that's the second time, the first time we got away with it.
I'm glad you corrected me.
But the country wanted to change.
And George Santos, Ken, don't forget that he was also pushed out.
Well, I'm glad that that's wonderful.
Like I said, I'm an independent, but the American people have spoken.
And all your callers today didn't even say anything about the economy, the price of grocery, the price of mortgage, they didn't want to chump, chump, chop, chump, trump, trump.
Now they're talking about that the Gaffer lady, a veteran, a captain in the army tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They got that rush of collusion from Hillary Clinton.
American people need to read and stop listening to CNN and talking heads and do your own research.
All right, Ken.
And up next, National Security Reporter Lara Seligman of the Wall Street Journal joins us to discuss what President-elect Trump's second term could mean for U.S. defense and national security policy.
We'll be right back.
Listening to programs on C-SPAN through C-SPAN Radio is easy.
Tell your smart speaker, play C-SPAN Radio, and listen to Washington Journal daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
Important public affairs events throughout the day.
And weekdays, catch Washington today.
Listen to C-SPAN anytime.
Just tell your smart speaker, play C-SPAN Radio.
C-SPAN, powered by cable.
Since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, C-SPAN has provided complete coverage of the halls of Congress.
From the House and Senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings, C-SPAN gives you a front-row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered.
C-SPAN, your unfiltered view of government.
If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org.
Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
The house will be in order.
This year, C-SPAN celebrates 45 years of covering Congress like no other.
Since 1979, we've been your primary source for Capitol Hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policies debated and decided, all with the support of America's cable companies.
C-SPAN, 45 years in counting, powered by cable.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
We're going to discuss the defense and national security policy in a second Trump term with Laura Seligman of the Wall Street Journal.
She's a national security reporter there.
Laura, welcome to the program.
Thanks so much for having me.
Let's start with Ukraine.
It was confirmed that yesterday Ukraine did fire those ATACUMS, American-made long-range missiles into Russia for the first time.
Can you talk about those missiles and what that might mean for Ukraine's capabilities?
Sure.
So the background to this is that Ukraine has been asking for these long-range missiles for the permission to use them in Russia for a long time.
President Biden has resisted for many months, primarily because of the risk of escalating with Russia, and also because the Pentagon has argued that this policy change would have little military value on the battlefield.
Finally, President Biden gave the okay this week.
It seems that that may have been driven by the presence of North Korean troops on the battlefield with Russian troops fighting the Ukrainians in Kursk.
Just days later, as you said, Ukraine used them for the first time to strike an ammunition storage facility in Russia.
So as expected, Russian officials immediately did condemn the strike as an escalation, but they didn't give specifics.
And in Washington, the White House dismissed these comments as saber-rattling.
Now, you asked whether this will have an impact on the battlefield.
I'd say yes in the short term.
Certainly there are some targets that are more in reach now because they're in range of these ATACOMs, which they can fly about 200 miles.
But in the long term, there's still the challenge that the Russians have moved many of their main targets out of range of the ATACOMs.
They did that months ago as soon as Biden provided the long-range missiles to Ukraine.
And the other issue, of course, is that Ukraine doesn't have very many of these missiles.
So it's going to have to preserve them.
The U.S. doesn't have very many either.
And so there's going to be a limit to how much we can provide.
So that's what I say would be their battlefield impact.
And are the Ukrainians limited in using those ATAC-Ms only in the Kursk region where you mentioned those North Korean forces are and where that counteroffensive was launched from?
Well, that policy is a little unclear right now.
It seems like that is the case, that they would be limited to using them for these cross-border attacks across the border in Kursk.
But the Biden administration has not come out and fully confirmed this policy change.
So right now, that's a little bit unclear.
And again, it's likely to move further in one way or another in the next couple months.
You saw with the initial policy on long-range munitions, the Biden administration initially didn't allow Ukraine to use them in Russia, U.S. weapons at all in Russia.
Then slowly they allowed them to use them for cross-border attacks and then in the different regions.
So that's been kind of a moving target this whole time.
So I think we'll find out more in the days ahead when the Biden administration actually comes out and gives us details about this policy change.
Lara, I'll play a portion of the Pentagon spokesperson addressing this issue yesterday.
A reporter asked about whether the lifting of restrictions on those long-range missiles would amount to escalation.
Here it is.
Let me be clear.
We're not at war with Russia.
And the party here that continues to escalate this war is Russia.
By bringing in another foreign country into the battlefield, by bringing in over 11,000 DPRK soldiers into the fight, that is an escalatory action.
And you've heard the national security advisor say yesterday that this administration told Russia that if they escalated this conflict by deploying DPRK troops, we would help Ukraine respond.
Again, the parts of the war that has been escalated upon directly stem from Russia's choice and decision to invade its sovereign neighbor.
