We're funded by these television companies and more, including Charter Communications.
Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers.
And we're just getting started, building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.
Charter Communications supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
This morning, the Supreme Court considers a case about the Food and Drug Administration's rejection of flavored vape products amid concerns about their use among children and teens.
We'll have that oral argument live starting at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org.
Coming up on Washington Journal this morning, your calls and comments live.
And then Sky Perryman, president and CEO of the progressive group Democracy Forward, discusses legal efforts to challenge the Trump administration's agenda.
Also, Taylor Barkley, Director of Public Policy at the Abundance Institute, will talk about oil, drilling, and energy policies of the incoming Trump administration.
Washington Journal is live next.
Join the conversation.
This is The Washington Journal for December 2nd.
President Biden issued a pardon for his son, Hunter Biden, which wipes away criminal convictions on tax and gun charges.
This after the president had previously promised in interviews that he would not take that action.
President-elect Trump and Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill responded to yesterday's action.
And to start the program, you can respond to it too.
And you can call us on the line to let us know about this action by President Biden pardoning his son Hunter Biden.
202-748-8001 for Republicans.
202748-8000 for Democrats.
202748-8002 for independents.
If you want to text us your thoughts on President Biden pardoning his son, 202748-8003 is how you do that.
You can also post on Facebook at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
And you can post on X2 at C-SPANWJ.
According to reporting by Axios this morning, this decision was done over the weekend while the Bidens were together in Nantucket as part of a holiday there.
He signed that pardon on Sunday after that event.
This adding that the president gave broad protection to his son for crimes he has committed or may have committed or taken part in since January 1st of 2014.
The president currently on his way to Africa, but before that releasing a statement regarding the pardon.
It reads in part this.
The charges in his Hunter and his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election.
Then a carefully negotiated plea deal agreed to by the Department of Justice unraveled in the courtroom with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process.
Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter's cases.
No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter's cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son, and that is wrong.
There has been an effort to break Hunter, who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution.
And trying to break Hunter, they've tried to break me.
And there's no reason to believe it will stop here.
Enough is enough.
Here is the truth.
I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and led it to a miscarriage of justice.
Again, that's part of the president's statement regarding the pardon granted to his son, Hunter.
The Washington Post this morning highlighting what he was facing, Hunter Biden, saying that he was convicted in June by a federal jury in Delaware for lying on a gun purchase form in 2018 when he checked the box saying he was not using illegal drugs and then illegally owning that weapon as a drug user for 11 days.
Separately, he pleaded guilty in September to nine federal tax charges, a last-minute plea that came just before jury selection was scheduled to begin for that trial.
Both cases prosecuted by special counsel David Weiss, who was named to preserve the case's independence from a Justice Department overseen by Hunter Biden's father.
Again, these actions taking place yesterday, you can comment it on the phone lines 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and Independence 202-748-8002.
You can text us at 202-748-8003 and post on our social sites, both located on Facebook and on X. Earlier this year, President Biden was asked in a back and forth with reporters about if he would indeed, at that time, grant a pardon to his son, Hunter.
Here's some of that exchange from earlier in June.
With regard to the question regarding the family, I'm extremely proud of my son, Hunter.
He has overcome an addiction.
He's one of the brightest, most decent men I know.
And I am satisfied that I'm not going to do anything.
I said I abide by the jury decision.
I will do that, and I will not pardon him.
Again, that from June of this year.
To your phone calls to start us off on this action by the president yesterday in South Carolina.
We'll hear from James.
James, on our Republican line, go ahead.
Good morning.
It's no shock to me at all that Biden pardoned his son.
It just shows the crook he is pardoning another crook.
And he's using the same lines that Donald Trump used about how the Justice Department is being used to go after political figures.
Now, I'm no fan of Biden at all, but I can understand why he pardoned his son.
But it just shows over and over and over again how many promises he has broken.
He said he was going to let the Justice Department do what they do, and he was going to stand by their decision.
And he reneged on that.
A shame on Biden, but, you know, it is what it is.
Thank you for listening.
James in South Carolina, this is Linda.
Linda joining us from Mississippi Democrats line.
Hello, you're next.
Yes, I believe, I'm glad that he pardoned his son.
And the man before me, he would have pardoned his child too, because he was prosecuted.
Republicans pulled him down, investigated, investigated for five years, trying to pull his daddy down.
And Trump lies all the time.
And he voted for him.
He got all crooked in his cabinet.
And then, plus, he pardoned his son-in-law, Bob, and making him trying to make him ambassador.
I believe in Biden.
Biden should have done.
And father, any mother would have helped their child if they could have.
Congratulations.
Linda there in Mississippi to Linda's point.
She made this comment and this from the Washington Post this morning saying President Biden is not the first president to pardon family members and others close to them as their term in office expires.
President Bill Clinton on the day he left office pardoned his half-brother Roger Clinton for cocaine distribution, convictions from 1985.
Former President Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, father-in-law of Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in December 2020, shortly after losing his bid for reelection.
Charles Kushner, a New Jersey real estate developer, had pleaded guilty to making false statements to the Federal Election Commission, witnessed tampering and tax evasion.
On Saturday, President-elect Trump said he would nominate Charles Kushner as the U.S. ambassador to France.
Yesterday's actions regarding Hunter Biden, the pardon from his father, President Biden, in Indiana, Republican line, David is up next on this action.
Go ahead.
Yes, good morning.
Well, it seems that the truth finally comes out.
It's just another way that the Biden crime family is sticking together.
On a personal side, I get it that it's his son.
But to use the same reasoning that is being used against President-elect Trump during his last two to three years is really rich.
And basically, he just lied because of the election.
And he was going to do it anyway, but this was the opportunity.
And I'll be glad to see that old son of a gun walk and trip into the sunset.
In Anchorage, Alaska, Independent Line, this is Grace.
Good morning.
You're next.
Hey, good morning from, well, I'm not calling from Alaska.
I'm in another state, but I'm from Alaska, a registered voter in Alaska.
And I don't blame President Biden for doing this to protect his last living son.
This is, you know, I mean, did he sell information to the Saudi government that provided information for a journalist that traveled to extend his visa in the United States, but got him killed instead to the Saudi government?
I think he was killed by a bone saw.
I think Jared Kushner is the one that did that.
So, yeah, you guys can bark, bark, bark like a bunch of chihuahuas all you want, but Joe Biden's son or son-in-law did not sell information to the Saudis that got a respected Saudi Arabia.
Where do you get the information that he sold this information?
What are you basing that on?
News reports, the New York Times, the Washington Post.
Jared Kushner sold information to the Saudis, which eventually led to the death of a respected journalist who was trying to get away from the Protestants.
Okay, okay, you made that point.
Some of you reacting off of Facebook.
This is Shireen from Facebook saying, I applaud you on this decision regarding the pardon by President Biden.
This is from Scott saying that it shows the privileged can do what they want and get away with it.
You know, there are much more evidence to his case than convict than there was ever against the former president of any cases against them.
At least Mr. Trump got himself out of the unjustified convictions, whereas Hunter had his daddy.
Cookie from Facebook saying good that he pardoned his son.
They attacked his son because they didn't have anything to say about Biden.
Biden is an extremely qualified president, like the impeached security threat that pardons individuals who betrayed America and brags about pardoning the domestic terrorists that attacked the Capitol.
Good for Biden.
He should help his son.
And then another, this is Bill from Facebook saying when it comes to the actions of yesterday, just making the comment two-tier justice system.
Again, if you want to post on our socials, you can do that.
That's facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
If you want to post there on X, that's at C-SPANWJ.
Let's hear from Joanne in New York, Democrats line on this pardon of Hunter Biden.
Go ahead.
Good morning.
I watch this show often, so I don't have much to say except that I'm a Democrat.
I do believe in Biden.
And I do think that this was a charge that was trumped up just to go after the Biden administration.
And in the end, when things get embittered as they have gotten in this election, you take care of your own.
And that's exactly what Trump loudly claims he's going to be doing.
And as far as lying, in particular, my son, he lives near Scranton, Pennsylvania.
And Trump, you know, in 2016 kept saying how he's going to bring back coal, bring back coal.
Well, the trees are growing on those mountains of coal outside of Scranton PA.
Nothing's been done.
You know, so.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Joanne.
When it comes to the president-elect, he's taking the Truth Social to make his thoughts known about the events of yesterday.
Just saying this, several two posts, but here's one saying, does the pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J6 hostages, January 6th hostages, who have now been in prison for years?
Such an abuse and miscarriage of justice.
Again, the president-elect taking to his Truth Social site to make those comments.
Hank is next.
Hank joins us from Michigan, Republican line.
You're next.
Hello.
You're on.
Go ahead.
We are talking about Hunter Biden and his pardon, correct?
Correct.
Go ahead.
I'd just like to say that here we have a president that stayed in his basement 90% of the time, and now he's pardoning his son who pled guilty to the laptop.
People can't turn that away.
I mean, come on.
Now he wants to pardon him.
I think it's a double-edged sword.
And I think both parties should do a lot of work to clean up their acts.
Thank you very much.
The president's son's facing convictions on tax and gun ownership charges.
That's reporting by several of the sources.
The president's son also admitting and giving out a statement of his own yesterday after the events taken by his father, saying this, I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction, mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport.
Despite all of this, I have maintained my sobriety for more than five years because of my deep faith in the unwavering love and support of my family and friends.
In the throes of addiction, I squandered many opportunities and advantages in recovery.
We can be given the opportunity to make amends where possible and rebuild our lives if we never take for granted the mercy that we have been afforded.
I will never take the clemency I've been given today for granted and will devote the life I have rebuilt to helping those who are still sick and suffering.
Those are the comments from Hunter Biden yesterday after receiving that pardon.
Suzanne, on our independent line in Florida, good morning.
You're next.
Good morning.
I think this is the result of unfortunate actions by both parties.
I think the American public has seen behind the curtains of our political system.
I think that all of us need to research more before we vote, not just depend on the legacy media, not just to depend on other social media, but to really research the issues and vote for candidates who we feel would do best for their constituents and for us as a public.
And how does that relate to yesterday's events concerning this pardon?
I think it is the vote of a father.
I think it is unfortunate that President Biden spoke directly more than once that he was not going to pardon his son.
He would have been showing more grace by just not answering the issue and saying, I will consider it at the time I leave office or something that was more appropriate.
He gave the political answer because he's a politician.
So I think the only way that we as the American public can get better public servants is to research.
And the American public has done more in recent years on emotion rather than research.
Okay, that's Suzanne there in Florida offering comments from yesterday.
By the way, if you're interested in how previous presidents have treated the idea of pardons and clemency, if you go to the Department of Justice website, there's a section there listed clemency recipients that you can go through the previous presidents and see who they granted pardon to, who they commuted sentences, and the like.
Again, that information there at the Department of Justice website if you want to check out how previous presidents have treated this issue.
Let's hear from Linda.
Linda in New York, Democrats line.
Yes, good morning.
I think the president did the correct thing.
He's looking out for his son.
Everybody makes mistakes.
Everybody makes mistakes.
And he was really looking out for his son and his son's family, the whole family.
And I love Joe Biden.
Thank you.
Okay, that's Linda there in New York.
Let's hear from Adam.
Adam here in Washington, D.C., Republican line.
Hey, good morning.
I just wanted to say two facts.
The fact is the president has the ability to pardon, implement clemency and commute.
That's one.
And two, we've seen just a massive uptick in political persecution.
So at the end of the day, I have, you know, I expected this to happen, and I expect many more to come forward before the end of his term through January.
And I will say the second fact or the second point I want to make here is I hope that Donald Trump also comes into office and doesn't wait to the end of his next term to take a look at all of the folks that are still sitting in jail without any date in mind for the January 6th event.
Thank you, folks.
That's Adam there in Washington, D.C. Here's the response from the House Oversight Chair Jim Comer yesterday to the actions of President Biden saying, Joe Biden has lied from the start to finish about his family's corrupt influence peddling activities.
Not only has he falsely claimed that he never met with his son's foreign business associates or that his son did nothing wrong, but he also lied when he said he would not pardon Hunter Biden.
The charges Hunter faced were just the tip of the iceberg and the blatant corruption that President Biden and the Biden crime family have lied about to the American people.
It's unfortunate and rather come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability.
Again, the current chair of the House Oversight Committee, Jim Comer, that from yesterday, you can comment on the lines regarding this action by President Biden towards his son, offering him a pardon.
202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can send us a text too at 202-748-8003.
Stedman next in Detroit, Independent line.
Hi, I just have two points.
So I think this is just a continuation of Joe Biden's double standard as it pertains to his family and his son concerning the rule of law, especially in matters of bills and laws that he's passed.
For example, you know, the crime bill, the disproportionate sentencing for crack cocaine over powder cocaine, which his son is a user of, and we see how he's been treated and the chances he's gotten and the grace he wants to be given.
But also, I'd like this to be kind of an example for both parties to see that in many ways they're mirror images of each other, right?
The Democrats frequently consider Trump a threat to democracy.
They say that, you know, he will use his powers to act unilaterally to disrupt the rule of law.
But we see that Joe Biden frequently has a history of lying to the American people and doing things in his own best interest or in his family's own best interests.
And so we just need to be mindful that, you know, both parties are corrupt and they need to have serious reforms done so that the American people can finally have some benefit in the White House and in the seats of power.
From Sherry Ann in Maryland, Democrats line.
Good morning.
It's pretty rich to hear from the grister family of the world that Trump say a damn word.
What a joke.
Police, you put him in office.
You put a criminal and a racist.
First of all, he was indicted.
The president, former President Trump, was charged with sexual abuse.
That's one.
And what did you think of the actions by President Biden yesterday?
I think it's wonderful.
And what he should do is put Guantanamo Bay should be the next president.
Okay.
Christine in Michigan, Republican line.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning, Your Honor.
I'm just calling.
I saw last night on the little runner that President Biden had pardoned Hunter.
And I was just praising the Lord because it made me think of the prodigal son.
If you can't come home to your father and be forgiven, you know, that's what we all need.
And I'm just praising the Lord, and I thank you for taking my call.
Okay, Christine there in Michigan, the Wall Street Journal this morning had some Democratic reaction to President Biden's offering his son a pardon, saying this.
Some Democrats expressed those concerns, including the Colorado Governor Jared Polis, who said the president, quote, put his family ahead of the country and, quote, set a Brad precedent that could be abused by later presidents.
Also, quotes, Representative Greg Stanton of Arizona, saying, I think he got this one wrong.
I respect President Biden, but I think he got this one wrong.
This wasn't a politically motivated prosecution.
Hunter committed felonies and was convicted by a jury of his peers.
This also adding that the announcement comes as Democratic lawmakers are returning to Congress this week, hoping to keep public attention focused on some of President-elect Donald Trump's controversial choices for administration post.
So that's the Wall Street Journal's take on the events of yesterday regarding the president.
This is from Thomas Thomas in Florida, Independent Line.
Ahead.
Good morning, C-SPARA.
What a great move.
Is Donald Trump 10 steps ahead of everybody or what?
He charged him with a gun charge and some other charges, and his father pardoned him.
Lying all the way through.
I would never pardon him.
And then, why would I pardon him?
Lied all the way through his administration and everything.
You see, they got set up.
He's going to be part from the gun charges and all that little stuff.
But when it comes time to Russia and taking money from the mayor of Russia and China and taking money from China and treason, all that money sent to his family members, they're in big trouble.
Okay.
Thomas there in Florida.
This is from the New York Times this morning about Hunter Biden's charges that were laid against him in these two cases, these two separate cases.
This is by Devlin Barrett reporting that President Biden blamed political pressure for the collapse of a plea deal for Hunter Biden, but it was the judge overseeing the case who questioned the agreement.
Hunter Biden's plea deal fell, did fall apart a dramatic form at the last minute last year, but it did so after the judge overseeing the case at the time raised issues about its unusual construction involving two separate agreements meant to work in tandem.
That construction violated one of the basic tenets of federal guilty pleas that any agreement not have any side deals.
