Coming up on Washington Journal, your calls and comments live.
Then Law 360 Supreme Court reporter Katie Bueller discusses today's oral argument before the court in a case dealing with transgender care for minors.
And Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber, board chair of the Association of American Universities on the state of higher education in America.
We'll also look at the pardon for Hunter Biden and the history of presidential pardon power with Samuel Morrison, a lawyer who spent 13 years in the Justice Department's office of the pardon attorney.
Washington Journal is next.
Good morning.
It's Wednesday, December 4th.
This past Sunday, President Biden announced that he was pardoning his son Hunter.
President-elect Trump's nominee to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, has promised to fundamentally reshape the Bureau.
And Pam Bondi, the nominee for Attorney General, said, quote, the prosecutors will be this first hour.
We're asking this question: Do you have confidence in the U.S. justice system?
Why or why not?
Here's how to reach us: Republicans, 202748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can send us a text at 202-748-8003.
Be sure to include your first name in your city-state.
And you can find us on social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
I want to give you a quick update on the situation in South Korea before we get to our topic.
Here's the front page of the Washington Post about what happened yesterday: martial law, then a reversal in South Korea.
It says that South Korea's deeply unpopular President Yoon Seo-yool stun the nation Tuesday by declaring emergency martial law, a risky power play that launched an extraordinary six hours of turmoil and evoked the military dictatorships that many South Koreans believed had been consigned to the history books.
Yoon's decree made in a televised announcement late Tuesday night as he accused the opposition of quote anti-state activities, prompted thousands of protesters demanding a return to Democratic government to gather outside the National Assembly, where lawmakers convened urgently to overturn the order.
With police officers forming a barricade around the parliamentary complex, some opposition lawmakers even climbed through windows to get into the voting chamber.
Before dawn Wednesday morning, Yoon said he would lift martial law in line with the parliamentary vote and withdraw troops from the streets.
And here's the New York Times with the latest of what's happening today.
Live updates: South Korean leader's fate is in doubt as lawmakers move to impeach him.
Back now to our topic of the Justice Department, your confidence in it.
Take a look at the Christian Science Monitor's Henry Gass, who wrote this.
He says, The pardon comes as politics and the criminal legal system will have become increasingly intertwined.
Next month, Mr. Biden will cede his office to Donald Trump, who has been subject to federal, to multiple federal prosecutions himself and has said he will use the federal justice system to pursue his political enemies.
All told, the episode represents another blow to public confidence in the justice system, particularly its independence from politics.
Mr. Biden's pardoning of his last surviving son may represent a measure of justice and compassion for some, but for others, it represents more evidence that the system is corrupt and broken.
And we want to hear what you think about that.
You can give us a call.
We'll go straight to our phone lines now.
Here's Joe in Leonardtown, Maryland, Independent.
Good morning.
Hey, good morning, everybody.
And everybody, thank you for listening.
Two things.
Number one, as I sit here today, my child doesn't want to go to school, right?
And we are literally having the school yell at us because my kid won't go to school, right?
And that makes sense for poor people.
But for rich people, their son can buy drugs, buy guns, do this.
Also, they can be the other kid.
They just get away with so much.
You know, I'm at home scared that the police are going to come yell at me because my kid ain't going to school.
But this kid can get a pardon for who knows what he's done.
It just shows you how our justice system in our country works.
It's for the rich.
It's not for the poor people.
And it's ridiculous.
And I have no confidence in anything other than the new world order because that's what it really seems like.
Hunter Biden and Jared Kushner, they both have the same attorney, Abe Lowell.
Isn't that weird?
It's like they all have the same people, yet they're on different teams, supposedly.
Anyway, I apologize.
My frustration is great.
I've lived in Washington, D.C. my entire life.
Hey, Joe, how old's your child?
My child is 11 years old.
And I have a 17-year-old who neither one of these kids want to go to school.
One of them got assaulted three weeks ago by a boy.
He's 18 years old, and he threatened my daughter real hard.
My daughter has heart problems and stuff like that.
She has issues, cancer battles, and stuff like that.
Anyway, they don't like going to school anymore.
And it's scary because as parents, we face getting arrested and all kinds of crazy stuff.
But this kid, it's just two different levels of justice.
And we just have to be patient with each other, ma'am.
And anyway, I apologize.
I'm expecting personal opinions, but I have no confidence in what our government does to us.
It's been hundreds of years.
I'm in St. Mary's County, Maryland, by the way.
Hundreds of years, 1,600 and something that started here, the Jesuits.
Look it up.
All right, Joe.
Here's Mark in Clifton Park, New York, Republican.
Hi, Mark.
Good morning.
I do have confidence in the justice system because it is Americans, one person, one vote, that we can go to the ballot box and we can elect the sheriffs, the district attorneys, and the representatives for us and majority rules.
So I do have some confidence in the justice system through that.