Additionally, Given the joint U.S.-NATO escalation of attacks with Ukraine against Russia and with China and North Korea joining Russia to form an alliance against the West, would not you say that World War III has begun?
I would not say that.
That is not the characterization that this building assesses.
Laura, your reaction to that.
Well, I think this is what the Pentagon has been saying all along, and this is the message that they are really hammering now is that the U.S. is not at war with Russia.
The U.S. is supporting Ukraine in its conflict to try to drive Russia out of Ukraine.
So the message all along has been, we do not want an escalation with Russia.
We don't want any kind of war with Russia, either between the U.S. or with Europe.
And so that's why the Biden administration has been moving very slowly to change its policies on sending some of these weapons.
You saw in the very beginning of the war, the Biden administration didn't want to send HIMARS, which are the rocket launchers.
Then eventually they did send those weapons.
Then they sent Patriot missile defense systems.
They sent armored vehicles.
They sent tanks.
So as the war has gone on, the Biden administration has slowly been pushing that line a little bit further and further back in order to prevent this kind of escalation with Russia.
So so far it seems to have worked.
You've certainly seen Russian officials talking about making threats, but they haven't used nuclear weapons.
They have not attacked American or European troops aside from in Ukraine.
So right now we're sort of in this kind of very fragile moment where you don't want to push too far for Russia to think we're escalating and prompt some kind of an incident, but you also want to supply the Ukrainians with what they need to fight Russia.
Laura, one of your articles in the Wall Street Journal is U.S. struggles to rush weapons to Ukraine before Trump takes office.
It says America's election outcome jeopardizes the arms pipeline that has enabled Ukraine to keep fighting.
What is happening right now with arms shipments to Ukraine?
And what are we expecting come January 20th?
So right now, the Biden administration still has billions of dollars in drawdown authority, which means it allows the Pentagon to transfer weapons and munitions to Ukraine from its own stocks.
But that billions of dollars in authority, it remains unspent.
So the Biden administration only has so much time until the end, until January 20th, the inauguration, to spend that money and also to deliver those weapons to the battlefield.
The concern here is that President Trump might stop that authority and might then stop the equipment from getting to the battlefield as well.
So officials are racing not just to use the authority, but also to ship the weapons to Kyiv as fast as possible.
However, it's going to be extremely challenging for several reasons.
First of all, there's the logistical question of shipping weapons from the U.S. and from stocks in Europe to Ukraine.
That takes a long time.
That's a complicated process.
Then there's also the concern among some U.S. officials that the U.S. doesn't have enough of these stocks of weapons, including the long-range ATACOMs missiles that we spoke about earlier, in order to support its own inventory.
So there's a lot of concern around whether Ukraine is going to get all of the military equipment it needs by the time the new Trump administration comes in.
And the question is, what will the Trump administration do?
Will they stop these shipments?
There is some concern that the president may, that President-elect may try to use some of that military equipment as leverage to get a deal between Ukraine and Russia.
So I think it remains to be seen whether this effort's going to be successful.
And we are talking to Laura Seligman of the Wall Street Journal.
If you've got a question about defense policy or national security policy, you can start calling now.
The lines are Democrats 202-748-8000.
Republicans 202-748-8001.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
Laura, is it possible that the new Trump administration would revoke that permission to use those long-range missiles or other American weapons systems?
It's certainly possible.
Anything is possible.
It seems unlikely that the Trump administration would roll any of those permissions back, but it's certainly something that they could do.
I think it's more likely that they try to hold up the weapon shipments, again, as leverage to get some sort of deal between Ukraine and Russia, since that's one of the things that the president-elect has said he wants to do quickly in his term is put an end to the fighting, which now has dragged on for almost three years.
And it's really been a brutal war in which both sides have lost hundreds of thousands of troops.
But at this point, the battlefield situation is not looking so great for Ukraine, both on the front lines in Ukraine and then also in the Kursk region in Russia, where they're facing those 10,000 or more North Korean troops alongside the Russian troops.
So it remains to be seen whether President-elect Trump is going to have any more luck getting a peace deal than President Biden did.
Let's talk about the pick for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
What's been the reaction among the people that you talked to in the national security and the defense field to that nomination?
Well, certainly it was seen as a major surprise.
Pete Hegseth was not on anyone's list to be Secretary of Defense in terms of the national security community.
So that really did surprise people.
He is a longtime Fox News host.
He's an Army veteran.
He deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
So he has military experience, but he doesn't have any government leadership experience.
So he's someone that there's been many questions raised about whether he's actually qualified to be Secretary of Defense.
It's the largest federal agency to more than 2 million employees and more than $800 billion budget, annual budget.
This is one of the biggest jobs in the cabinet.
So there's been a lot of questions about that.
There's also some other red flags in his past.
For instance, he's expressed a lot of the same views about the military that the president-elect has, which raises some concerns with some people.