That the plea agreement fell apart once it faced basic questioning from the judge was an embarrassment to both the prosecutors and the defense lawyers who negotiated it.
But it is a far cry from the president's suggestion that the deal for Hunter Biden to avoid prison time and a felony conviction collapsed because of political pressure.
Again, the New York Times with a story there taking a look at some of the lead up to the events of yesterday regarding this pardon from the president.
You can make your comments on the phone lines.
You can post on our social sites.
Text us if you wish regarding those actions of yesterday.
Let's hear from Steve.
Steve, Democrats lying in Indianapolis, go ahead.
Yeah, with any other normal situation, any normal president that was coming in, I would think that Biden would not have pardoned his son, but who could blame him for not leaving him to the wrath of Trump and his incoming bunch of mobs?
Look at the people he's appointing, and all they've ever said is they were going to politically come after Biden and his family.
So I don't blame him at all.
In any other normal times, I wouldn't be disappointed in pardoning his son, but in this case, I'm not at all because of how unnormal Trump is in his behavior.
Do you think this denotes special treatment then?
Yeah, I mean, it does, obviously.
But like I said, I would use that special treatment with somebody like Trump coming in.
He's abnormal.
He's bringing in a bunch of family and just nepotism type people.
He's appointing to all these offices and his staff.
So, and they said they were coming at him.
And I don't blame him a bit in this case for pardoning his son.
Not at all.
Okay.
George is next.
George in Texas, Republican line.
Good morning.
I just want to say that he didn't do nothing that any normal father would do in his case.
I knew that once he was not going to go for reelection, that it was just a matter of time before he would pardon his son.
But what he needs to do is make sure he pardons the rest of his family so we don't have to live the next four years of people trying to come back and get him and his family.
Also, I wanted to know if this will clear up the cocaine case that was found in the White House.
Now that everybody that I think was involved in that should clear up that case also.
So it should go ahead and be announced whose cocaine that was if they were honest about it.
That's George there in Texas giving us a thought.
One person giving thoughts as well as Elon Musk on X.
This is the post from earlier.
This starts off by saying, community notes slays, Elon Musk writes.
It's positioned right above a previous X from Joe Biden, which read, no one is above the law.
And the community notes reading, by pardon his son Hunter, not merely for a single crime, but all actual potential crimes he may or may not have created over an 11-year period.
Joe Biden has made clear that some people are, in fact, above the law.
Again, the thoughts from X, courtesy of Elon Musk.
Let's hear from Stephen, Alabama, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Good morning, Pedro.
How are you today?
Good morning, America.
Joseph Biden, who took office as a Democrat senator in Delaware in 1972, has been an habitual liar his whole career.
Proof of this can be found on the internet, 1987 when he ran as the president.
What he didn't pardon was his crime family, the Joe Biden criminal cartel.
They have evidence on them.
And I look forward to this being pursued when Donald Trump is in office.
The law fair they pulled on Donald Trump is a two-tiered system in the United States.
The Democratic Party is a Democratic National Communist Party.
This is a new world order, globalization takeover, and they lost.
America spoke on Election Day.
It was mandated.
Trump won the popular vote.
He won many races, the Hispanic vote, the black vote, Christians.
Again, but then how does this specifically relate to the pardon from yesterday?
He lied.
He lied.
He exposed himself to the world.
The world now knows the American people are awake.
To use the left's word, woke, the American people are now woke.
Okay.
Harvey is next in Wisconsin Democrats line.
Hello.
Hello, good morning.
Morning.
I think the President Biden could have just not put himself in a position to look like a liar and just said, we'll wait and see as the time comes.
What's happened?
But honestly, each and every one of us as a parent, if we had the power to do what he done, he didn't do anything that any parent would not do for their child basing a potentially extended period of time in prison.
I think he only did the parent thing.
I'm not condoning saying he's right or wrong, but I know I would have done the same for my child.
I'll ask you, though, what I asked the previous.
Do you think this is special treatment then?
Well, if you're in that enteron bracket where you can do certain things, you do certain things.
If you're down on that bottom side where you can't do things, you can't do things.
You can only do what you do.
Okay.
Harvey there in Wisconsin giving us his thoughts this morning.
You can add to the mix 202-748-8000 for Democrats, Republicans, 202-748-8001.
Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can text at 202-748-8003.
We mentioned some of those other presidents and some of the people that have received this type of same treatment when it comes to pardons and commutations.
The National Constitution Center has a list of some of those famous names, so to speak, who benefited from it.
We mentioned this before, but it was in January of 2001 that President Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother Roger, who had served a one-year jail sentence on a drug conviction.
He also pardoned businessman Mark Rich, Whitewater participant Susan McDougall, and former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros.
In 1992, President George H.W. Bush pardoned six men implicated in the Iran-Contra affair, that including the former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger.
It was in January of 1989 that President Ronald Reagan pardoned New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner for charges related to illegal campaign contributions made to Richard Nixon's presidential campaign regarding Richard Nixon.
He was granted a pardon by Gerald Ford in September of 1974 for any crimes he might have committed during the Watergate scandal, even though Nixon wasn't charged or convicted of federal crimes.
And going back to October of 1978, two actions by former President Carter.
It was in October that he officially restored the full citizenship rights of former Confederate President Jefferson Davis, signing an act from Congress that ended a century-long dispute.
And then also he commuted the sentence of G. Gordon Liddy that related to the 1972 Watergate burglary.
There's more there from the National Constitution Center if you are interested in seeing how previous presidents have dealt with this issue regarding so-called famous people.
Let's hear from Willie.
He's in North Carolina, Republican line.
Hi.
Good morning.
Yes, it doesn't surprise me.
Not at all.
Why not?
Well, mainly because, like the previous guy spoke, he said that any parent would do the same.
I'm not sure about that, but I know for a fact that can you hear me?
Yeah, you're on.
Go ahead.
Yeah, I know for a fact that this is just a demonstration of just pure raw power.
This is also a demonstration of why the Democratic Party actually just overwhelmingly lost the last election.
All Joe Biden had to really say was, I'm not sure.
We'll wait and see how it plays out.
Ultimately, both him and his vice president now just seem to be wacky whack liars on just several things.
And ultimately, this will have an effect on the body politic in our country for the next decade, if not longer, because there's no question now that any crime that any Trump bites or people associated with Trump or who share his political views, the weaponization of the party, the weaponization of the Department of Justice and all the courts is on full for full force now, I sincerely believe.
And I think it could have been handled better.
I knew he was going to do it.
A dad would do it if he got the power.
Okay.
Let's go to John in Florida, Independent Line.
Hi.
Hello.
You're on.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
No, I just think it's really something that this guy's been what he has been since 72, and he's a liar.
You know, the apple don't fall far from the tree in this case.
And I just wanted to say also that the Democratic Party are full of Trump derangement syndrome.
Just listen to the hate coming out of them.
Well, to your previous statement, the apple doesn't fall from the tree.
Exactly, elaborate on that.
What do you mean by that in relation to the pardon that was granted?
Well, look at Joe.
He's been a liar.
He's been a lawbreaker.
Look at his son.
You know, he's now been caught.
And what they're going to do is they're going to do what politicians do.
They're going to take care of their own.
So I just wonder if the incoming president will have An option to pursue it further as far as the Biden crime family because they are just crime-ridden.
Nobody can deny it.
I just want to say it's to the Democrats.
You know, keep that in mind when you call and you bash this guy coming in, Trump.
So let's give him a chance.
Okay, okay.
Got you.
Got your point, John.
Thank you, John.
Politico this morning takes a look at what was done yesterday when it comes on pardons.
It has some reaction from people and constitutional scholars who study pardons saying those experts say they can only think of one other person who has received a presidential pardon so sweeping in generations.
That was Richard Nixon, who was given that blanket pardon by Gerald Ford in 1974.
Quote, I've never seen language like this in a pardon document that purports to pardon offenses that have not apparently been ever even been charged.
With the exception of that Nixon pardon, that was Margaret Love, who served from 1990 to 1997 as the U.S. pardon attorney, a Justice Department position devoted to assisting the president on clemency issues.
She goes on to say even the broadest Trump pardons were specific as to what was being pardoned.
The story adding that Joe Biden's full and unconditional pardon of his son is deliberately vague.
Donald Trump and his allies have long fixated on the president's son, and Trump has repeatedly pledged to use the second term to investigate and prosecute members of the Biden family.
Conservative commentators have engaged in parlor game speculation that Hunter Biden could be charged with bribery, illegal lobbying, and other crimes stemming from his foreign business activities and drug addiction.
Politico is where you find that story.
If you want to read more and get some background on the events of yesterday, Nista is in Greenbelt, Maryland.
Democrats line on this pardon that was granted by President Biden to his son, Hunter.
Good morning.
Good morning.
You're on.
Go ahead.
Thank you for accepting my call.
He's happy, and I'm grateful that Biden, President Biden, had to pardon his son because had he been, he left his son and left the chair, where his son goes to prison, the whole world and the whole country will be saying, oh, he couldn't even pardon his son.
That's a shame.
That's a shame.
Other presidents have pardoned criminals who are supposed to go to prison.
Biden never even gave the highest poster of the White House to his son, to his family.
He never makes his family advisors in the White House or give them big posts.
Only because he pardoned his son.
People are not crying everywhere.
People so suddenly forgot how Biden rescued this country from that the country was sinking during COVID.
People assume they are so quick to forget how they were begging, they're begging for somebody to come and rescue this country.
People were dying.
That man came and did his best.
People are so quick to forget why he has gone to the country and be calling him a bad president.
They are so ungrateful.
I'm happy he pardoned his son.
Thank you.
North Carolina next Republican line.
We'll hear from Tom.
Good morning.
We all knew he was going to pardon his son.
The problem we have is he lied about it multiple times, and the press secretary lied about it.
I wish you would play how many times he said no and how many times she said no.
That would help the callers a lot.
And number two, in Biden's statement, he blamed politics as far as why Hunter was charged and convicted.
Trump has been saying that for years.
No, I'm not surprised, but Biden lied, lied, lied.
And why don't y'all play how many times he said it and how many times the press secretary said that no, they weren't going to do it.
Please play it for us this morning.
You got plenty of time.
Hold on, hold on.
We already showed one time when the president back in June made the statement, and there are others that people can find if they wanted to search our video library of that.
But go ahead and finish, Tom.
Well, let's see the press secretary.
Let's see how many times she said it.
Yep, you invite you to go to the website and check it out for yourself.
c-span.org is where you can find that video library.
If you want to check out all the events regarding Hunter Biden, in fact, if you go to our website and type in those words, 28 instances on this show where we took a look at Hunter Biden over the years, issues with him.
Again, all of that is available at our website at c-span.org.
John in Wisconsin, Independent Line.
Hi.
Good morning, Pedro and all the viewers of C-SPAN.
Thanks for taking my call.
As I sit here with the Constitution in my hand, Article 2, Section 2, it is very broad as far as the presidential powers.
Basically, you know, what it says, as I'm reading it here, it says that the president shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in the case of impeachment.
So Joe Biden said that he was not going to pardon his son, and I penned a letter to the editor of my local paper, I think the week after he said it in June, and said the point was going to come true, which just did.
He granted his pardon.
But what a broad pardon, like you said, with the Nixon thing.
It covers so much.
It's just, it's rules for thee.
Pardon me.
It's rules for me, but not for thee.
You know, if I was guilty of the same things, or if my child were found guilty of something, I would not pardon them because you know what?
What does that tell them and teach them?
It teaches them to continue the same behaviors.
If you're not going to be punished for the crimes you've committed, then what's the point?
I just think, you know what?
Joe Biden, I think, is going to pardon himself before January 20th or January 6th when he leaves office.
Because if he doesn't, when he's out of the presidency, he's going to be next and it's going to have charges against him.
Okay.
John there in Wisconsin.
Some of you texting us this morning.
Dennis from Michigan saying, it appears now that we have two back-to-back presidents who claim that we have corrupted justice systems polluting our nation.
Perhaps they have a point.
And then this is Dwayne in Minnesota saying that Joe Biden was correct in pardoning his son, especially after the former president, the president-elect, was pardoned by the Supreme Court.
Again, texting us, you can do that at 202-748-8003 if you wish to share your thoughts that way.
The social sites are there as well, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and then at C-SPANWJ on X if you want to post there.
Thelma from Bronx, the Bronx, New York, Independent Line.
Good morning.
No, I'm a Democrat.
Good morning.
Okay, well, then I'm going to hold you off there.
Ask you to call the correct line.
Again, the line's there: 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and then Independents, 202-748-8002.
Thelma, if you call back on the correct line, we'll get you in.
Six, this is from Ohio, Republican line.
Bill, go ahead.
Yes, I think that the best thing for Joe to do would just be to go ahead and pardon Donald Trump.
And that way, as I take all the rest of this off the table for the incoming president, thank you.
How so?
Okay, he's gone.
Let's go to this is from Lavelle Lavelle in Maryland.
Democrats, I hope I'm saying your name right.
Oh, yeah, don't worry.
Yeah, you're saying my name right, Lascelles.
And yeah, I agree that Joe Biden definitely pardoned his son is one of the greatest things that he's doing because as a parent, you do want to be able to be there for your kid.
And seeing what Trump did, yeah, I don't side with Trump or the Republican Party.
And even with my husband being a Republican, used to, and now an independent, we both see things very different and can still agree what Joe Biden did for his son is the best thing for him and his family.
Lafelle in Frederick, Maryland, giving us a call, sharing his thoughts, just because to separate the terms of what we're talking about, the Atlanta Journal Constitution has this story saying, when it comes to a pardon, saying a pardon is a complete forgiveness of a crime and restores full rights of citizenship.
People who have been convicted of a crime forfeit certain rights, such as to hold public office or vote, because a pardon wipes out the conviction, those rights are restored.
As the previous caller had mentioned, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution says that the president, quote, shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
It goes on to say, when it comes to a commutation of a sentence, saying that a commutation is a reduction of a sentence to a lesser period of time, the president can commute a sentence if he believes the punishment is too severe for the crime.
While a pardon deletes a conviction, a commutation keeps the conviction, but deletes or lowers the punishment.
The conviction stays on record, and the person who receives the commutation does have any rights restored.
More there from the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
Again, we showed you that Justice Department site, which shows you by president how they dealt with the issue of pardons and commutations.
Again, justice.gov, if you want to see that website and check those out for yourself.
Let's hear from New York Independent Line.
This is William, your next up.
Go ahead.
Yes, I just wanted to say that President Biden did not know.
I mean, they had not yet begun to use his son's records against his administration yet when he said that he will not do that.
But then they began to do that.
And that's why he changed his mind.
And I think he's got a right to do so because they pulled quick things like that all of a sudden out of the hat.
And so I just want to leave you with that.
Ed is in Philadelphia.
Republican line.
Good morning.
You're next up.
Hey, good morning, Pedro.
Thank you for taking my call.
You know, I find this whole conversation very interesting.
I am a registered Republican, but I did not vote for Donald Trump in our last election.
I entirely, because I could not put myself behind what the Supreme Court decided to do in terms of basically, you know, not just pardoning the behavior of a president like Nixon, but of Trump himself.
And I guess I'm incredibly curious right now about how this is going to proceed because I don't understand.
If I were a Democrat, I would be mad as hell because this is small ball.
You know, for a lame duck president who has a Supreme Court that's ruled that any act that he does in his official capacity is free from legal prosecution.
I mean, if I was Joe Biden, I'd be trying to hit a lot harder.
You know, I'm not going for a grand slam, man.
Because as soon as Trump gets in there, dude, it's going to be all bets are off.
You want to talk about the weaponization of the Justice Department?
Just you wait and try to see who they're going to try to cook up some sort of actual legal case against based on specious stuff.
It's important to keep in mind that this should have never come to this.
A lot of this Hunter Biden stuff, aside from the gun charge and the tax issue, all of which was pretty much on its way to being adjudicated fairly and properly for what it's worth for epitome kind of thing.
All that stuff with his laptop and stuff was based off somebody having stolen a hard drive.
It wasn't a laptop, it was a hard drive, and they stole it.
