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 Bretschnider 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 BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
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.
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 a, 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 simplifying it over time.
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 Skye 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.
Worked on presidential and other campaigns for the Republican Party over the years.
I want to thank Sky for what she does.
She is an amazing woman.
She is 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?
Let me finish.
You hung up on me almost 90 days ago.
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.
Yes, I heard that.
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 and 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 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.
You can sit there and put a, you know, put liftic 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 back here.
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 Sky 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 in 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 and 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 mifepristom.
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 when we think about that she's known as sort of a loyalist and may have interests beyond the independence of that institution, but I'll be listening.
What's a red flag for that then?
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.