He wants to roll back having women in combat roles.
He wants to roll back the transgender ban.
He wants to potentially go in and fire a bunch of generals that he believes have benefited from the diversity and inclusion programs.
Another issue that's come up is that he was accused of sexual assault in 2017.
Although he was never charged, he did pay the woman as part of a non-disclosure agreement in 2020.
So there's been a lot of kind of red flags in his past, and I think we'll have to see how it shakes out.
There's an article, one of your articles from the Wall Street Journal that says how Hegseth's tattoo got him barred from working at Biden's inauguration.
Can you talk about that tattoo?
I guess this is a picture of him.
I'm not sure we can really see the tattoo.
Yeah, so he has two tattoos that could have been considered problematic.
One of them is the Jerusalem Cross, and the other one is the more problematic one.
It's an inscription that says Deuce Volt, which is associated with white nationalist extremist groups.
And in fact, on January 6th, a lot of the people, the protesters, were using that call.
So, this was raised as a potential, quote-unquote, insider threat by one of his superiors ahead of President Biden's inauguration in 2021.
Now, at the time, Pete Hickseth was in the National Guard and he was supposed to be called up to help guard the inauguration, but his superiors flagged this picture of the tattoo, and his superiors decided to remove him from duty.
So, that's another thing that could potentially be an issue in confirmation.
All right, and we'll go to calls now.
Rachel is up first in Colliersville, Tennessee, Independent.
Yes, can you hear me okay?
Yep, we can.
Go ahead, Rachel.
Yes, I just have a question.
What is your opinion of the purpose of this escalation during a transition period, especially when Donald Trump clearly ran on ending this war and he overwhelmingly won?
Why is this what the Democrats consider a peaceful transfer of power as potentially escalating the war against Russia in order to box in Donald Trump?
And I just want to make a comment.
I wish the press would be more clear to the American people that these advanced systems rely on U.S. intelligence, U.S. personnel.
So, we have, in fact, declared war against Russia, and it's a war that we definitely provoked when we overthrew the government in 2014 in Ukraine that set off a horrible civil war.
And we've been arming and supporting and building up their military forces, which obviously, if Russia was doing that in Canada or Mexico against the United States, I have no doubt that Washington would respond.
And then, all right, Rachel, let's get a response to that.
So, I would disagree with your characterization that the U.S. overthrew the government in Russia.
I think what happened was that the Russians sent what they call little green men to Crimea, and they were the ones that were the aggressors in that war.
And they had been fighting a war for a long time in Crimea since 2014, as you said.
To your question about the ATAC-ums and sending missiles that would potentially provoke Russia right before the transition, look, I think that what happened was that the Biden administration figured that the Trump administration would take that step and do that anyway.
And so they figured that they would just do it first and take the credit for it because there's a lot of folks both in Congress and, of course, in Ukraine and U.S. allies that had been pushing Biden for a long time to make that decision and make that policy shift.
So I think that they decided to make this change so that they could take credit for it ahead of the Trump administration.
Here's Kathy, a Democrat in Clarksville, Pennsylvania.
Go ahead, Kathy.
Yes, thank you for taking my call.
I am with a previous caller.
If he had so long, two and a half years with which to produce these weapons previously, why did he wait to do it, President Biden, at this time and stage of the game?
You know, we can clearly see as the American people that it's a great escalation.
Russia is someone not to deal heavily armed with.
And I believe this was a tactical move that shouldn't have been made.
Laura, talk about the timing.
Why now of this approval for the ATAC-OMS?
Well, again, this has been something that President Biden has been being pushed to do for quite a long time.
And we talked previously about how the Biden administration has taken this kind of incremental approach.
So in terms of the timeline, I don't find it surprising that he would choose this time to change the policy in terms of the ATACOMs.
Sorry, I was just going to ask: do we know of any impact?
I mean, I guess it's still early.
They were just used yesterday, but any impact of those weapons and of those North Korean troops that are in that region of Kursk?
Well, the weapons were used to destroy an ammunition storage facility.
So I think they have had some battlefield impact already.
And again, Russian officials have condemned this step and said it's escalatory, but they didn't provide any specific response on what they would actually do in response.
And in D.C., the White House has said that this is just more saber-rattling from Russia.
And look, I think part of the reason that they actually did took this step was because of Russia using North Korean troops in Kursk.
Now, I think that the U.S. considered that an escalation.
I mean, you're pulling in a different country that many consider an adversary and is clearly an aggressor to the United States and some of its allies, North Korea.
You're pulling them in to help in this kind of proxy war.
So I think that many would consider that the first escalation by Russia.
And I think that that was part of the reason that was driving the fact that the Biden administration changed their policy this time around.
So I think there are a lot of factors that went into that.
But I don't think it was deliberately to cause an escalation with Russia just before the Trump transition took over.