What they did was illegal.
This whole thing was bogus.
We shouldn't be talking about that.
What we need to start talking about is that people in my party who are about to enter the seat of power again, we talk all the time about this obsession with law and order, but we don't enforce any of the laws that we don't like.
You want to talk about justice for the but not for me.
One last caller said, How about all the antitrust laws?
How about the gun laws?
Okay.
Okay.
Yep.
Let's hear from Thelma in the Bronx.
Democrats line.
Yes, good morning.
Talking about liar, that's all Trump did, is liar.
And Trump is a 34-felon conviction for sexual abuse.
Talking about Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden only have a gun charge and a tax charge.
Trump is a felon, 34 felon, and a rapist.
Well, that's the thing.
You said sexual abuse, just to clarify.
And when it comes to the president's pardoning of that, what did you think of the pardons themselves?
Joe Biden did the right thing.
As a father, he did the right thing.
I'm happy that he did it.
And the Republican should look in the mirror when they're talking about crime family.
Your only crime family is Trump and his family.
Joe Biden did the right thing, and I'm very happy that he did it.
Thank you.
Okay, Thelma there and the Bronx.
We've showed you some of the things when it comes to how previous presidents have treated this issue.
It was a Pew Research poll that came out that kind of lays it out.
President by president, going back to former President Trump from his term of 2017, 2021, 143 pardons, 94 commutations.
When it comes to former President Obama, 212 pardons, 1,715 commutations.
George W. Bush, 189 pardons, 11 commutations.
When it comes to former President Bill Clinton, 396 pardons, 61 commutations.
President Bush the Sr., George H.W., 74 pardons, 3 commutations.
And Ronald Reagan, 393 pardons, 13 commutations.
And then Jimmy Carter, 534 pardons, and then 29 commutations.
Again, more there if you want to check out that kind of interesting information when it comes to how previous presidents have dealt with this issue.
Las Vegas, Independent Line, you're next up.
Good morning.
You know, I don't think the public would be that divided on this if the news would just cover the news.
For instance, Washington Journal, one of your funders, if I'm not mistaken, is DirecTV, isn't it?
We're funded largely by the cable industry, satellite companies, and the like.
Yeah, it's on your website.
You're funded partly by DirecTV.
Did you know your funder banned the news organization that first acquired Hunter's laptop, which was One America News?
They were the first ones to authenticate Hunter Biden's laptop.
And your funder actually banned them.
Anybody can look that up.
Now, online, it's going to say it's because they're a conspiracy network and this and that.
But you actually have to be a person that's watched them yourself.
And I'm a lifelong Democrat and I was turned off.
Hold on, I'm going to stop you right there because you're calling on our independent line.
So you got your statement out.
Again, the way we are funded by cable, funded by satellite companies who contribute to this cause of bringing you information, particularly when it comes to events of Washington and everything else, we are proud to have that support from them.
And over the years, their consistent support when it comes to the issues regarding coverage of the news and issues of politics, especially as the way we do it here at C-SPAN.
But also, as you know, we have been asking you, the public, over the last couple of days and weeks and months to publicly assist us if you wish to do so.
And because of that, Giving Tuesday, as it's known, is coming up this week.
And you have a chance to give us some assistance directly if you wish.
In fact, your chance goes twice as far.
A generous supporter has told us that they will match the first $10,000 in donations, doubling the impact of donations on that Giving Tuesday.
Again, by supporting us, you can help ensure transparent, no-spin coverage of the government.
If you wish to do that yourself, go ahead and do that.
If you click the QR code there, you can go right to the information that will lead you to that.
You can visit our website at ch-span.org/slash donate to make that gift as well.
Again, on this Giving Tuesday coming up, we appreciate any assistance that you would offer this network.
Let's hear from Don, Don, on our Republican line in California.
Go ahead.
Yeah, this is one more nail in the coffin of the Democratic Party that he was pardoned just because he's the son of the president.
Not because he was unfairly convicted.
Not because he's lived a good life because he sure hasn't.
Not because he was worthy of a pardon because he wasn't.
He was pardoned merely because he was the son of the president.
And I'll guarantee you this: every staffer, every appointee, every cabinet member is going to walk out of that White House with a pardon because they're all scared out of their shorts about what Trump is going to do to them.
This is ridiculous.
And please, please, Democrats, don't chant nobody is above the law anymore because obviously there are people above the law.
You just got rubbed in your face with a pardon.
I mean, this is ridiculous, Pedro.
This should be an outrage, but instead, everyone's going to say, oh, he's a drug addict.
We should feel sorry for him.
No.
He's lived a horrible life.
He's a mean person.
He's done crimes, abused people.
And he's a bad person.
Okay.
And he won't take a pardon.
We'll go to Kerry, Kerry in Texas, Democrats line.
Hi.
Good morning, Pedro.
Thank you for taking my call.
If I might, real quick, I really wish you guys would do away with the independence line.
You can clearly hear that these folks that call in are using it as an overflow line.
They're not really independent.
So that being said, to address the question at hand, President Biden was absolutely 100% correct to pardon his son, Biden.
He is also correct that it was really all political.
Anyone else facing those types of charges, yes, they probably would have been convicted.
There definitely would have been some punishment there, but nothing to the degree as to what was done with Hunter.
Now, before you ask me the next question, was it Yes, special treatment.
Absolutely, yes, it was.
But I think that the other side kind of loses the moral high ground in being upset about that and claiming that when you look at the people that Donald Trump pardoned.
He pardoned his own son's father, his own son-in-law's father, Charles Kushner.
That was clearly because of his association to him.
He pardoned Michael Flynn.
He pardoned Steve Bannon.
He pardoned Dinesh D'Souza.
He pardoned people that were close to him in his orbit that had supported him.
And you can only look at that as payback.
The other thing I'd like to say, too, to those that say, oh, well, now that opens the door for Trump to pardon whoever he wants, Trump was already going to pardon whoever he wants.
He already said that he will pardon the people from January the 6th.
In fact, he wanted to throw him a party at Mar-a-Lago.
So let's kind of stop with all of this, be factual in terms of what we're talking about here, people.
He was correct, and that's it.
Okay.
David is up next.
And Maryland, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Yes.
Good morning, and I thank you for taking my call.
And I just want to say there's a scripture that says that who, when Jesus confronted the people who wanted to stone the baby, he said, Who among you have not sinned?
I'm saying to the American family, I love you all.
But all of us have done something we need to be pardoned for.
Perhaps we need to take this time and examine ourselves, not as Democrats and senators or Republicans.
But let me ask how that particularly relates to the president's action towards his son.
Any loving father, God pardoned us.
Any loving father has been look out for his family, his son.
Whatever.
God forgave us.
We need to examine our hearts, all of us.
We, number one, we need to examine ourselves to hate it and defeat y'all.
We need to take this time, not praise me, let's just need to stand up because we all have done something that we need to be pardoned.
Okay.
Okay.
Joe is next in Woodbridge, Virginia.
Go ahead.
Hey, Pajo.
Thanks for taking my call.
Republican line, I should say.
Go ahead.
Yeah, lifelong Republican.
I'm not surprised of the pardon.
I really don't have a problem with it.
You know, I believe anyone who receives a pardon who's been convicted of a crime is special treatment.
So, you know, in a way, you could flip-flop the question, you know, about special treatment.
So I'm not surprised.
I guess the point I want to make, though, is I don't think it was constitutionally legal.
And I would have the Trump team send that to the Supreme Court.
I think the pardon on convicted crimes are valid, but the blanket pardon on crimes that he has not been charged or convicted of, I think that is something that could go that could the Trump administration can investigate, find new crimes, charge Hunter Biden, and let it go to the Supreme Court.
Hunter Biden was not the president.
He doesn't have presidential immunity.
He's just a private citizen who committed crimes.
The laptop has been proven now to be real.
It wasn't Russian disinformation.
And there's a lot of things on that laptop, like child prostitution and drug use that I believe Hunter Biden could be charged for.
So I don't think that giving him a blanket pardon on crimes that he hasn't been charged for yet is constitutionally legal.
Okay.
Okay, okay, one more call.
Albert in New Jersey, Democrats line.
Yes, I think that pardons should be eliminated because everybody and his brother is getting pardons now.
And I think by the time the midterms turn up, in two years, we'll see who Donald Trump is.
And hopefully we can survive after the midterms.
God bless America.
Okay, Albert, I'm finishing off this hour of calls.
Thanks for all who participated.
Here's what to watch out for on the networks today, right after this program.
If you're interested in the actions of the Supreme Court, the court considers a case from the Food and Drug Administration's rejection of flavored vape products and make concerns about their use amongst children and teens.
That oral argument set to start at 10 o'clock on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now on our mobile app, and then later on this afternoon at 1 o'clock, the Russian-Ukraine war and examination.
It will feature the former Ukrainian President Petro Petershenko, and he will discuss the country's ongoing war with Russia and the role that U.S. and NATO support.
That's one o'clock on C-SPAN, our app C-SPANNOW and C-SPAN.org.
Coming up next, this Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina at the Hudson Institute, will talk about the state of the Middle East in an examination there that clock this afternoon.
And then you can follow along on C-SPAN 2 if you wish.
And then the 250th founding of America, its birthday in 2026 also.
A lot of activities coming up, but coming up next, a discussion of how Democrats are binding together after the election to see what happens during the Trump administration.
Sky Perryman of the group Democracy Forward joins us for that discussion.
And later on in the program, we will hear from Abundan Institute's Taylor Barkley discussing oil drilling and energy policies and the incoming Trump administration.
Those discussions coming up on Washington Journal.
There is something for every C-SPAN fan when you let your fingers do the shopping during our Cyber Monday sale.
Going on right now at C-SPANShop.org, our online store.
Save up to 35% off site-wide.
Save on hoodies, sweatshirts, glassware, mugs, and more.
And every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
Shop C-SPAN Cyber Monday sale going on now with up to 35% off at cspanshop.org or scan the code on the right.
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.
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 policy is debated and decided, all with the support of America's cable companies.
C-SPAN, 45 years in counting, powered by cable.
Washington Journal continues.
Our first guest in the morning is Sky Perryman.
She is with Democracy Ford.
She's the president and CEO of the organization, talking about the incoming Trump administration.
Good morning to you.
Hey, thanks for having me.
How would you describe your group to other people?
Well, we're a nonpartisan legal organization.
We were founded in the wake of the 2016 election last time when it became clear in the early days of the first Trump administration that there were a range of things the administration was pursuing that were really harmful to people and communities.
So our organization is principally a legal one.
We go to court and we represent people and communities in defending their rights.
So the New York Times said that, saying when describing your group and those affiliated with you, call you a liberal legal group.
Is that a correct description?
You know, people give us all kinds of labels, but we are nonpartisan.
We work with a really diverse array of people and communities across the country.
We work with teachers, parents, doctors, you know, researchers, conservationists, voters, really all across the board representing the vast, diverse array of the American people.
Would that be towards a conservative viewpoint or a progressive viewpoint?
How would you break that down amongst those that support you?
Sure.
I mean, I think on a continuum there, we're going to be a bit more on the progressive side.
What we have seen, though, in this new era of American life is that there is just a lot that are uniting traditional conservatives, traditional liberals, traditional progressives, a real commitment to democracy and to the rule of law.
So we find ourselves with really interesting coalitions at times representing people that are much more conservative on the spectrum, and then at times representing people that are much more liberal.
Overall, the coalition and its concerns about the incoming administration, how would you characterize those concerns?
I think we have a deep concern that the president-elect campaigned, of course, on a platform where he really distanced himself from some of very extreme proposals, such as the Heritage Foundation-backed Project 2025, because the American people of all stripes, whether liberal, conservative, or independent, really rejected that type of extremism.
But now we're already seeing in these early days of the transition a number of appointments coming right out of that Project 2025 playbook.
And so we are very concerned for all people in the country that this administration may accelerate the very thing that the president-elect and the vice president-elect sought to distance themselves from in the campaign.
So we've been working on preparing to respond to that on behalf of people and communities across the country using all the tools our courts provide and our Constitution provide to do that.
Give me For instance, something that you see as a possibility.
So, as one example, we've seen a lot of headlines about plans to really hollow out the United States Civil Service.
That is, these are individuals that swear an oath to the Constitution to protect and to do the work of the American people.
Everybody wants government to work more efficiently, that we all do.
But what we know is that in countries like ours, where there is a robust civil service, it's actually much more efficient and less prone to corruption than in countries where our civil servants are politicized or swear loyalty oaths.
If that type of policy were to be implemented, Schedule F or other types of policies, we believe there are legal problems with that, and we would intend on likely taking legal action if they ignore the law and try to undermine the ability of our government to work for people.
With that example, what's the main legal problem in your mind?
Well, there are multiple problems.
We don't know exactly how they will go about doing it, but of course, there are existing protections in place for our civil service that Congress has long put in place, including additional protections that the Biden administration put in place in April.
In addition, having outsiders from government, you know, billionaire outsiders advising the government is something that you have to follow a lot of processes in order to be able to do.
We have transparency laws in this country that really require that if people are influencing government and policy, that there be certain disclosures and certain policies.
It's not clear that the administration will abide by those laws.
And so, those are the kinds of things we're watching.
I don't know if it's a legal issue, but you have this Department of Government efficiency, not a full-fledged department, not within the government created.
And are there legal issues with the existence of the body itself?
Well, we believe that, first of all, that body doesn't exist, and they're out saying that it does exist, which is a problem on a range of issues.
But certainly, if there was an attempt to create some type of body that was going to influence government, these commissions, there were a number of corrupt and unlawful commissions that the first Trump administration set up that people were able to successfully sue and challenge in court.
And so, those are the types of things that we will be watching on behalf of many people throughout the country.
Sky Perryman is our guest.
And if you want to ask her questions about these efforts of her group, you can call us on the lines: 202-748-8000 for 8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents 202-748-8002.
You can text us at 202-748-8003.
You post on social sites on Facebook as X as well.
How did the group get started in this effort, particularly after with this last election?
What was the strategy after the election and going forward?
Well, you know, we really viewed what we saw in the first Trump administration, and then, of course, what was epitomized on January 6th as a deeply concerning threat, not just to policies that people care about, that people may agree or disagree on, but to our overall system of government and our democracy and to the American people as a whole.
And so, several years ago, we started looking and monitoring this sort of coalition of very far-right groups, many of them you see on that Project 2025 Heritage Foundation plan, to understand what they were planning should they seek to obtain influence in the highest office in the country in the presidential election.
That resulted in a lot of groups coming together with concerns that there would be deep threats to the American people, to kitchen table issues such as worker protections and wages, fair wages, education.
And so, we just began thinking about what types of responses the American people would have.
Of course, one response they have is the voting booth.
And we saw that in this last election where when Americans of all stripes rejected Project 2025, it became this toxic lightning rod.
We saw the president-elect distance himself on the campaign trail, say he didn't know who these groups were, what they were going to do.
And of course, now we're seeing him go back on that word.
And so I'm really glad that groups had been thinking about how we would use the tools that our Constitution and democracy provide to enable people and communities across the country to respond.
What does the legal team that you're forming or the people involved in that look like at this stage?
We have a number of lawyers on staff at Democracy Forward who have gone to court for the last seven to eight years on behalf of the American people, both in the federal level and in state and local communities.
And then there are hundreds of organizations who are lending their efforts to this.
If they're organizations that are concerned about environmental and climate quality, organizations involved that are concerned about individual rights and the ability of people to express views that may not be popular, right?
And so all of those groups are really planning their own strategies and then coordinating with one another to make sure that the ground is covered for people and communities in this time.
So any action by the president that your group doesn't agree with, you're going to have lawyers in court to push back against.
I wouldn't say agree with, right?
Because there's a lot of things.
Democracy is a kind of, we all have to deal with things we don't agree with.
But we certainly don't believe that the incoming administration should ignore the law.
And we certainly believe that the American people are entitled to leadership in this country that represents their values, including when they were clear in this last election cycle that the extremism of Project 2025 was really not something that anybody, liberal, conservative, or independent, wanted.
And so if we see an acceleration of those policies and those policies ignore the law, you bet you'll see us in court.
How complicated is the effort not only with the Republican president in the White House but Republicans controlling now the House and the Senate?
You know, I think that this is really a moment for the American people to make their voices heard.
We've already seen that the president had to back away from one of his nominees already as a result of there just not being the legislative mandate for that.
And so this is an important time for us as Americans, regardless of what political party you may align with or what political persuasion you may align with, to really ensure that our elected lawmakers at all levels are hearing the voices of the people and holding the executive branch to account should they violate the law or engage in activities that they promised on the campaign trail that they wouldn't do.
This is Sky Perryman of Democracy Forward.
Before we take you some calls, how is your organization funded?
We are funded by individuals across the country.
We get a lot of grassroots organizations.
We also have individual institutions like foundations that also make grants for particular projects or issues.
Let's hear from Beth.
Beth joins us from Florida, Republican Line for Sky Perryman.
Beth, good morning.
You're on with our guests.
Go ahead.
Good morning.
Yes, I am a lifelong Republican.
Been registered as a Republican since 1972.
I've worked on presidential and other campaigns for the Republican Party over the years.
I want to thank Skye for what she does.
She's an amazing woman.
She's out there fighting for all of us.
The Republican Party is going to have to ask for forgiveness from God for what they have done.
Okay.
And do you have a question for our guests?
Can I finish?
Well, do you have a question for our guest?
Beth, and I don't mean to interrupt.
You're on now.
Do you have a question for our guest, please?
I don't really have a question for her.
I just want to thank her for what she does.
But honestly, Republicans, think about what you have been doing.
Okay, Beth.
Thank you.
Thanks, Beth.
I'm sorry.
That question was a little hard for me to hear.
She just praised your effort and the efforts of the.
Yes, I heard that.
Well, thank you, Beth, for calling in.
Yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions, of course.
Joe from North Carolina, Democrats line.
Hello.
Yes, I'm concerned about what it is this young lady and her organization can do to stop the thugs from January 6th from being let out of prison.
If I did it as an African American and as a Muslim, I would have been dead before I entered the Capitol.
There's no reason for these people to be getting out and walking around.
And I would like that Joe Biden look down and see a little action in his pelvis the way he has about his son's problem and do something about this because the Supreme Court gave him the power to do so.
Thank you.
Thank you, Joe.
You know, I'll just say I think we're all concerned, of course, about the incoming administration's disregard for elements of the rule of law and the fact that we've heard at least the president-elect say that he intends to pardon a number of the individuals that were involved on January 6th.
That's not a hypothetical thing.
I know we all experienced grave concern for our nation when we saw what happened on January 6th.
And we're sitting here, Pedro and I are sitting here sort of in the shadows of the Capitol.
And it's, you know, it's, of course, very real when we think about that.
And so thank you for calling in.
I think we're deeply concerned about how the incoming administration will use their pardon power or other executive powers.
And it's important, though, that the American people really make their voices heard, including to their members of Congress.
There are a number of members of Congress who have not been active in seeking to hold people accountable for that day.
And I think that that's going to be a really important lever for people to ensure that they're really talking to their elected representatives about that.
The caller had mentioned it, but when it came to the idea of what the Supreme Court did when it came to former President Trump and this idea of immunity, how does that impact, do you think, him going into office now?
And can you start by saying what you think the Supreme Court actually did versus what people think they did?
Yeah.
Well, I mean, the Supreme Court in the US v. Trump, Trump versus U.S. decision, it was a really concerning and unprecedented decision in terms of the way it looked at presidential power.
But it did say that the president is not immune for, you know, for unofficial acts, but for official acts.
And so there will be a debate about what acts, sort of what line various acts fall on.
And of course, that's it's deeply concerning because in our country, we know, again, Americans of all stripes, when you look at polling across the board, do not believe that any individual should be above the law, including the president of the United States.
But one thing that is really important is that Supreme Court decision did not apply to people who may work for the president or others in the government.
It is strictly focused on that executive office.
And I think that that is going to be a really important thing to bear in mind and for us to be making sure that we're holding people accountable across the government in the executive branch or otherwise that are ignoring the law to the detriment of people and communities.
Let's hear from Mike.
Mike is in Alaska, Independent Line for our guest.
Go ahead.
Yes.
Good morning, Pedro.
Good morning, Skye.
Skye, I am so glad that Trump won.
We're keeping people like you suppressed because you've ruined this country.
You've weaponized the IRS, FBI, CIA, NSA, NIH, the WHO, the CDC, completely weaponized by people like you, Skye.
And I'm really sorry you have your point of view because you are so mistaken.
You know that when a nation slaughters the unborn, they schedule their own execution.
Abortion has to be stopped 100% because, well, I would say almost, because only 0.08% is for medical necessity.
The rest is for convenience.
So women need to close their legs and stop.
Hold on, caller.
Hold on.
Let's stop you there.
And what question do you have for the guests specifically?
Do you really know what the term progressive means?
Because I don't think you do, Skye.
I would like to know your definition, and I would like an answer.
I would like to be able to answer this after you answer my question.
We'll leave it there.
Thanks.
Just what the term progressive means.
I mean, fundamentally, in this country, we have been on a project of moving forward.
This is a country that was founded on a lofty ideal that happiness and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be accessed by everyone.
But we've fallen short over the years of that ideal from our founding until now.
And so the project, I think, of our work as people and as citizens in a democracy, I'm not a member of the government, I'm a citizen here, is to really be on that project of moving forward.
And so I think that to me would epitomize what we would call as progress-oriented or progressive in this country.
John is next.
In Texas, go ahead.
Good morning.
There's so many issues.
I don't know where to begin.
But first, let's talk about progressivism.
Is it progressivism for a boy to walk into a girl's bathroom and take a bath in front of everybody because he thinks he's a girl?
I would hope not.
And my main point here is that here you want to try to protect and give the citizens the right to protest their government, protect their rights.
We just overwhelmingly voted against your agenda.
Okay, the people have spoken.
So you need to take a learn, take a hard look in the mirror, and understand that we don't like what you want to do to this country.
Okay, you can sit there and put a, you know, put lift on a pig and try to make it look like a pig.
But the reality is, your people do not like your agenda.
We're against it.
We don't want boys and girls' bathroom.
We don't want illegal aliens crossing into the border like with an open door.
And if you don't like it, that's just tough.
Get over it.
You lost.
We won.
Okay.
Thank you.
I think the one thing I would say, just to make sure we're all following what happened in the last election appropriately and all over the ballot, is that we saw in a number of states, in states like Florida, in states like Missouri, in states like Arizona, we saw a number of issues on the ballot, including in deep red states.
You saw the majority of people that voted in Florida vote to protect reproductive rights access.
It did not pass because it was a 60% threshold.
But last time I checked my numbers, that issue got more votes than Ron DeSantis did last time, and I believe more votes than Donald Trump did on the top of the ticket in the state that he carried.
That's the same in Deep Red Missouri, where we saw people protect reproductive health care access.
We saw issues like climate win in Louisiana.
We saw issues like public education win.
And so I think it's important for us to separate the candidates from the issues because what we saw in this last election was no evidence that there is a mandate for this extremeism in terms of issues.
And we actually even saw the president-elect have to run away from the association with Project 2025 and that extreme agenda.
And so I think this is a good time for Americans to reflect on what we believe on the issues and how we're going to build a government to get us there.
So when the caller says things like we won, that gives us the mandate to do it.
Yeah, I mean, I think that we saw no evidence that there is a mandate for extremism.
We actually saw a presidential candidate win only after he had to go around and distance himself from an extreme agenda, flip-flop on issues like abortion access.
And we saw on the issues, including in deep red areas.
And I'm from Texas, I'm from Texas too.
And including in deep red areas, we saw the issues that the American people, there's a lot more that unites us, actually, on the issues than what divides us.
And I think we need to look at the election in that way.
Certainly we have a presidential president-elect that did win, won the popular vote, won the electoral vote.
We have a vice president that accepted those results.
There were no allegations of tampering or any type of thing that we've had to deal with in prior elections where he didn't win the popular vote.
And now it's really about making sure that the American people can make their voices heard.
So I don't believe there's a mandate for extremism, even with a candidate that did win by margins in certain states.
This is Skye Perryman joining us, by the way, with Democracy Forge.
She serves as their president and CEO.
We have a question from X about civil servants and government saying, and this is the question, is there any room for civil service to be more efficient?
You know, I think that I think everybody says that.
I think you've even seen the Biden administration and this Congress seek to put things in place to enhance efficiency in various agencies and across the federal government.
But what we know, and you can go look this up and check me on it, what we know is that systems that rely on civil servants that owe a duty to the American people and to the Constitution and do not owe a duty of loyalty and the way they get their job is not through kissing up to somebody in some fancy office somewhere, but through our civil service process.
In societies that have those independence of the civil service, our government functions with less corruption and with more efficiency than in societies where the people that are doing that work day to day are ones that may have gotten it through a political favor, that may be just swearing an oath of loyalty.
And so I think that we need to really think hard if you're truly concerned about efficiency.
The answer is not to politicize our civil service and to create sort of what was called the spoil system, which is something the United States moved away from in the 1800s as a result of these concerns.
This is John, John, in Washington, D.C., Democrats line for Sky Perryman.
Go ahead.
Hey, good morning.
Skye, thank you so much for the work that you do.
I think you're a testament to what it means to be a true American.
I just had a quick question about what Democracy Now is doing to prepare for the Trump administration's threats of mass deportation and any legal challenges that Democracy Now is preparing for to protect our undocumented neighbors.
Well, you know, we, of course, are seeing a deep concern for all people in this country, including immigrants who are lawfully in the country and documented, as well as those that are undocumented.
In the coalition that we have been working in, there are a number of organizations that have made it clear that they will take legal action and are building those cases.
Organizations such as the ACLU, a variety of immigrants' rights and immigrants' justice organizations.
I would encourage you to follow their work and follow ours too.
We, in the last administration, had to take a range of legal actions because the administration was relying on people in positions like at the Department of Homeland Security that were not correctly appointed.
And they were instituting a range of policies that were invalid.
And we had to invalidate those because they were ignoring the rule of law.
And so I think that you'll definitely see work from a range of organizations.
And you can go to democracy2025.org, which is the coalition's website, to see more about those plans and the organizations that are involved.
Kathy Kathy from Delaware, Republican line.
Hi.
Good morning.
I'm just wondering where this organization was when the Biden administration was breaking all kinds of laws, some of which have been shot down by the Supreme Court.
The corruption in this government, this administration, is going to stop because we finally have the word of the people.
We have spoken.
We want to get rid of the administration and start a new way of running the government where we can trust that the things that are going to be done will be done legally.
And nothing that this organization or any Democrat is going to say is going to dampen the spirits of the American people who want a new government.
And I appreciate the fact that you're letting me speak.
Thank you.
Kathy in Delaware.
I mean, I would definitely agree that nothing is going to dampen, nothing should dampen the spirits of the American people, who I believe have spoken and have said on a range of issues, like I said, on those ballot initiatives and elsewhere, that there is not mandate for this extremism.
In terms of your question regarding Biden administration policies, I would just refer you to our website where you can look at the ways in which we've engaged in the courts under both the first Trump administration as well as under the current administration, and then, of course, how at democracy2025.org we're planning for the future.
Can you offer an example of your legal action against the current administration?
Sure.
I mean, we have maintained a range of our lawsuits that the federal government, under the leadership of President Biden, has continued to defend from the prior administration.
It doesn't switch over just like everyone thinks it does across a range of issues, whether that is on the environment, whether it's on a variety of health and welfare kind of regulations.
And then I'll also say that we proudly were in court on a number of areas on behalf of people and communities, major medical associations, teachers groups, legal scholars defending this administration's actions where the far-right legal movement was in court challenging and many times in judge shop districts, challenging the government's actions.
So for instance, lawsuits like the one we saw in Amarillo, Texas, where there was an attempt to undermine the FDA's ability to approve and regulate medication abortion mifipristum.
We were there alongside the administration defending the authority of FDA on behalf of a company, on behalf of a drug manufacturer, with respect to a range of other policies, such as minimum wage and fair wages for federal contractors.
We were there on behalf of a range of workers groups defending those policies against far-right state attorneys general that were suing the Biden administration in court.
And so I think you can look at our website to see more, but we are in court frequently and both to defend positive policies that are the result of the democratic process that we believe are lawful and consistent with the law and need that defense, as well as to challenge overreaches of that authority at the state and local level or even at the executive level.
I want to ask you about these possible new faces coming into key legal positions in the Trump administration, Pam Bondi possibly becoming the Attorney General.
What's your impression of her in the position?
Well, I mean, I think we've seen a trend with the appointees that have been named so far, which is there is definitely a real focus on loyalty.
We have a deep concern around the range of things that we saw in Project 2025, where there are plans to weaponize the Department of Justice against the American people to reverse the way civil rights or other things are enforced in this country.
I'm going to be listening very carefully in her confirmation hearings to understand what she would purport to do to be able to defend the independence of the Department of Justice.
It's concerning for that than something that you hear that's a red flag.
Yeah, I mean, I think that many people have looked at her record in Florida and felt as if she didn't take action in certain instances because of political alignment.
So, looking back there, but we'll be looking at those confirmation hearings to see how she answers questions.
And it'll be important that senators really ask those tough questions because this is an administration that has been an incoming administration that has not been shy about their plans now for what they intend to do to the Department of Justice.
And I think that this is another place where the American people, not lawyers, not politicians, but the American people have a real role to make clear to their elected representatives in the Senate what is acceptable for an attorney general.
Within that, the possibility of Kash Patel becoming the director of the FBI.
I think that is another highly concerning appointment that we saw, as well as just the way that the incoming administration is talking about and sort of seeking to play games with the FBI.
There's been a range of concerns about their desire to politicize the FBI.
And so, again, we'll have to watch that.
I think Kash Patel is another place where it's going to be very important that the American people make their voices heard.
We've already seen the president-elect have to walk away from his first nominee for attorney general.
So, it's not that people are without power to make their voices heard and to be able in this moment to demand more.
And I think it's going to be really necessary, particularly for that appointment.
All that being said, does your organization specifically reach out to senators at this time expressing these concerns?
So, we don't, we typically do not get involved in the appointments process.
There's a range of organizations that do a lot of advocacy around legislative advocacy.
We're the lawyers that go to court, and so we are watching these.
Of course, we have from our experience.
We know the importance of an independence, you know, we know about the importance of the independence of these institutions.
We know about the harms that can occur when they're not independent.
And so, we're watching from that perspective and are certainly able to educate.
But this is not, that's not the major focus of our work.
This is John.
John is in Illinois, independent lying.
You're on with our guest.
Go ahead.
I'm very sorry to say that I just saw some of the greatest hypocrisy in my life.
You talked about the FDA fighting, fighting on behalf of the FDA and the anti-abortion drugs or the pro-abortion drugs, whatever you want to call them.
What about the 50 million, now 60 million, chronic pain patients who have been denied FDA-approved medications?
The Support Act, which pays doctors to take people off of these medications and put them into non-FDA-approved but cleared procedures, giving them full price and a 6% bonus, and why states like mine in Illinois have to try to pass the bill HB 5373 in order to get actual medical care.
I have a terminal illness because I was poisoned by America's most profitable drug clash, Statins.
And yet, I've been forced to suffer ever since Donald Trump's public health emergency.
An opioid commission was created and manipulated the CDC's dosage guidelines in order to establish prosecutorial justification for the future.
Okay, guests, I guess, all that said, what would you like our guests to address specifically?
I just want to know how it was okay for these people to ignore 50 million voters.
Okay, got your point across.
And let me expand the healthcare space, how your work might deal with that.
I mean, first of all, let me say I'm so sorry to hear of your illness, and I hope that you're able to get the care that you need and can get and can get as well as possible.
And so, thank you for sharing that personal experience with us.
I think the healthcare space, there's a real, there's really high stakes here.