This is a Republican in Dewey, Arizona.
Stephen, good morning.
Good morning.
I think it's interesting that when Putin took over Crimea in 2014, Biden and Obama basically did nothing about it.
They took over the strategic port to the Black Sea and didn't even give them weapons.
And it was Trump who gave him weapons when Trump became president in 16, 17, 18.
And then that silly call was Zelensky that Pelosi impeached and the Democrats impeached Trump with was ridiculous.
A lot of us feel that there's no way a war would have broke out if Trump was president.
And it's funny how easy they took over Crimea with Obama, who is clearly a stronger president than Biden.
And as soon as Biden gets in office, you know, they start war in Ukraine.
And for a lot of people don't realize, for hundreds of years, Russia controlled that part of the Slavic regions.
I know Ukraine has never really been a country until maybe 1990, give or take.
All right, Stephen, let's get Laura's response.
Well, Stephen, you are absolutely correct that the Biden or the Obama administration, when Biden was vice president, did not really arm Ukraine with significant weapons.
They did provide them some things like night vision goggles and training of troops, but you're right that it was President Trump that finally approved sending Ukraine javelins, lethal weapons.
But then it wasn't until the invasion late of Ukraine that the Pentagon started sending Ukraine lethal weapons en masse with the javelins and the stingers and then the Heimars and the Patriots.
So you're certainly correct about that.
But I also think it's worth saying that the Biden administration has taken a very incremental approach to arming the Ukrainians.
And they've sort of done it very, very slowly, pushing this red line, as I said.
And to your point about this potentially wouldn't have happened if Trump had been president, I mean, I think there's an argument to be made that the reason that Russia went into Ukraine was because Putin was afraid of the westernization of Ukraine and the growing strength of NATO, which did happen under Biden.
So I think there is an argument to be made that perhaps he might not have been as aggressive.
But on the other side, he's also made a lot of statements making it clear that he wanted to go into Ukraine and take over Ukraine anyway, regardless.
And that was always one of his goals.
So I think hindsight is 2020, and it's really difficult to know what would have happened if Trump had been president instead.
Laura Seligaman, I want to ask you about this Wall Street Journal article.
A Trump draft executive order would create board to purge generals.
You alluded to it earlier in the program about a, it's called a warrior board to review three and four star officers and fast track their removal.
Can you tell us what's happening with that?
If that's actually going to happen, what do you know about it?
So this is a draft executive order that, if Trump signs it, would establish what they call, just what you said, a warrior board.
It's former military personnel appointed by Trump outside the normal Pentagon promotion system that would look at potentially reviewing the performance of three and four star officers and potentially firing them.
So this would be a pretty drastic step that would bypass the normal Pentagon process, but it is in keeping with Trump's statements that he's made on the campaign trail.
So it's really not unexpected.
Trump has spoken about the woke generals, again, referring to the officials in the Pentagon that he sees as promoting diversity and inclusion in the military at the expense of military readiness.
So this isn't something, again, that's completely unexpected, but it could really create this chilling effect on the top military brass who are now facing having their futures decided by people outside of the Pentagon process that were appointed by Trump.
So, and then again, Pete Hegseth, the nominee, has also talked about firing the woke generals.
So it seems very likely that something like this will be signed.
If not this exact memo, then something like this will certainly happen.
Can you talk about the relationship of President-elect Trump with the military at large and with generals and admirals specifically and how it might differ in the second term than from the first term?
Certainly.
That's a good question.
It started out in the first Trump administration in 2016 that President Trump was speaking about my generals and he appointed a lot of former generals such as Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster to his administration.
But his relationship with those people quickly soured and he fired all of the people that I just mentioned.
And by the end of his term, he was even, his relationship was even on the rocks with the current military personnel, such as General Mark Milley, who's now retired.
He was then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
And since then, Trump has actually said that General Milley should be executed.
So he has kind of a difficult relationship with the top military brass.
Now, it still does seem like he has a good relationship with the lower-ranking folks and the NCOs and that kind of thing.
But I think it remains to be seen what his relationship is going to be like with the Pentagon in this administration.
I think certainly he's going to come in and try, like I said, to fire some of the top brass.
But I think it remains to be seen whether that relationship can be fixed.
Lucy is next.
Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Independent.
Hi, Lucy.
Hello.
Good morning, everyone.
Yes, I wanted to ask the journalist there, well, see, Donald Trump promised everybody that if we voted for him, that he would end the war in Ukraine.
And he said that he wouldn't even wait till January when he took office, but that he would do it right away when he was president-elect, and that it would only take one phone call from him, and that's it.
The war against Ukraine would be over.
So I was wondering, has your guest or any journalist from any paper asked Donald Trump why he hasn't made that phone call yet?
Why is Vladimir Putin still killing those Ukrainian people?