So just to go back to the prior caller's question, the health care space is a place where we are currently right now defending alongside the Department of Justice, but we represent a lot of doctors groups that are defending the Medicare drug price negotiation, a provision of the Inflation Reduction Act, which of course enables Medicare to negotiate directly in order to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, not just for those on Medicare, but it ends up affecting the overall market.
This is a huge achievement, and it's one that has been challenged in court by a range of special interests.
Right now, the Biden administration has won in those challenges, and you know, we'll have to see: will the Department of Justice continue to defend under the Trump administration this monumental policy, which we do believe and many federal courts have agreed, is lawful.
That's something that we're watching.
And if they will not continue to defend that, there may be legal action that needs to be taken to intervene in those cases to make sure that those defenses are there.
I think that abortion access, reproductive health care access, access to health care across the board is something that is deeply troubling when we look at the incoming administration's record and when we look at how that record compares to how people voted in this last election, including conservative people in deep red states that understand that medicine is really beyond politics as much as people seek to politicize it.
And so we are watching a range of those.
A lot of the work that we've been fortunate to do has been on behalf of doctors, of health care professionals, or of patients that need care.
And we're working to make sure that people and communities have the resources they need if there are, if the incoming administration ignores the law and reverses course and really seeks to undermine health care access for all.
And Marilyn on Democrats line, this is Deborah.
Yes.
Hi.
Good morning.
My question is, it seemed like the Trump administration have a lot of power and it seemed like you'll be fighting all the time.
Do you think you have enough power to, I mean, the good, not good, but the problems they have, will you be able to fight these problems with all the power that it seemed like this administration had?
I think the House and the Senate is Republican.
And that's my question.
Well, I think that's a great question.
And I'll just say, if you take one thing away from this discussion today, I hope it is that we all need to be looking in ourselves and at the power that we have as individual citizens and as people that have really inherited this system of government and this democracy.
I think it's going to be hard in the days ahead.
I'm not, you know, we do not have rose-colored glasses about what is ahead of us.
We've already been seeing, I mean, just within a period of a few weeks, we saw a president-elect that was saying he wanted nothing, you know, didn't know anything about Project 2025, now seeking to appoint people that were the architects of it and could accelerate it.
But I will say that I do think that there is a real reason to have hope, and that is in the work that the American people have to do in this time.
We have already seen this president with an aligned, you know, understanding that he is moving into an aligned Congress have to abandon one of his major appointments with the Attorney General.
We saw in the prior administration, this administration lost nearly 80% of the time in court because they ignored the law across a range of issues.
I am not saying that people didn't get hurt, and I'm also not saying that there aren't some policies that just, you know, an incoming administration gets to implement.
They're lawful and they get to implement them even if some disagree with that.
But there are a range of tools that can be used, and it's going to be very important that people not give up hope because what we know about countries like ours and about movements like this far-right movement in the United States is that there's a real focus in that movement to try to get people to say, oh, the die has been cast.
There's nothing that can be done.
And we know the people were so strong, it required that even in the election he had to distance himself from these extreme policies.
And so we're going to need everyone. doing their part to make their voices heard in this new era as well.
The Senate returns this week.
They'll be taking up judicial nominations.
What are your concerns about the future of judicial nominations in the incoming Trump administration?
Well, I think, first of all, it's really important the Senate confirm as many nominees as they can in this period.
They actually did that in the prior administration as well.
And so it's important, and we have called for it's important that the Senate do whatever they need to do, working holidays, overtime, whatever needs to happen.
People are doing that across the country to confirm as many nominees as possible.
But judicial nominations are a really important focus.
I mean, one, I'll just say President Biden has been able to appoint nearly 220 pro-democracy judges to the federal courts across the country.
And the federal judicial landscape looks a lot better for those that care about democracy, the rule of law, and progress from that sort of perspective.
They look a lot better today than they did on the first day of the Biden administration.
And that's an important thing to remember.
But we did see in the prior administration, we saw President Trump then appoint a range of very extreme judges to the court.
We saw that with respect to the Supreme Court, and we also saw it with respect to lower federal courts, where you've seen district court judges in places like Amarillo, Texas, really, you know, issue decisions that this Supreme Court, which is not known for its progressive stance, had to say 9-0 in the last term, were not based on law and did not belong in the courts.
And so I do believe that that confirmation process, the nomination process as President Trump takes office, that's going to be another place where it's going to be important that people are making clear to their senators and to their lawmakers what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in terms of the people that hold the nation's trust in our federal judiciary.
We will hear from Mark in Maryland Republican line.
Mark, good morning.
Hey, good morning, Pedro.
So there was a caller a little bit earlier who asked for the definition of progressives, and you gave a very misleading answer.
Progressives actually believe that they want to progress beyond the Constitution because they actually have the hoopris to believe that they know better than the founding fathers.
And ma'am, since you've been on, you keep mentioning the word democracy.
I don't really understand why you keep doing that.
It seems like you're spreading misinformation or some other Orwellian word when you call America a democracy.
The word democracy doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution, and yet you seem to try to be hiding behind this idea that you're protecting America from Donald Trump, who the narrative is that he's a usurper or something.
You all are actually the usurpers.
You kind of took a talking point from Woodrow Wilson, who started calling America a democracy.
We're not a democracy, not even a little bit, ma'am.
So what's the question?
Ready?
What's the question?
He's gone.
I just, I love, you know, President Lincoln defined our country and our democracy as a government of, by, and for the people.
And I think that really represents what America is striving to do.
He said in his time that was the project that we were striving to do.
We're still on that project.
You know, whatever label anybody wants to use for that project, whether you call it progress oriented democracy, a constitutional republic, that's really.
That's really the project that that we're on as people, and I think that there's a lot of work to do there.
Uh, this is from Patricia in New York Democrats line for our guest.
Good morning, good morning, you're on, go ahead.
My question is, 52 percent of Americans voted for our now president former uh president, Trump?
Does that mean the cabinet that he's picking?
Will they are there against our democracy?
Will we be living in a dictatorship or what's going to happen to the country with the cabinet people that he's appointing?
Well, I think you know um.
I'll just i'll make a few comments there.
One um, that cabinet um has to be confirmed by the United States Senate, and so there is a role for the American people.
If there are um individuals that are being appointed or being nominated um that you believe are a threat to American values or to to to, to your day-to-day life, there's a real importance in calling your elected members to ensure that you're making your voice heard, and I think it's important that people remember that these, these cabinet positions, you don't just snap.
The president doesn't get to snap their fingers and um and and all of a sudden, have the cabinet of of their um desire.
Uh, there is a process here where the people have a role.
I do think that there is a reason to be concerned about some of the people that he has said that he has an intent to nominate, in particular, because of the promises and the statements that were made to the American people during the election, where he distanced himself from people and from Project 2025 and is now appointing, for instance, to the Office OF Management AND Budget, one of the core architects of that project.
But it remains to be seen what, what cabinet, he ends up with, as well as what they do, and I think that there is another piece of making our voices heard there, as well as the work in the courts.
I can tell you, some of the things that they have said they seek to do through cabinet positions are things that ignore the law, and that will be important that people and communities use the legal process to push back on that as well, as we see in all you know, as we saw in the last administration as well.
That said, what are your concerns at this state about the possibility of recess appointments to get some of these cabinet members up.
Do you think that's off the table now or?
You know it's hard.
It's hard to read those tea leaves.
We're sitting here right by the Capitol.
I do think that there's a range of problems with recess appointments and, and it seems like that he started backing off a bit of that.
But but we're we're watching that as well and think that that there are a range of of concerns there and potentially even some legal concerns.
Tell me about your organization.
Between now and January 20th, what's the action?
Well, you know we are working every day as new policies and proposals are announced you know they're they haven't gone into effect yet to understand where the new administration will act in in ways that that are a violation of the rule of law.
So that's really our focus.
It's not just every policy that somebody doesn't disagree with.
That's not what we get to do at Democracy FOR, but we're looking at what they're proposing and and where that fits into our legal framework.
There are a range of really important Supreme Court cases that are being heard in the next few weeks, and so we're, you know we have clients in some of those cases that we're working on, and then we work in state and local communities.
I mean, it's not just, it's not just Washington that's in for a change in this next, next year, but a range of state legislative sessions will begin, and in the last, the last sort of range of state legislative sessions, there were some laws that really did exceed what states are able to do, that violated individuals' rights, and so we'll be watching those and we'll be working with communities on the ground to make sure that their legal rights are represented.
You mentioned the Supreme Court, so I want to leave you with this.
What do you think is the future there in this next administration when it comes to the makeup of the court?
Well, People are saying they may anticipate some retirements, judicial retirements.
We'll have to see.
I do think that this is now an area where it's important that the American people be paying attention.
Maybe you could claim in the last administration that people didn't understand the full power of the Supreme Court or the importance of the courts.
I'm told as a lawyer all the time, you know, Skye, people don't care about the courts.
Well, we're now living in a post-Dobbs reality, and we are living in a world where many people's rights are less than they were than just a few years ago because of the way in which the last Trump administration shaped the law and the courts.
And so I think that this is going to be a real area where the American people need to be focused and stay focused, and where we need to be focused as well.
Because I have not seen any evidence that the president-elect would back off extreme appointments.
I think actually we've seen just the opposite.
Democracy4.org is the website for the organization in which Sky Perryman serves as president and CEO.
Ms. Perryman, thanks for your time.
Thanks for having me.
Later on in the program, we're going to hear from the Abundance Institute's Tyler Barkley as he talks about the future of energy policy in the United States.
But first, we return to the question that we started with this morning when it comes to President Biden offering that pardon to his son, Hunter Biden.
You can give your comments, Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
We'll take those calls when Washington Journal continues.
Are you a nonfiction book lover looking for a new podcast?
This holiday season, try listening to one of the many podcasts C-SPAN has to offer.
On QA, you'll listen to interesting interviews with people and authors writing books on history and subjects that matter.
Learn something new on Book Notes Plus through conversations with nonfiction authors and historians.
Afterwards brings together best-selling nonfiction authors with influential interviewers for wide-ranging hour-long conversations.
And on About Books, we talk about the business of books with news and interviews about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors.
Find all of our podcasts by downloading the free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
C-SPAN Now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in Washington, live and on demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
You can also stay current with the latest episodes of Washington Journal and find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV networks and C-SPAN radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
C-SPAN Now is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
Scan the QR code to download it for free today or visit our website, c-span.org/slash c-SPANNOW.
C-SPAN Now, your front row seat to Washington, anytime, anywhere.
The C-SPAN Bookshelf Podcast Feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of C-SPAN's podcasts that feature nonfiction books in one place, so you can discover new authors and ideas.
Each week, we're making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events, and culture from our signature programs about books, Afterwords, BookNotes Plus, and QA.
Listen to C-SPAN's bookshelf podcast feed today.
You can find that C-SPAN bookshelf podcast feed and all of our podcasts on the free C-SPAN Now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcast and on our website, c-span.org slash podcast.
Washington Journal continues.
It was yesterday that President Biden announced that he had offered a pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, the president currently heading to Africa, but before that, putting out a statement regarding the decision to offer this pardon, here's how it reads, in part saying the charges in Hunter Biden's cases came only about after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election.
Then a carefully negotiated plea deal agreed to by the Department of Justice unraveled in the courtroom with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process.
Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter's cases.
No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter's cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son, and that is wrong.
There has been an effort to break Hunter, who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution in trying to break Hunter.
They've tried to break me, and there's no reason to believe it will stop here.
Enough is enough.
Here's the truth.
I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe in raw politics has infected this process, led to a miscarriage of justice.
Again, that's part of the statement released by the White House yesterday, President Biden, on the offering of this pardon, many noting several times in interviews with the press and in front of reporters saying that he would not have taken this action, such as the case in June when a reporter asked him, here was his short response.
With regard to the question regarding the family, I'm extremely proud of my son, Hunter.
He has overcome an addiction.
He's one of the brightest, most decent men I know.
And I am satisfied that I'm not going to do anything.
I said I abide by the jury decision.
I will do that, and I will not pardon him.
So tell us what you think of this pardon: 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents, 2027-8002.
Nancy in Ohio, Republican line on this offering of a pardon to Hunter Biden by the president.
Go ahead.
Yes, good morning.
I wanted to say that there are many fathers whose children are in jail or in prison who would love to give their children a pardon.
And it seems to me that this is a great power thing that President Joe Biden can do this for his son, but we the people cannot do this for our children.
Joe Biden is a person like I am, like the people are who would love to pardon their children who are in jail for next to nothing.
And remember that it was Donald Trump who instigated the first ASTEP act, which got a lot of minority people, black people out of jail for some kind of minute, stupid thing to do with drugs.
I also want to say that I've heard from the Democrats on your show this morning that Trump was indicted by all these charges.
Well, the Democrats in New York created a new law to get Trump.
Okay, it goes beyond what we're talking about, but we'll go to Mary and Virginia, Democrats line.
Hello.
Hi, good morning.
Thank the Lord for answering my call.
I do think Biden should pardon his son before he leaves out of presidency because if he's already in counseling, I'm in the nursing field.
He deserves another chance.
And I fear that he should do this for his son and let his son go to a private counselor, not a public, a private counsel.
But the pardon specifically dealt with specifically dealt with gun charges and tax charges.
Why do you think that applies in what you're saying?
Because other people have done it and they have gotten by with it.
And he's still a young man comparing to me.
And some older people are doing it and they're not charges not being pressed charges against them.
Just like Bill Cosby did wrong towards young people at his age and he got hold on.
Yeah, we'll leave it there.
And thank you, Call again.
The Washington Post highlights the fact that the question of whether to pardon his son has been a difficult one for the president, both personally and politically, in part because one of Democrats' central accusations about the incoming president is that he has sought to manipulate the justice system for his own benefit.
The story going on to say that Mr. Biden has felt protective of his son throughout a life marked by family tragedy.
Hunter and Bo were badly injured in a 1972 car crash that killed their mother and their baby sister, and Bo died of brain cancer.
That in 2015, Biden has said publicly several times that he would not pardon or commute the Hunter sentence in days after the gun trial in Delaware.
When the president was attending a group of seven summit in Italy, he reiterated that he trusted the deliberations of a jury that found his son guilty and would not issue a pardon.
That's part of the reporting from this action that took place yesterday about the pardoning of Hunter Biden by his father, Joe Biden.
Ask me your comments on that on the phone lines on social media as well.
Text us, if you wish, at 202-748-8003.
Let's hear from Maurice in Michigan, Independent Line.
Maurice in the middle.
Hello.
Good morning.
I'm interested in this young lady who had on before, who was justifying everything that the illustrious Biden has done.
And the gentleman has been a consistent liar.
Of course, that's normal for all politicians.
But he says one thing and he does another.
That's typical of the Democrat politician.
It's also typical of most Republican politicians.
So this pardon he's given his son is not a surprise.
It's just par for the course for that clown.
Thank you very much, Spot.
Okay.
From Carol in New Jersey, Democrats line.
Yeah, I think it's great that he's able to pardon Hunter.
I think that the only thing that people really get mad at is that they can't do the same thing for their children, which I wish that we could when it's not that big of a crime.
It seems to me that the only people that the hardcore Republicans don't want to have a gun is Hunter.
It doesn't seem like it's really that big of a crime.
He really didn't hurt anybody.
And that's all I have to say.
Thank you very much for taking my call.
Carol there in New Jersey.
James Comer is the chair of the House Oversight Committee, offered these comments after the information that came out yesterday regarding Hunter Biden, saying Joe Biden has lied from start to finish about his family's corrupt influence peddling activities.
Not only has he falsely claimed that he never met with his son's foreign business associates and that his son did nothing wrong, but he also lied when he said he would not pardon Hunter Biden.
The charges Hunter faced were just the tip of the iceberg and the blatant corruption that President Biden and the Biden crime family have lied about to the American people.
It's unfortunate that rather than come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability.
Again, that's just some of the back and forth that took place yesterday after the release of that.
Some members of Congress giving their thoughts as well.
You can give your thoughts on the phone lines if you wish.
Choose the best line that best represents you.
If you called in the last 30 days, please hold off on doing so.
And when you do call in, if you could mute or turn off your television, that way you can be ready to jump on in.
You can also post a tweet if you wish or post on X and on Facebook and send us a text at 202-748-8003.
New York and Buffalo.
This is Kyle, Republican Line.
Yeah, good morning, C's fan, Pedro.
So this is a parent issue, and I think most parents would agree that they would pardon a child in a situation like this.
I don't know what the big deal is.
If you're on one side, you're against it.
If you're on the other side, you're for it.
So at this time, I'm just bipartisan, I guess.
As a father, I would definitely pardon my child.
You know, no parent wants to see their child in jail, first of all.
And if I had the tool to do it, I definitely do it.
What's his name?
Trump pardoned Collins from our area for insider trading.
So, you know, he was supposed to spend some jail time.
You know, they do it, you know.
So, I mean, hey, that's the power that they got.
And I'm sure most parents would do it.
And like the lady before from Michigan said, you know, they're just jealous that they can.
And I know, I mean, it's not fair, but I mean, that's the power that the president has.
And sure, I mean, we've seen presidents pardon a lot of people for a lot worse.
So kudos for being a good dad.
Okay, Kyle in New York, that same Washington Post started highlighting the fact that, indeed, Mr. Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, the father of Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
That was in December of 2020, shortly after losing his bid for re-election.
He's a real estate developer, pleaded guilty to making false statements to the Federal Election Commission for witness tampering and tax evasion.
Also adding that it was on Saturday that Mr. Trump, now the president-elect, said he would nominate Charles Kushner as the U.S. ambassador to France.
Some of the previous history there when it comes to pardons and commutations, we showed you this website before, but at the Justice Department's website, if you go to justice.gov, there's a section there which lists out all the pardons and commutations of the current and previous presidents.
And you can check that out for yourself when it comes to who these were offered to at justice.gov.
Tanya, in Florida, Independent Line, you're next on these pardons offered, this pardon offered by Joe Biden.
Good morning.
As a parent, I would definitely pardon my child.
But what he said he would not pardon was the fact that he found cocaine in the White House while President Biden was serving.
Okay, I don't think he should serve maybe time in jail, but community service is very much needed.
And I think that that should be taken into effect or however you would see it.
As a parent, like I said, I would pardon, but pardon with, because I did it to my son in seventh grade when he distributed horrific lyrics from PD, who is now also going to court.
And the principal wouldn't give him an assignment.
You know, he was so good.
How can I punish him?
And I said, Mr. Trainer, garbage in, garbage out.
Okay.
And I gave him the job of cleaning the cafeteria for one week because that's where garbage was found.
So I really think that he should have a community service.
Okay.
That's Tanya there in Florida.
Let's hear from Elizabeth in New Jersey, Democrats line.
Hi.
Hi.
I think that Biden did the right thing.
I pardoned his son because if he didn't, he would be aching.
When your child is in trouble, you're right there in trouble with them.
You're not going through the whole process of what they're going through, but you're feeling everything that they're feeling.
So, yes, in order for Biden to have a feel his conscience, a clean conscience, that knowing that his son is going to be home and not behind bars, yes, I think Joe Biden should do that, even though he said he wouldn't, okay, because everybody had changed their mind on issues, okay?
So he needs to pardon his son.
And anybody who said he shouldn't pardon his son, they don't have a heart.
Dave is next.
Dave in New York, Republican line.
Go ahead.
Yeah, I don't think it's a big deal that he pardoned his son.
Anybody would have done the same on either side.
And really, that's it.
Trump's going to, you know, get revenge and pardon the January, some of the January 6th people, which he should.
And that's it.
It's the way it should be.
I would have pardoned my son, and Trump would have pardoned his son if it was him and probably any other politician.
So that's it.
This is the statement from Hunter Biden himself.
Just part of it for you: that I quote, I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction, mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport.
Going on to say, despite all of this, I have maintained my sobriety for more than five years because of my deep faith and unwavering love and support of the family and friends in throes of the addiction.
I squandered many opportunities and advantages in recovery.
We can be given the opportunity to make amends where possible and rebuild our lives if we never take granted the mercy, nay, take for granted the mercy that we have been afforded.
I will never take the clemency that I have been given today for granted.
I will devote the life I have to rebuild to help those who are still sick and suffering.
That's Hunter Biden's statement from yesterday after receiving the pardon from his father.
Let's hear from Travis.
Travis in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Independent line.
All right.
I believe that if you're found guilty of these actions, that you should be held accountable, regardless if your father wants you to do it.
It's about integrity and ethics, which defines the man.
You know, if you're going to free somebody or be able to clear them, you should clear Leonard Peltier.
I mean, he's been wrongfully injusticed and held as a political prisoner for how long and still not released.
From Paul, Richmond, Virginia, Democrats line.
Yeah, hi, good morning.
This, I like what the callers are saying.
I just think that, you know, Biden was definitely correct, that there was a flea deal in place, that he was going to serve time, and that there was a lot of political pressure that was exerted on this process, and that he would continue to be cannon fodder after his father left office, because that would be the only Biden left to attack.
Whether or not I agree whether he committed a crime or it's addiction or anything else, he did take responsibility for his actions and he did stand in front of a judge and was prepared to do so, but that apparently wasn't enough.
So it's a little bit rich with Mr. Kushner being appointed as an ambassador when he was in prison and was pardoned.
So I think there's just a lot of, you know, a lot of talking heads and political play going on right now.
And I think it's going to be for the best to just let everybody just walk away and let things go.
A statement from the president-elect on his Truth Social site to the events of yesterday saying this.
Does the pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J6 hostages who have now been in prison for years?
Such an abuse and miscarriage of justice.
When it comes to the president, the New York Times reporting this morning that President Biden arrived Monday in Cape Verde, an island nation off the coast of Africa for the first stop of the only trip to sub-Saharan Africa of his presidency, a journey shadowed by that decision to pardon his son of tax and gun convictions.
Air Force One touched down for refueling at the airport on the island of Sao on Bright Sunday morning before continuing to Angola.
While waiting for the plane to be ready for the next leg of the flight, Mr. Biden met at an airport lounge with the prime minister of Cabo Verde.
He's scheduled to arrive by evening in Luanda, the Gangolan capital, where he will visit a slavery museum and highlight a new $1 billion rail corridor as a primary example of his administration's plan to help lift the region's economy.
Those are highlights of the trip as the president travels overseas.
This is from Doug, Doug in Falls Church, Virginia, Republican line.
Hey, good morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
I got to be honest, I'm pretty floored by some of the calls I've heard thus far.
So I consider myself a moderate Republican.
I actually voted for Biden in 2020, and I think he's destroying his legacy with his pardon.
These charges are not small.
They are significant, right?
He lied on federal paperwork to get a gun about previous drug charges.
He's failed to pay taxes.
I think it was like over a million dollars.
This is not some small thing.
This is a really, really big deal.
And it's really the question is, I'm a father of two girls.
It's not a question of what I would do as an average person.
It's a question of what is the right thing to do.
And it's not to do this.
It's not to do a pardon that just favors your own.
And the thing that really, really gets me is when these politicians say something that's clearly a lie and clearly the opposite of what they're doing.
Biden claimed, I think, in his pardon that his son was unfairly targeted.
This is the exact opposite.
He had a sweetheart deal where these prosecutors were going to let things go because of statute limitations and pursue something that resulted in really no sentencing of any kind.
And then that was reversed once it became public and subject to scrutiny.
So he's doing the exact opposite.
He's clearly just favoring his own family.
And people have mentioned the Kushner partners under Trump.
That is also wrong.
So I think we all need to really raise our standards here and stop accepting this graft from these politicians.
Okay.
Doug, there in Virginia, just to highlight the fact that Mr. Biden, Hunter Biden, convicted in June by a federal jury in Delaware for lying on a gun purchase form in 2018 when he checked the box saying he was not using illegal drugs and then illegally owning that weapon as a drug user for 11 days separately.
He pleaded guilty in September to nine federal tax charges.
A last-minute plea that came just before the jury selection was scheduled to begin for that trial.
Both cases at the time were prosecuted by special counsel David Weiss, who was named to preserve the case's independence from the Justice Department overseen by Hunter Biden's father.
As the caller highlighted the fact that he went to court, and then when the deal was announced, it was the judge dealing with that.
That asked questions about the deal in question, as the New York Times highlights the fact scuppering the deal that was given to Hunter Biden, saying that it was the judge's actions, not necessarily political pressure.
That's from the New York Times, if you want to read that story there.
Let's hear from David.
David in North Carolina Democrats line.
I don't know.
He pardoned his son for a crime for a crime that other people have done and is still in prison for.
Why can't he pardon all of them?
Okay.
Mary Ann in Indianapolis, Independent Line.
Hi.
Hi.
Thanks for taking my call this morning.
The only thing I want to say is that we keep hearing no one's above the law, whether you're the president or just a single person living here in the United States.
So I guess it really doesn't matter when your peers find you guilty or not guilty.
If you have the ability to pardon someone or get them out of the situation, from now on, everyone should plead a pardon.
I think it's ridiculous.
It's just political.
It's how big you are in this country.
And you can use your power that way.
Another resident of Indianapolis, this is Brian, Republican line.
Hi.
Yeah, I agree that Biden should pardon his son.
He really should.
I mean, that's his son.
He should pardon him.
I understand that everybody's in jail for crimes like these, but that's his son.
And I'm a Republican, and what everybody's missing here is the justice system is infected, like Biden said.
It is bloated, bloated bureaucracy.
And who better to fix that than Kash Patel, Elon Musk, and people like those.
In this case, do you think the justice system is two-tiered?
I think it's two-tiered as to no matter who gets in office and who else to fix that besides Kash Patel.
Okay, Brian there in Indianapolis.
Morgan up next.
He's in Pennsylvania, Reading, Pennsylvania, Democrats line.
Hi.
Thank you for C-SPAN.
The irony of a convicted rapist commenting about this man pardoning his son after this man and lost his family on Christmas Eve in a car accident, then lost his other son from brain cancer.
The nerve of Trump commenting on anything that has to do with unfair justice when most convicted rapists can't even get a job at McDonald's.
Well, he was held liable for sexual abuse just for a few minutes.
He was liable, held liable for sexual abuse.
Rape.
Stop mixing up the words.
Okay, but that was what the jury found, so I'm just stating it for you there.
Okay, regardless of what, it was still considered rape, and anybody else wouldn't be able to get a job at McDonald's, like I said, but he can run for president.
So he's the last one to comment about unfair justice.
Your dad going right, he should pardon his son.
He didn't use a gun in no type of crime.
He didn't shoot nobody.
He ain't killed nobody.
He made a horrible mistake he had, was on drugs.
My goodness.
Where's the empathy yet?
So he was right in doing what he's doing.
And as long as America will allow a rapist to call him.
Okay, since you've already said that twice, I'm going to move on to Scott.
Scott, New York, Independent Line.
Hi.
Hey, good morning, Pedro.
I ain't been caller since 98.
I called back when you was in Denver and did that show out there in Colorado.
We need more shows like that.
Anyways.
That was a long time ago.
A couple weeks ago, we were trying to appoint an attorney general, the head of the legal department, and he was doing cocaine with a minor, but because she brought the cocaine, probably to the party, it was no big deal.
I am a true independent, okay?
It makes me sit on both sides of these people calling in almost on a daily basis, and I got to sit here for 30 days and bite my tongue, which is hard to do.
So, caller, when it comes to the pardon, then, what do you think specifically, please?
Well, I think specifically on pardoning his son, I think for sure he should.
Number one, number two, if we go by the Republican, he don't remember what he did last week, so how does he know if you remember that he said you wouldn't pardon him or not?
So, caller, when you say that, when you say that.
Both ways.
When caller, when you say that President Biden should pardon his son based on what?
Why do you think that should be the case?
Because it's his son.
Number one, apparently the Republicans have no big deal with cocaine because they wanted to appoint an attorney general who was doing cocaine with a minor.
Number two, number three, Jeb Bush's daughter got in trouble with cocaine.
Yeah, and stealing prescription pads and such.
She only got like five days in Coney Jail, but that was because of a call into Washington Journal.
Okay, Mike in Illinois, Republican line.
Hi.
Good morning, Pedro.
Good morning.
Yeah, I think this is just an extension of a very corrupt Biden administration.
And I think people are kind of missing the point on what I've heard, at least in the news, about this issue.
And that is not just that Biden pardoned his son, which I kind of understand from a personal viewpoint, but he is a public figure.
But the important thing to me from what I've heard is that he is not only pardoning him for these past things that he may have been brought up and sentenced for, but for any future prosecution.
I think that is the big issue.
And that is really, in my opinion, totally corrupt.
One more call.
This will be from David in New Jersey, Independent Line.
Yes, Pedro.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
Everyone's missing the point.
Hunter Biden shows the classic signs of chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
And I have worked in an organic brain syndrome unit with soldiers with physical brain damage, drug use, poor judgment.
These are all signs of a person with a severe head injury.
He was in a car accident where he and Bo were in the back seat.
Remember, Bo died of brain cancer, possibly related.
They both were severely head injured, hospitalized, and these signs are signs of CTE.
Thank you.
And how does that relate to the pardon?
Caller?
Ah, caller's gone.
That's it for the calls.
Thanks for participating.
We let you go.
At this time of the holiday season, you're probably familiar with something called Giving Tuesday, in which you give to charitable organizations, especially at this time of year.
We at C-SPAN are also asking you to consider giving on this Giving Tuesday because somebody, an unnamed person, has promised to match that first $10,000 of donations to C-SPAN, in essence, doubling your impact to your gift to C-SPAN.
As always, when you give to us, you support transparent no-spin coverage of the government.
So, if you wish to participate, a couple of ways you can do that: take your phone, click on that QR code, and it will take you to the website to which you can give your donation.
Or if you just want to go to the website itself, that's cyphenspan.org, donate, and contribute there.
We'll thank you in advance for any help and assistance that you can offer us.
Coming up on this program, we're going to hear from Tyler Barkley.
He's the director of public policy at the Abundance Institute, talking about the future of energy policy in the next Trump administration.
We'll take those calls when Washington Journal continues.
According to Brown University professor Corey Brettschneider, the following presidents in history threatened democracy.
Here are his words from the introduction of his book, The Presidents and the People.
Quote, John Adams waged war on the national press, prosecuting as many as 126 who dared criticize him.
James Buchanan colluded with the Supreme Court to deny constitutional personhood to African Americans.
Andrew Johnson urged violence against his political opponents.
Woodrow Wilson nationalized Jim Crow by segregating the federal government.
And finally, Richard Nixon committed criminal acts ordering the Watergate break-in.
Corey Bretschnider teaches constitutional law and politics at his Providence, Rhode Island-based Brown University.
Brown University professor Corey Bretschneider with his book, The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
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.
Nonfiction book lovers, C-SPAN has a number of podcasts for you.
Listen to best-selling non-fiction authors and influential interviewers on the Afterwords podcast and on QA.
Hear wide-ranging conversations with the non-fiction authors and others who are making things happen.
BookNotes Plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics.
And the About Books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews, industry updates, and bestsellers lists.
Find all of our podcasts by downloading the free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/slash podcasts.
Washington Journal continues.
This is Taylor Barkley.
He's with the Abundance Institute.
He serves as their public policy director and here talking about what happens to energy policy in the next administration.
Good morning.
Good morning, Pedro.
How do you describe the Abundance Institute to other people?
So we're a brand new, mission-driven nonprofit, relentlessly focused on removing barriers that stand in the way of emerging technologies reaching their full potential.
And by emerging technologies, we're focused primarily on energy technologies and artificial intelligence.
When you say barriers, then what barriers do you envision that could exist in the energy policy world?
That's a great question.
So, you know, with energy policy in particular, lots of regulatory barriers.
There's a whole thicket of regulations we can talk about at the federal level, the state level, even the local level.
And with artificial intelligence, there's maybe pending regulations.
It's largely an unregulated sector for the most part in terms of specifically about AI.