He's been president-elect for like two weeks now.
He should have made that phone call by now.
Could you or your newspaper ask him why he doesn't stop the war in Ukraine like he promised?
Okay, Lucy.
Well, certainly I think that he's made some inroads in terms of calls.
He has had a call with President Zelensky, for example, one that Elon Musk, the billionaire that he joined.
And that was an interesting choice to have someone like Elon Musk on that kind of call.
But you're right, he has not ended the war yet.
And I think that's he's just running up against the limits of his power, A, as president-elect instead of president.
And B, the fact that, I mean, even the Biden administration, after almost three years of trying, hasn't ended this war.
So I think ending the war and getting peace in Ukraine is going to be much more difficult than Donald Trump realizes.
And it probably won't be for a lack of trying, but I don't think he'll be immediately successful.
Mike is in Washington State, Republican.
Good morning, Mike.
Good morning.
Go right ahead.
Okay.
First of all, in regards to ballistic missiles, I'm not acquainted with what damage they do.
Do they start fires?
How damaging are they?
And the second thing is in regards to Trump contacting Putin, does our guest today have any evidence that President Trump or the President-Elector Trump is contacting Putin in the last three or four days?
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Mario, I don't have any evidence of Trump contacting Putin in the last few days.
And I think that would certainly, I mean, certainly it's something that he said he would do.
And I think there's a possibility that he will do it.
But I don't know that that has happened just yet.
In terms of your question on ballistic missiles, I think that, so it's not, so the U.S. hasn't provided ballistic missiles to Ukraine.
They provided these long-range ATAC-ums, which is the Army Tactical Missile System.
And so that is a different kind of weapon.
Both cause a lot of damage.
Laura, before I let you go, I want to ask you about the concept of using the military for the mass deportation plans that President-elect Trump is planning to carry out once he takes office.
Can you explain about any precedent for that, how that might work, and then the difference between using the military for deportations and the military that's at the border?
Certainly.
So, this is something that is extremely concerning to folks in the national security community that are worried about politicization of the military and inappropriate use of the troops.
It's very specifically written into the law under Pase Comitatus that the troops are not active duty military troops and National Guard are not to be used in a law enforcement role.
Of course, there could be an exception to that if Trump declares a national emergency, but there likely would be legal challenges.
Now, if it does happen, it's going to be a very bad look to have National Guard troops putting handcuffs on migrants.
Like I said, it politicizes the military inappropriately and it does open the floodgates to other uses of the military, for instance, against protesters, American citizens in American cities.
This is something that has not really been done before in the previous Trump administration.
I think that Trump wanted to do something like this at the southern border, but the Defense Secretary at the time, Jim Mattis, kind of prevented that from happening and he made it clear that the troops at the border would only be in a support role, in a logistics role, or building the law.
They wouldn't actually have any contact with the migrants.
So this would be a big step away from that.
All right.
Laura Seligman, National Security Reporter for the Wall Street Journal.
You can find her work at wsj.com.
Thanks so much for joining us, Lara.
Thanks for having me.
Up next, we're wrapping up today's Washington Journal with another open forum.
So you can start calling in now.
The numbers are on your screen.
But while we wait for your calls, we'll show you more from yesterday's hearing on FEMA's hurricane response.
Representative Alexandria Elcasio-Cortez of New York questioned FEMA Administrator Deanne Chriswall on disinformation about FEMA disaster relief aid.
Take a listen.
FEMA assistance was only a $750 loan that would have to be paid back.
And if not, FEMA would seize the homes of everyday people who may not be able to make that back in such a catastrophic moment.
Is that correct?
That is completely inaccurate.
Completely false, correct?
But was it in your assessment, and did you see lots of people believing this on the ground or in the field?
I was on the ground for over three weeks in North Carolina, and I did hear from people on the ground asking me, is this real or is this not real?
Another one that I also saw very widely circulated, that FEMA did not have enough money to provide relief services because that allocation of funds went to either undocumented immigrants, aid to Ukraine, or even aid to the Israeli government.
Is that correct, that FEMA's funds were allocated away to those causes?
Completely inaccurate.
Completely false.
On the record, completely false, correct?
Correct.
And other things that we've seen as well, that it's standing policy for FEMA to politically discriminate.
We know that that's not true, correct?
Correct.
And there was an incident we see, but that individual was fired, and that this is not a policy at scale, correct?
Correct.
Now, we know that these are important pieces, very large and influential pieces of disinformation, but I want to talk about the harm of that.
Because if you are a FEMA worker canvassing door to door, you need to knock on people's doors and see what help they need.
Correct?
Yes.
Now, I know, as someone who's a target of large amounts of misinformation and disinformation, people will sometimes, and I genuinely want to separate this from a partisan accusation, but it is very important to say that if someone thinks that a FEMA official is coming to their house to take their house away, that's a situation that could be escalatory or potentially become violent over something that's not true, correct?
Correct.
I mean, I've had people that have come to me in an escalatory way because they've believed something about me on the internet that was completely false.
And that's just me, let alone an anonymous FEMA official who does not have the same level of resources to be able to combat that kind of misinformation.
And then on top of that, when people do believe these kinds of things, what is the harm to the communities that then get convinced of these mistruths?
I think, Congresswoman, one of the best stories that I can share with you was when I was in Chimney Rock, North Carolina, and I was talking to the leadership there.
And Chimney Rock is the area where there were accusations that there were physical threats to our FEMA staff, where we temporarily moved all of our staff into fixed locations.
When I talked to that leadership team there, they said, this is not who we are.
This is looking bad on my community.
Tourists may not want to come visit my community.
But let alone, we need your help.
The people in this community need to register for assistance.
And now we have to make sure that they understand that the government is there to help them and encourage them to apply for assistance so they can start their road to recovery.
I think that is a really good example of how it not just impacts an individual, but it impacts an entire community and their reputation and who they believe they are and now who the public writ large thinks they are.
Washington Journal continues.
And we're in open forum now, so I'm interested to hear your thoughts on anything public policy or politics related.
By the way, if you're interested in disaster relief, we do have a hearing coming up at 10 a.m., so in about 20 minutes over on C-SPAN 3, because President Biden recently requested nearly $100 billion in hurricane and disaster response.
So today the heads of various federal agencies, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and FEMA Administrator Dean Criswell, whom you just saw, they'll testify about the need to pass disaster relief before the end of the year.
You can watch that Senate Appropriations Committee hearing live at 10 a.m. on C-SPAN 3, C-SPANNOW and C-SPAN.org.
Also this afternoon at 2, Health and Human Services Secretary Javier Becerra will testify on his department's Office of Refugee Resettlement and will likely face questions on the fast-track release of unaccompanied children and safety concerns.
That's the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Security and Enforcement at 2 p.m. Eastern live over on C-SPAN 3, also on the app and online.
And we'll go to the calls now and start with John, who's in Streamwood, Illinois, Independent Line.
Yeah, I got a question.
It's like I wish it was for the person you had just on.
It's like, why does anybody make the correlation between January 6th and the Russian invasion?
That was my question for the person he had on earlier.
How?
How do you see there's a correlation?
Think about it.
This is like you know, the U.S. government is turned over and you know, with January 6th, it's like while Russia sees it as an open-ended invitation, it's like, well, they got problems of their own, they won't bother us.
Okay, and here's Marilyn in Sharpsburg, Georgia, Democrat.
Hi, Marilyn.
Hi, how are you?
Good.
What do you think, Marilyn?
Okay, Mimi, I do not call to talk political, okay?
I call to give you guys a compliment.
I hold you guys in the highest self-esteem.
You get my adulation.
You get my applause.
You get my standing ovation.
I don't understand, I can't even fathom the fact that you and your colleagues sit there every day and listen to all of this ignorance.
Anyway, I'm hoping that C-SPAN is paying you guys the highest salary because you guys are centered.
You have this Zen about you.
You sit there and you can take, you can be objective.
Then I just, I just, I don't understand it.
If I had your position, I'd probably be on antidepressants, anti-anxiety medications.
I probably would do heart jokes or drink a lot because I admire you guys.
I just admire you to the utmost.
I just, I wish I could be you.
I really do.
And C-SPAN, you have hired some of the best people to host your shows, and I appreciate them.
And I appreciate you.
Thank you, Marilyn.
That's all I have to say.
Appreciate it.
Buford in Middleville, Georgia, Republican?
Millageville.
Millageville.
Sorry.
There you go.
I just wanted to call and say, smile and have a good day.
God bless America.
I am an 88-year-old disabled veteran, and I love my country, and I love everyone that tries to protect it.
God bless you, and have a wonderful day.
Thanks.
You too.
And this is Philip in Maryland, Democrat.
Hi, Philip.
Hi, good morning.
I'd like to piggyback on the last two callers and just say good morning to America.
Thanks C-SPAN for what it does because, you know, the information that you all give us, it gives us a chance to try to figure out which way we go.
You know, we're getting information.
And then if y'all didn't bring this information to us, we wouldn't have anything to go by.
They would do a lot of things behind our back that we wouldn't even know.
So we just thank C-SPAN for bringing the information to America so that we can make a choice, right?
And I didn't vote for Donald Trump, but I like what he's going to do about the border because we do need national security.
Thank you.
And let's talk to Bill in Florida, Republican line.
Hi, Bill.
Good morning.
Great job you guys are doing there.
I would like to see a couple things happen.
The border, they only built 500 miles of border when Trump was in it.
You know, the border's only 2,000 miles.