AI would fall into, you know, if you're using AI to misbehave or have criminal conduct, you're going to fall into other laws that would hold you accountable.
But I also want to talk about cultural barriers.
There's also societal barriers that prevent new technologies from coming to market.
Like, say, for example, fears about nuclear technology.
Before we go too far, when it comes to the Institute itself, what point of view politically does it take?
We are nonpartisan.
We are governed by our research.
So we have a team of experts in AI and energy, and everything we do and write and produce is oriented by our mission to prevent regulations and societal barriers from keeping emerging technologies from coming to market.
Would you say then that your institute is pro-industry versus pro-regulation?
Was that a right-of-center kind of thing, or how would you describe that?
You know, it's relentlessly focused on abundance.
So whatever creates the most economic abundance and improvements in quality of human life for Americans, that's the answer we want.
So, you know, sometimes we make enemies all over the place.
We have friends all over the place.
But our main mission is economic prosperity and abundance.
How are you funded?
A mix of individuals, foundations, and corporations.
And so when it comes to the energy policy itself, how would you describe the current administration's approach?
And then what would you like to see done under the incoming administration generally?
Yeah, so the current administration, dominated by a lot of different policies, the Inflation Reduction Act, which maybe we'll talk about later, is maybe the landmark bill in the realm of energy regulation.
You know, the incoming Trump administration, Trump 2.0 here, I recently wrote an op-ed in the Washington Examiner earlier in November and made the point that the American public in this election across the board, this is sending a message to politicians everywhere.
They elected Republicans in the Senate, House, and in the White House, because they believe they need a new approach.
They want a new approach that can unleash abundance in America.
They're tired of the status quo.
And this is not just a Biden administration issue.
This is a cumulative over the course of decades, regulatory accumulation that has risen costs.
And Americans are feeling the pinch and the pull.
And higher bills, paying for groceries, housing, and on and on we could go throughout the list.
You mentioned the Inflation Reduction Act.
Some of those provisions that were given, just to lay them, you probably know this as well, $10 billion in tax credits to build electric vehicles, $7,500 tax credit rebates for electric vehicle purchases, $20 billion in loans to promote electric vehicle manufacturing, other monies going to home refits and things like that.
So would you see an elimination of those, a reframing of those?
What's the best approach in your mind when it comes to that policy?
The best approach, so the Inflation Reduction Act is many component parts.
And there's one, about a third of it roughly, is in the energy sector and energy realm.
And, you know, it's all subsidy driven.
So our approach and our recommendation is to lower regulatory barriers.
So that's the way that will really unleash prosperity in America.
Allow innovators, entrepreneurs to build new technologies that can make all goods and services cheaper for more Americans.
I mean, one line we like actually comes from a politician in the 50s who talked about someday having energy that's too cheap to meter.
And that's the gold star for us that we want to keep in mind.
And the Inflation Reduction Act is, according to Treasury reports, actually, it will be about a trillion dollars over the course of a decade.
So it's a very expensive approach that in the end will probably not bring about the goals that even President Biden and the politicians who voted for it.
So President-elect Trump should focus on letting innovators and entrepreneurs build and cutting the red tape, eliminating regulatory barriers, and setting a positive vision for the country.
Mr. Berkeley, you've probably seen headlines from this one recently when it comes to oil production in the United States that currently, when it comes to oil production in the United States, breaking records on that front.
What do we need to change if this is already happening?
Well, so oil is one way of generating electricity.
Natural gas is actually the dominant fossil fuel for generating electricity in the United States right now.
And our approach is that we should continue on fossil fuel production with sound regulations that say prevent negative externalities, use an economic term, from occurring, so harms to other people, say particulate matter in the air.
But at the same time, we should also be ensuring that new technologies like advanced nuclear power plants, small modular reactors, which are smaller nuclear power generators, geothermal energy.
And meanwhile, solar power continues to make technological advances.
And we can do all these things at the same time.
But if we have the proper low regulatory barriers, then we will see, I think, fossil fuels edge out as new energy technologies become cheaper and more prevalent in the economy.
Is there a timeline in the future in your mind where the United States can handle an all-of-the-above approach in weaning itself off of petroleum products?
This is a crucial four years here.
And that's one of the reasons I wrote the op-ed and the reason we're doing the work we are at the Abundance Institute, to push hard now because we're kind of at an inflection point where there seems to be appetite amongst the American people, even politically, to try new things and really unleash an energy-abundant future.
We like to say that the path to prosperity is through energy abundance.
So if we're going to make fixes, we should start them now.
This is Taylor Barkley of the Abundance Institute talking about energy policy in the United States.
If you want to ask him questions, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
If you want to text us your thoughts on energy policy and ask our questions, our viewer, our guest question that way, 202748-8003, and you can post on our social sites as well.
You talked about some of those other types of energy.
I suppose at this stage, if someone hears about the possibility of a nuclear reactor in their backyard, they're going to have concerns.
How warranted are those concerns?
Well, nuclear power has been very safe, generally speaking, over the last 70 years or so.
People have in their mind, this is one of the cultural barriers I talked about earlier.
People have in their mind, of course, nuclear weapons, which is very different from nuclear power, similar principles, but no nuclear reactor is ever going to have a mushroom cloud.
That's not going to happen.
There are also very prominent accidents.
We think about Fukushima in 2011, Three Mile Island in the late 70s.
But even from those accidents, despite what happened, compared to other energy production and generations, generative technologies, take coal power, for instance, particular matter also causes injury and death.
And with new nuclear power generation technologies, they're safer.
I mean, think about technologies in the late 70s compared to what we have now.
Things are much safer, they're cleaner.
Scientists have done much more research into preventing catastrophic incidents from happening.
And even think about the U.S. military running nuclear reactors and submarines and aircraft carriers the world over and how relatively safe those are.
So I think if it's in a backyard or not, and we deal with these with power lines, so not even a nuclear power plant, but just putting up electricity lines in a locality can cause controversy.
So I think those are the kind of barriers we're going to deal with with nuclear power.
But on the whole, it's a very, very safe technology.
So specifically, what's the amounts of regulatory hurdles that have to be crossed?
How would you like to see the Trump administration streamline those hurdles?
So the main lots of different hurdles.
So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an independent agency charged with ensuring safe nuclear power generation.
The National Environmental Policy Act is a broader law that governs all sorts of building-from electricity generation to just building housing and apartments.
And I think there are necessary reforms in both those main areas.
So with NEPA, that's the National Environmental Policy Act.
Ensuring that people don't get bogged down, entrepreneurs, builders don't get bogged down in filling out these reports that kind of go on and on, thousands of pages of compliance and ensuring that particular species of animals or plants and often it's used kind of weaponized by some sectors.
Of course, common sense regulations and environmental impact analysis are required and helpful, but we've kind of swung too far overboard.
And I think the Trump administration can come in and kind of rewrite the ship here by saying we want to focus on providing cheaper, cleaner energy for Americans through new technologies and having sound regulations to go along with it.
And that's the way to the future.
I suppose then you've heard the argument: you reduce the amount of regulation, you increase the possibility of a risk of some type to that's the area that's served by the nuclear technology.
How would you respond to that?
Possibly, yeah.
You know, there's definitely a trade-off here.
There's trade-offs all over the place in life, as you know, Pedro.
And now we've swung so far in the safety side that we're producing more dangerous technologies.
We're using fossil fuels because the newer, cleaner technologies are not available.
And that's the way to safety.
So I think there's a sweet spot in regulatory policy where if there's zero regulation, that can increase risk.
But if there's oppressive and too much regulation, that can also provide its own risk by maybe new technologies not being developed, getting deployed.
And we learn by doing.
And human beings, we learn by doing.
So the more new energy generation technologies we develop, I think those will be safer over time.
This is Taylor Barkley joining us.
Our first call for you comes from Ed.
Ed is in Michigan.
Independent Line, you're on with our guests.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'm just curious.
How would you react to the idea of hydrogen cells for cars and thorium as an energy source?
It's a great question.
So we're focused relentlessly on new technologies.
So let's try them.
That would be my answer.
Let's take advantage of cutting-edge research, see what works, let the market dictate.
From my understanding, it's cutting edge like other technologies I've mentioned.
Small modular reactors in the nuclear space are not ready to go quite today, but on the near five to ten year time horizon, they will be deployable.
So I think similarly with the technologies you just outlined, let's try it.
Let's let the market and consumers decide what's best.
To that end, there's a story in the Wall Street Journal today when it comes to certain aspects of the electric vehicle market saying some of these startups are running out of cash possibly.
What do you think of the role of the EV is in the future?
I think there absolutely is a role.
I mean, it's exciting to see how they've been integrated in different ways, in surprising ways.
So, for instance, parking your electric vehicle in your driveway could allow you to power your home for short periods of time.
We're seeing this in Texas, actually.
There's a company that allows user, EV owners, to sell electricity back into the grid or charge their electric vehicles when the prices are lowest.
So, there's kind of this adaptability.
So, I think we can think about electric vehicles as more than maybe just mobility, but perhaps powering residential units or even, you know, a future with autonomous vehicles driving to a site where someone would be willing to pay the owner of the electric vehicle for power.
So, I think there's absolutely a future.
The story also highlights the fact that the shifting political landscape, putting at risk in planned investment in the U.S., some of which has already been aided by state and federal subsidies.
As far as going forward, how should the Trump administration treat these subsidies?
Subsidies have a cost, and there probably is room for some subsidizing government aid and developing new energy technologies.
But again, trade-offs all over the place.
And the better path is to make sure that entrepreneurs and innovators can build these new technologies.
They're making marketable, user-friendly vehicles foremost instead of relying on government aid to produce their products.
And this seems to be evident in the consumer market with, you know, Tesla does receive some electric vehicle subsidies, from my understanding.
But I see more Teslas on the road than other produced cars.
But there's increasing competition.
I mean, new companies are constantly getting created and launched.
And I think they're going to be in some competition for having a vehicle that looks cool and is functional and does what the consumer wants it to do.
Some of that federal money was used to provide infrastructure to charge EVs and the like.
How has that been?
How successful has that been, I should say?
It seems to have been moderately successful.
I mean, you know, I'm not super read into the details, but there might be a role for government in aiding those deployment of charging stations because you need a place to charge your car in order to use it.
So would that be more of a private industry thing?
It could be, yeah, certainly.
I mean, we see with current fossil fuel gasoline stations, maybe they're incorporating electric vehicle charging stations into their site, their property.
But of course, that relies on electrical grid infrastructure because not all charging stations are the same.
Some are kind of supercharged, some are slower.
Like if I plugged one car into my home, it would probably be much slower than one of those supercharging stations.
So this kind of gets into another key point that we at the Abundance Institute hit.
We need to think much more creatively about how electricity is transmitted across the grid.
We can think about microgrids.
We're dealing with a 100-year-old regulatory model and marketing model for electricity when we need to think about a grid model and marketing model for a deployment model in like a 2050 sort of framework.
Here's David.
David is in New Jersey, Republican line.
Hi.
Hi, good morning.
I had this fancy idea about how to produce energy since I was probably 12.
Curious if it's ever been researched or if you could explain why it indeed wouldn't make sense.
Basically, to somehow use the natural gravitational pull to produce energy and have some sort of mechanism that would be constantly receiving that push of gravity.
Like you can have a place like New York City.
I don't know.
It weighs like a trillion tons by now.
And they can just produce energy by the weight of their own building.
That would be fantastic.
I think it reminds me of generators that use ocean tides and movement of surf on the coastal area to generate electricity.
It seems like we're pretty far away from just straight up gravity energy generation, but that would be great if it happened.
From Mark in Texas Democrats line.
Yeah, this is Mark.
I have a question.
I live in Northeast Texas, and when they were building the pipeline, it came near my home.
And from what I understand, I keep hearing about the Keystone Pipeline, but according to the internet, there's 700,000 barrels a day of oil going from Cushing to Port Arthur.
And the maximum flow on that line is 800,000.
So, I mean, it's a boom to Cushing because they're sending all their oil down to Port Arthur.
That's my question.
I mean, what's up with that?
So, President-elect Trump's first administration, he greenlit the Keystone Pipeline, and then when Biden took office, he canceled it.
So, there's a real chance that Keystone Pipeline could come back under President-elect Trump's next administration.
And that seems to be an energy that would make energy, fossil fuels, cheaper for Americans and seems like add local economic benefit to the US.
That was Keystone Excel extension there, yes.
And so, do you think that's a worthy revival on the oil front, or is it better spent checking out these new technologies that you're talking about?
Again, let's do it all, Pedro.
I think we can kind of walk and chew gum here at the same time.
So, if we clear away the regulatory thicket, that will affect both fossil fuel production, making it cheaper for Americans, pursuing sound regulatory laws that can eliminate risk and harms for people around electricity generation from fossil fuels, but also ensure that new technologies like geothermal and nuclear can thrive.
From Donald in Michigan, Republican line.
Hi.
Hello.
You're on.
Go ahead.
Okay.
I don't know much about all this fancy stuff, but am I correct in saying that the nuclear is only used to heat the water that turns the generators to make electricity?
The nuclear really isn't used to generate electricity.
That's correct.
Yeah, the nuclear fuel rods do heat water, which produces steam, which then turns a turbine, and that's what generates electric power.
So you can think of nuclear rods as sort of the fire that produces the steam, which then generates the electricity.
We have dealt with wind and solar for many years now.
How efficient have they been?
Or what's the end result for all the effort put into it?
Wind, you know, so both rely on environmental factors.
Solar we've seen become cheaper over time.
We've seen it become more efficient over time.
Dealing with solutions, you know, a cloud going over a solar production farm.
And, you know, one thing I really want to note here, too, with Pedro, with solar, an interesting statistic is four out of five new homes built in the U.S. are in HOAs, homeowner associations.
And most HOAs prevent residential solar from being installed.
So if we're going to see this an energy-abundant future, I think we should truly look at the local level to unleash energy abundance.
So solar, you know, it's being deployed in residential areas, it's being deployed at the grid level.
There are, I think, 2.6 terawatts right now standing by to get connected to America's electrical grid.
That's, you know, it's waiting on permitting reform, interconnection approval.
Interconnection is new generation getting plugged into an existing grid.
That's 2.6 terawatts.
And a lot of, I think that's mostly solar and wind.
And wind, you know, just quickly say, little, you know, a little more hit and miss from my understanding.
You know, same, you know, we talked about nuclear power plant in the backyard, power lines in the backyard.
Wind windmills are very large and often face local restrictions and objections because people want to see the mountains in the background or whatever, or on the coastal area, because often wind is strongest on the coast.
So solar is providing more and more power, it's standing by to provide more power, and it could be a viable, very viable component in our energy-abundant future.
To what extent has solar the ability to provide the total amount of energy to a home?
You know, it can provide 100% in the right conditions and with more efficient technologies.
This is a truism with technology throughout human history.
The prototype is far less efficient and bulkier than the latest version, and we've seen that hold true with solar power in particular.
So it can provide up to 100% with even opportunity for providers to sell back to the grid.
My parents did this in Southern California, which is very solar-friendly given the sunshine.
But they would see very, very low to even positive sorts of electric bills.
Let's hear from Cindy.
Cindy is in Kentucky, Democrats line.
Hi, thanks for calling.
Yes, of course I am a Democrat, and I was a Florida native, but I moved out because of the overpopulation of Florida's northern border that hoarded in.
But I would like the moratorium lifted in Florida, and I would like the drilling to be done on Trumpland.
So what can we do to have the oil drilling, that moratorium lifted, and have the oil drilling in Trumpland of Florida?
I'm not particularly sure where Trumpland is.
Perhaps that's where he lives, is what you're referring to.
And, you know, oil drilling is one way to our energy prosperous future, energy-abundant future.
And eliminating regulatory barriers there, as well as with, for example, geothermal.
We haven't talked about geothermal energy production much, but that's another way that taking advantage of the fossil fuel technologies we develop, like fracking technology.
So geothermal is essentially going down deep enough into the earth where you are experiencing either heated water or heat from the earth itself to then vaporize water, which again turns a turbine to generate electric power.