It shouldn't take four years to build a border wall, number one.
Number two is whatever happened to term limits.
I would like to see term limits on the next ballot.
Okay.
Also.
So tell me a little bit more about the term limits for the, I'm assuming, for Congress.
Yes, for Congress.
And how long should they be?
I would say four terms at the most, which would be, what, eight years?
Okay, and what about for the Senate?
Do you think they should be term limited as well?
Yes.
I think we should have term limits throughout the whole, just like we have term limits for president.
Same thing.
Also, we need a retina scan or fingerprints on all our IDs so we can positively identify people.
There's too many ways you can get fake driver's licenses, face birth certificates.
We need to change over to a retina scan or something that's foolproof, retina or fingerprints.
That's, you know, end term limits.
That's what I like to see happen in the next few years.
All right, Bill.
Here is Benny in Louisville, Kentucky, Democrat.
Hey, Benny.
Hello, Mimi.
It's so good to talk to you.
I watch all the time, and I call, but I've never got to speak with you.
So I was just calling because I'm really just tired of hearing Donald Trump is our president.
I accept it.
I did not vote for him.
I don't want him.
But if he can pull a rabbit out of the hat, I'm all for it.
I doubt it, especially with these choices he's making.
And you can even see Republicans bucking against him, trying to hold him accountable and hold his picks accountable.
But there's just so many excuses that they make.
I heard the Congresswoman earlier talking about, you know, they tried to get Trump before Russia, Russia, Russia.
For me, it was nothing that politicians said.
It was Trump himself.
He came out of his mouth.
I watch television.
I watch all the news channels.
And he put a target on himself by saying things like, you know, find me, find those emails Hillary Clinton did and going to Russia or going wherever they went where he met with Putin and saying stuff like, I don't think Putin, you know, meddled in our elections.
He said he didn't do it.
I agree with him.
And it's just, it's bizarre to me how many people can, you know, continue to Kowtow to him and support him.
So it's just really crazy to me.
He is our president.
I'm all about our democracy.
And I hope he, I wish him well.
But these pics are very frightening to me.
And that's what I wanted to say.
Thank you.
Here is Michael in Napa, California, Independent Line.
Hi there.
I think we should introduce a minimum qualification system so that people don't just run for office without some background, some civics, a polygraph, a resume check.
Donald Trump would never have qualified for office if we had some minimum standards.
Okay, minimum standards like what, Michael?
Like what needs to be on that resume?
Well, he doesn't have to be a god, but he has to be an honest person.
He has to have worked diligently at something.
He can't be an heir.
I don't believe in hereditary power like that.
But they have to have a basic understanding of civics.
I don't think Trump knows how government works yet.
There's so much more we can do to get quality people.
Rich in New Jersey, on the line for Republicans.
Good morning, Rich.
Good morning, Mimi.
I want to say something about the John Gates investigation.
Matt Gates.
Matt Gates, I'm sorry.
Do you remember John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's right-hand person, when his computer was hacked and the documents were stolen?
And Pelosi and Hillary warned the media and everybody else, including C-SPAN, that if they released anything, they would be sued and put in jail.
Do you remember when that happened?
And nobody released it, okay?
It was up for about 30 seconds at that.
And then nobody else said anything about the Podesta computer stuff, okay, including C-SPAN.
So I hope you abide by this with the Matt Gates investigation that now this was hacked and stolen.
And because Hillary and Pelosi put out that memo to all the media and everybody else, that because it was hacked and stolen, they couldn't report on it.
So I hope you play the same game with them, that you don't report on this stolen and hacked information, no matter if it's bad or good.
And remember, the DOJ brought no charges against this man, and they investigated thoroughly.
And the two women, they said, were incredible.
So, you know, I hope you play the same game now.
I hope C-SPAN don't go back to the last four years with Donald Trump.
All right, Rich.
And here is Tabitha, Colorado, Democrat.
Hi, Tabitha.
Hi, good morning.
Well, I'm on the opposite end of that spectrum with Matt Gates.
Just think about ex-Representative Cawthorne, who came out and said that they were having drug-filled orgies, and then he himself was caught doing a menage trois cross-dressing after he came out against the Republican Party for doing that and Matt Gates himself.
I also read Lewis Cheney's book that talked about all of the normal Republicans in the background trying to stop what Trump was doing in the weeks coming up before January 6th.
They all knew what he was doing, and the ones who actually believe in our system were in the background trying to stop it.
That is why she went out on the road and tried to stop him from getting elected again.
They could see what he was doing before he was doing it.
They tried to stop it for the rest of us.
And because there's split screens on what we all see, half of the country knows what happened and the other doesn't.
What do we do about that?
Vince in Florida, line for Republicans.
You're next, Vince.
Good morning, me.
I have a few comments, touch on previous callers.
Trump built 500 miles a wall.
Yes.
He could have got more done if he wasn't railroaded and sidetracked by people who were against him.
Now, a couple things.
People need to realize all of these picks for his cabinet.
We didn't see the scrutiny on the Democratic side when they picked their cabinet members, Health and Human Services, the Admiral.
You had Sammy, energy, nuclear waste.
These people all they didn't have any experience.
Pete Hayseth, decorated double bronze star winner.
He's been in the military, been to Iraq, been to Afghanistan.
He knows how it works.
The civil conviction of Trump, people have to remember that's a civil trial.
You can't turn a misdemeanor into felonies.
So, I mean, there's a lot of things people say this country is racist.
We had a black president for eight years, Condoleezza Rice, remember her?
Very knowledgeable woman.
So just want people to realize everything.
All right, Vince.
And we will take your calls up until the end of the program, where we will take you over to the House for their session this morning.
So about another eight minutes.
And here's Rick in Pensacola, Florida, Democrat.
Good morning, Rick.
Good morning.
Hey, look, somebody's got to help me with this.
Now that Trump's got complete immunity from the Supreme Court, what's to stop him from looting the entire country?
I really need to know.
And the thing about it is, he can't be held accountable for what he's going to do and what he has done.
And not only that, the institutions that we've got now that would be there to hold him accountable, he's going to burn down.
Now, his picks, as far as his cabinet picks, this is all a distraction.
It's look over here, look over here, look over here.
In the meantime, I'm over here on the right-hand side, and I'm looting the country.
I want to know why he's allowed to charge our Secret Service agents 300% more to stay at Mar-a-Largo and guard him and at his place in New Jersey and to fly on the Trump plane and guard him.
Why are they being charged 20 times what it would cost a major airline to fly him the same distance first class?
Trump charges our Secret Service people 20 times more.
So if it costs $2,000 to fly from Mar-a-Largo to the UFC fight that he went to Saturday night with all of his good buddies there, and boy, that's something to think about our president going to a UFC fight, okay?
But if it costs commercially $2,000, he's charging our Secret Service people, and there's probably 15 or more on the plane, 20 times that.
Why are we allowing this to go on?
I hear these people call in.
They call themselves Republicans.
There aren't any Republicans anymore.
They're Trumplicans.
It's over.
Look at the look on your face.
You know it's over.
Okay.
Christine in Maryland, line for Republicans.
Good morning, Christine.
Hi, good morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
Just a few quick comments.
One, with regards to a few of the comments by previous callers.
First, the fact that the president or president-elect went to a UFC fight.
I'm pretty sure I don't see why that matters.
I think that's just your hatred for Trump.
If Obama went to a UFC fight, I'm pretty sure people will be saying, wow, that's so cool.
The other caller saying that there should be a minimum criteria to evaluate politicians, a president-elect, I think that's valid.
But the claim that they should have never lied, I think good luck finding a politician who's never lied before.
So you should be a little bit more realistic with your criteria.
And then finally, I just want to say: I am a former Democrat, turned Republican.
I think people need to look at facts more than who they hate and who they think they should hate.
I'm more than open to disliking Trump if someone shows me that he's not the best choice for the country against Biden.
I would say I'm a little concerned for the cabinet picks, but I have yet to do like in-depth research into them.
So hopefully, once I see the real research about it, I'll be a little more calmed down.
But thank you so much for listening.
So, Christine, did you want to see that Matt Gates report?
Sorry, she's gone.
Kareem in Germantown, Maryland, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Good morning.
How are you?
Good.
So I guess kind of where I'm coming from is if I was to kind of take what I would consider the biggest concern or problem in our country, as important as the economy might be or immigration or whatever that is, for me, the absolute top, you could call it crisis is that we've simply lost the ability to talk to each other.
And the longer that goes on, the worse things continue to get.
And it's as if we feel that the more we attack each other and demonize each other, somehow we're going to come up with a different outcome other than what we've seen over the last 10, 12, whatever X number of years.
And it's crazy to me that somehow we've convinced ourselves to offload this responsibility to politicians on the federal level, the Senate, whatever it is.
You know, we've taken this responsibility and we've said Trump is this or Biden is this or Harris is this or Matt Gates is this or whoever it is, as if we are also not responsible for the way that we communicate to each other.
And I don't see any type of scenario where any type of politician can come in, get elected, and the problems in our country get solved if it is not first built upon the premise where we the people know how to communicate.
The politicians don't come out of a vacuum.
They don't come out of nowhere, right?
I mean, they're elected from the people.
And so when we find that we have leaders in our country who aren't talking to each other, one side is you're a communist, you're a Marxist, you're a socialist, you hate America.
Another side is you're nothing except a Trump lover.
You're nothing except a white fascist or a Hitler lover or whatever it is.
And it's like, what happened to talking about the issues?