And theoretically, you know, we could drill down anywhere on the planet and find this heat from the Earth's core and generate geothermal power that way, which is a much cleaner, much more sustainable, long-term energy production means than the fossil fuel production that we have now, even though that's definitely serving a core need and we should not seek to do away with it immediately.
But in the case of how much of the new technology depends on connection to coal or connection to fossil fuels in order to power it?
For example, can you explain a little more about that?
So if coal is still needed to make electricity, how much, if you want to go away from electricity, what happens to the coal industry?
Gotcha.
So coal is actually declining in use as an electric generational means in the U.S. Natural gas has largely risen to take its place.
That's the reason we've seen carbon emissions falling because of the move to natural gas.
And with any, you know, this is again a truism with technological advancement.
Industries are displaced and I think we need to be conscious of that, conscious of the human impact that can have, empathetic, but also realizing, you know, this will create a much more prosperous future for everyone.
This will improve quality of human life, you know, over and over again.
You know, I think often about the transition from horse and buggy days to the automotive days.
That put the buggy whip and buggy manufacturers, but there was a transition to the automobile.
Maybe, again, like with fossil fuel production and oil and natural gas, maybe some of those skills and coal mining could be transitioned to geothermal energy production, which also is digging into the earth.
This is from Dan in Florida, Independent Line.
Yeah, my name is Dan.
I just wanted to say a couple things about lithium-ion batteries, which is what EVs use.
In Florida, we have a couple issues where if it floods, salt water touches the battery, catches fire, and next thing you know, your car is on fire, uncontrollable fire in your car, and everything else on fire.
Also, if you get into a car accident, the batteries explode.
I used to make these batteries, so I do know a little about them.
Also, turbines, when they degrade or they fall apart, the things that are in them is toxic to the ocean.
And what about like Macizon stuff as far as like whales and all that stuff?
I know it's all like fear and all that stuff, but I just wanted to see if your guests would talk about any of that.
Oh, also, when it gets cold, EV batteries won't work.
So what is the plan on that?
And also, if it gets too hot, EVs batteries won't work.
Okay.
I'll pause you there only because it's a lot for the guests.
But Mr. Barkley, go ahead.
Great thoughts.
And I think you bring up kind of the common principle here with energy production in particular, but with all things in life, there are trade-offs.
And we are, you know, with lithium-ion batteries, I think a lot about the amount of energy that is required to mine the rare earth minerals around the world and then transport them to generate, you know, to mine enough minerals to create one of these electric vehicle batteries.
You know, I think about the giant home-sized caterpillar dump trucks out there that are running on diesel fuel for the most part to create these electric vehicle batteries.
So I think this is another reason we at the Abundance Institute emphasize creativity and options and clearing away regulatory hurdles for innovators and entrepreneurs to create new technologies.
So I think we'll continue to see improvements in batteries for electric vehicles, for instance.
We will continue to see improvements in efficiencies and gasoline powered cars.
Maybe we're integrating smaller batteries into hybrid automobiles.
But over and over again, again, to bring up kind of my favorite example from history is in the late 1800s, there were severe concerns about the manure problem on Manhattan.
And this was a crisis, a public health crisis, the tons of manure generated by horses that was then rendered moot by the automobile and gasoline-powered engine coming to the fore.
And I think we will continue to see technological solutions being the answer to many of these problems.
But also, consumers, if an electric vehicle is not the right choice for you and where you and your family live, then the market should be open to other options being available.
There's a viewer from Florida who texts us this morning.
This is Terry saying, could you describe the characteristics of the Green New Deal as a fact and achievement or shortcomings of that deal?
So from what I understand, part of the Green New Deal, multiple parts, many of them in the Inflation Reduction Act, characterized mostly with subsidies and tax credits.
And from my perspective, that's not the best path forward.
Again, the best path forward is to make sure that entrepreneurs, innovators, manufacturers can create new technologies and new energy generation capacities instead of subsidizing old ones, staying fixed in this 100-year-old model of electricity generation and distribution, and to really think towards the future.
So one of my messages here and our message is to let's think outside the box.
And thus far, you know, the Green New Deal with the subsidy approaches probably is not the best primary way, although sub-subsidies here and there might be appropriate.
For all the talk of energy, what's the Institute's approach to climate change?
So we believe in, you know, carbon does have some effect on the environment, but that's often a distraction from the main point.
The main point here is creating more energy cheaply, much cleaner, and that we can do all that through new technologies that we have available now and on the horizon.
And on the policy front, the previous administration took us out of the Paris climate deal agenda.
The Biden administration put this in.
What do you see coming from the next administration under President Trubbin?
Would you support staying in the Paris Agreement?
It seems like President Trump will likely withdraw once again.
And again, our focus is on the technology side.
It's not as much on the tweaking policies in the margin with the climate change debate and discussion.
It's making sure that new technologies can come to market.
Let's hear from Rick.
Rick is in Florida.
Democrats line hi.
Hi, good morning.
Is it true that the oil wells are already drilled?
There's no baby drill.
They're capped.
Is that true?
Thousands of wells are already capped, ready to go, and we should concentrate more on just storing oil to counter anything the Persians do.
Just store so much oil that we can wash them out every time they want to turn off the spigot.
Thank you.
I'm not sure the exact number of, you know, say tapped oil wells that maybe are not currently producing oil.
And you mentioned storing oil as well.
There's the National Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which I believe President Biden stopped at one point filling up.
Maybe he resumed at some point.
But that's storing enough oil for however many years or decades, that will only get us so far.
And the path to true energy independence and abundance in the U.S. is through developing new energy generation technologies.
Carmine, who joins us from Wrightstown, New Jersey, Independent Line.
Hello.
Yeah, I'm always in the theories where it's good to have the solar panel generating.
But if you used like say the solar panel into a battery and then you wind it up a starter to wind up a giant rubber band and then you burst back and forth with a rubber band, you would get generation for electricity and you could do that with springs.
That way you really don't use much of any kind of, you know, it would be just constant.
So I don't know.
What do you think about that one?
It's a fun idea and it reminds me of similar proposals generating heat.
So we talked about lithium-ion batteries, you know, relying on rare earth minerals to store electrical charge.
Some batteries being designed by companies out there would store heat.
So in your example, you talked about maybe when energy is cheapest, say the middle of the night, for instance, in your locality, using that energy to create heat, which is then stored in a heat-storing battery, then released during peak hours, like 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. when everyone's getting home from work and turning on their kitchen.
So these sort of creative solutions, I think, that's the path forward.
But in order to see that future, we really need to get out of this mindset of, you know, there's one Electricity generator provider, you know, the utility in your area, and to think more.
You haven't talked about microgrids at all, but your idea could be, you know, each home or local residential area could generate its own power, store it, and use it as it sees fit, and maybe even provide it to their neighbors when market rates are right.
President-elect Trump has already named a couple of people that he'd like to see in energy-related positions.
I want to get your take on some of them.
Former New York Representative Lee Zeldon as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I noted, Pedro, with his announcement, Lee Zeldon's announcement, he included artificial intelligence in his statement.
And this is sort of maybe the unspoken undercurrent of our discussion so far.
One of the primary reasons we're talking about across all aisles here, all parties generating more energy is because of artificial intelligence and the needs that it will produce, these data centers powering AI models.
And it was exciting to see an EPA incoming, potentially, it needs to be confirmed by the Senate, but incoming EPA administrator talk about emerging technologies and innovation in his statement at this agency.
That's, you know, I think it's a good example to me of someone thinking outside the box and thinking about the future.
How do you think the two connect when it comes to AI and future decisions on environmental issues?
Well, these data centers do consume a lot of energy.
And, you know, AI has a lot of economic benefits.
You know, Goldman Sachs had an estimate that generative artificial intelligence, one particular subset of AI, will produce about one and a half trillion dollars in global GDP over the next decade.
What this means is about five to ten thousand dollars for individual Americans.
So that's just from generative AI.
So we're going to see wherever these data centers are built, they are going to require more electricity, more generative capacity.
We're seeing some companies like Microsoft and Google, most major tech companies partner with power companies to create either on-site or off-site new energy needs.
So Microsoft, for instance, working with a company to reopen Three Mile Island, the nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, to generate power for their data centers.
Chris Wright being named, nominated to be energy secretary, but a background in the oil industry, Liberty Oilfield Services.
What do you think of an oil man working on that front when it comes to energy?
I hope he has all of the above approach and is thinking more than just fossil fuels and oil production.
And this is our main message to President-elect Trump and the incoming members of Congress.
The American people voted for them all because they're tired of the economic sclerosis that they've been experiencing, the rising costs.
And my message to potentially, needs a Senate confirmation, this new Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, is to really try it all and not just focus on maybe the area he's most familiar with.
Let's hear from Chris.
I'm sorry, this is Sam.
Sam in Maryland, Independent Line.
Good morning.
You're on with our guests.
Go ahead.
Good morning, Pedro.
My question is a two-part question.
The first one is: we hear that solar is the easiest energy to generate and the least expensive.
But I wonder why solar has not gained more or gained greater use across especially residential communities in the United States.
And there's this talk out there that the big utility monopolies do things to frustrate solar becoming more widespread, either perhaps through some working through state legislatures, Whatever it is that they're doing, maybe lobbying to keep their tough?
Uh could, I guess, address those?
Please a couple questions.
I heard in there, you know, the the prevalence of solar I mentioned earlier there.
There are new solar generative technologies waiting uh, for interconnection into current electric grids.
So that's, you know, those are permits, these are that's paperwork essentially, that's uh, you know, preventing one 2.6 terawatts from getting plugged into the grid.
Not all of those will, all those companies and technologies will will end up seeing the light of day, but it's out there.
So companies and innovators and entrepreneurs are creating these solar generative capacities to plug into the electric grid.
And you talked about the role of utility monopolies.
Again, this is the 100-year, if not older, model of electricity generation.
We think about how we get, say, broadband, for instance.
We have often many choices.
Some areas don't, depending on if it's wired or wireless.
But we've seen with satellite broadband and Starlink, you can be anywhere in the world, even the ocean, and get wireless broadband connectivity that's enough to watch Netflix, for instance.
And could we see those same principles, that same distribution, that same competition and access applied in the electricity market if we're moving towards a new model where you said allowing individuals to put solar panels on their roof if they so want to.
And I mentioned to Pedro earlier, some of those barriers are at the level of the neighborhood, the Homeowners Association that just is preventing it.
Sometimes it can be at the city level, the state level.
These energy policy discussions run from top to bottom in terms of the politics involved.
A Republican House and Senate about to take place next year, how open do you think they are to that new model or the new concepts idea of all the above?
So we saw a letter in August from 18 Republicans to Mike Johnson to not repeal parts of the Inflation Reduction Act, the subsidies that were helping actually their districts.
But the interesting part about that is there are red states and red districts where it's easier to build than others.
So I think there's a need to push members of Congress to think creatively.
I mean, I've even found this in my own thinking, being trained in the constant conserve, turn off the lights.
It's a fixed pie.
And we at the Abundance Institute, we say we can have a whole bigger pie.
It can be 10 times bigger.
So we really do have energy that's too cheap to meter.
And I think this will be the challenge is to wake people up and particularly politicians from maybe the status quo, the old ways of doing things.
And again, this is what the election told politicians.
And this is the message that politicians should take from the electorate, to think outside the box and create an energy abundant future.
Are there current members of Congress who have that sense of be willing to try new ideas?
You know, we're still getting a sense, but maybe Lee Zeldon, a member himself, can carry that message back to his former colleagues.
On the other front, you talked a lot about AI.
That's your specialty.
There was a story in Forbes not too long ago that the president, the incoming president, thinking or at least toying with the idea of appointing an AI czar.
When you hear that, what do you think?
It could be helpful.
We will see.
It depends on who it is.
It depends on the powers they have.
The most czar is sort of coordinating efforts.
And from our perspective, my colleagues and I, there does seem to be a need for that at the federal government level.
We are paying attention to everything happening at the federal government.
Every regulatory agency has had something to say about artificial intelligence.
And a missing component seems to be maybe a centralized expertise who can connect the dots between different agencies and Congress and the different parties at play.
So it all depends on the details, but if someone were there to serve a coordinating effort and there was limited regulatory capacity, it doesn't sound like there would be any kind of rulemaking capacity in the regulation space.
But someone who can kind of like pull the right people together and make sure the person over here knows what entity over here is doing, that could be of help.
I remember when the internet was taking shape and a lot of people were going to the web, there was this idea that if you put too much regulation on the industry, it provides a chilling effect on it.
Do you think that's the same for AI?
And do you think legislators might go that route as far as too much regulation on it and the chilling effect on the industry itself?
I do, I do.
And I'm glad you brought that up, Pedro, because in 1997, the Clinton administration actually had a positive statement about the development of the internet.
And it was saying the government's going to stay out.
The private sector is going to lead.
And President Trump, you know, first day in office, he could do a similar, have a similar statement, kind of chart a path forward, because we're kind of in this limbo right now where, you know, both parties haven't quite staked claims.
But from what President-elect Trump has said so far, he's very favorable to AI development.
And he could have a similar statement saying, we're going to let the private sector lead here.
And that is the reason we have next day delivery with Amazon.
And I can share photos with my family all around the world of our young children.
And instead of the internet staying fixed in a research-only capacity where it was developed or government-only capacity, we could be living a very alternate future.
And that's one thing at the Abundance Institute we always want folks to think about is the choices we make today will decide how prosperous or future we have or don't.
I suppose that you've heard then the concerns about artificial intelligence.
What have you heard or the perceptions of those concerns and what is the reality?
So they're an array.
I'd say from maybe mundane of incorrect answers on say a chatbot like ChatGPT or Google Gemini to the maybe far out.
I even hesitate to bring them up, kind of the existential risk scenarios, which are very unlikely.
And it's more of the mundane.
So how are these tools being deployed by both good and bad actors and do we have the laws in place to mitigate the harms?
And I think so far the answer to mitigating harms, it's a resounding yes.
We do have, for instance, discrimination.
So say AI is being used to hire employees, vet resumes.
If there is racial discrimination, discrimination of any type, current laws would hold those user rights accountable.
We saw Facebook and the like come before Congress to talk about the social media side of it.
Do you see future AI tech leaders coming before Congress to do the same?
Potentially, as these tools are distributed throughout the economy, we're only two years into ChatGPT 3.5, turned two, just last week, I believe.
And that's the reason we're talking about it today.
All these models are becoming more and more advanced, more and more developed.
They're getting integrated in the economy.
So it depends on what happens.
But you mentioned the internet.
And I think the internet, electricity, AI, these are general purpose technologies.
They're going to have a broad array of applications.
That's why it's so important to not craft regulation that narrowly pigeonholes them into one particular use or even anticipates how they'll be used in one particular area.
Because we're not sure the vast array of use cases these tools could have.
Let's hear from Terry.
Terry is in Ohio Republican line.
Good morning.
Hey, good morning.
I got a wild and crazy idea I want to throw out, see if it sticks.
Okay.
The idea is we have 180 million telephone poles in this country.
How about putting a four-foot solar panel on top of each one?
They're already next to the transmission lines and after a while nobody would even notice them.
What do you think?
Doesn't sound bad to me.
I hope someone listening who could do it hears it and maybe takes it and runs with it.
Maybe there could be very costly to deploy.
And this is something I've heard about from industry.
We are short on laborers to even maintain and build out current electrical transmission capacity.
And one of the ways around that could be generation on more localities.
But we do need workers to do all these things.
And that could be the primary hurdle for that.
Also, poll attachments, that is an industry and I believe state and federally regulated area as well.
So I think you'd have to, whoever wants to do that would probably have to talk to the utility companies and then localities, the telecoms as well, because they all want some poll real estate.
When it comes to those companies overall and talking about energy, how willing are they to come to the table to explore these new ideas?
I think it runs a gamut.
So, you know, incumbent industries, maybe the utilities in particular, you know, they're providing our power needs and I think doing a decent job at it for the most part.
You know, when I go home, I'm not going to wonder, I don't wonder often if my lights are going to come on.