However, with the pardoning of Hunter Biden, I really believe that Joe Biden did a disservice to all of us since he said he would not.
Then he did.
And that really is disturbing.
I mean, he said he was above it.
His supporters said that Joe Biden is above partisanship.
But he showed how clearly he is so disreputable and unscrupulous.
He pardoned his own son after telling everyone he did it.
And terrible.
And here's Mike in Norwalk, Ohio, Independent.
Hi, Mike.
Morning, Mimi.
The last guy from New York is correct.
I mean, Biden turns around and says, Well, I'm not going to pardon my son.
Well, anybody would pardon her son.
I don't mind the pardon.
It's the blanket amnesty over 10 or 11 years of criminal acts that his family and Joe Biden were involved in.
I mean, are you kidding me?
You have 122 LLCs, 20-something bank accounts.
Even the nieces were involved in this money laundering criminal acts that are going on.
Now, all of a sudden, you watch.
Joe Biden's going to give immunity to everybody in his family and anybody that was involved in these corrupt enterprises that were going on so that he can just float away with all the money and foreign bank accounts.
Mayor Garland should be put up on prosecution.
And I say we take this blanket immunity all the way to the Supreme Court because he is not an elected official or Richard Nixon.
Wake up, people.
We have a long ways to go before we clean up that sewer behind you.
Thank you, Mimi.
Let's take a look at what the New York Times said.
This is Peter Baker who said this.
The pardon and Mr. Biden's stated rationale for granting it will inevitably muddy the political waters as Mr. Trump prepares to take office with plans to use the Justice Department and FBI to pursue, quote, retribution against his political adversaries.
Mr. Trump has long argued that the justice system has been weaponized against him and that he is the victim of selective prosecution, much the way Mr. Biden has now said his son was.
And here is Chris, a Democrat in Farmingdale, New York.
Good morning, Chris.
Good morning.
Go right ahead.
Yes, the justice system is corrupt.
Everyone is calling about Biden.
We have a man that's going into be a president with 34 felonies.
No one has called about that.
True, he should pardon his son.
Trump has pardoned corrupt father-in-laws, 34 felons, and he continues to down Biden.
Wake up, America.
Biden is better than Trump any day.
Yes, I am a black woman calling, and it's so sad how America sees Biden as a very bad person.
And no one has called and said anything about Trump.
Look, black and white will suffer.
Take care, and everyone have a blessed blessed day.
Bill in Memphis, Tennessee, Republican.
Good morning.
Yes, I was strongly a Trump man.
But you know, when he sits back and I saw all the riots that he created and the storming of the Capitol, you know, and then the stupid stuff that he's talking about now about putting his enemies, they're not his enemies.
He created his own enemies.
And you know what?
I've had a change of heart about him.
He says something evil about Trump.
I don't know what I'm going to do.
He's confusing people.
We're listening to this dumb stuff about how he's going to kill people, have them put in jail, and all this kind of stuff.
And why do we put up with that nonsense?
I just don't know.
This man, there's something wrong with him.
And I was a supporter of his at one time.
I will never support him again.
I'm not going to become a Democrat.
I don't know what I'm going to do.
Thank you.
All right, Bill.
And we are taking your calls this morning.
The question is, do you have confidence in the U.S. justice system?
Our phone lines are bipartisan Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
We also have our social media is available for you, and Carl sent us on Facebook.
The U.S. justice system is fine.
Those administering it at the DOJ are a cancer, as are those deep state actors feeding the tumor.
The reason this has occurred is the biased mainstream media's failure to challenge the blatantly biased injustices.
And Willie says this on Facebook, some of the lower courts, but not with the likes of Eileen Cannon and Samuel Alito ruling by political philosophy instead of following the Constitution.
And this is the statement, part of the statement put out by President Biden on his son Hunter Biden's pardon.
He said this.
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.
I believe in the justice system.
But as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process, and it led to a miscarriage of justice.
And once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further.
I hope Americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision.
What do you think about that?
We'll start with Rick, who's in Montreal, Canada, Independent.
Hi, Rick.
Yeah, I would just like to say that for them to be looking at Joe Biden pardoning Hunter and not look at them putting a criminal, those who voted for him, back in office is absurd.
I mean, us as Canadians, we look at this guy as if he like the lowest form of any human morale for any country, anywhere.
That's all I want to say.
And this is Carol in Rochester, New York, Democrat.
Hi, Carol.
Hi, how are you?
I don't, I am losing faith in our justice system with the way the Supreme Court's acted.
But as far as Biden's pardon, I totally agree with that, and I think he ought to pardon all his family members because why are people so critical of that when Trump used his pardon when he was president for Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, both of those guys are crooked.
And then he says he's going to pardon all the January 6th guys.
I mean, Biden's son didn't kill anybody.
We had five people die on January 6th, before, just after, from that nightmare.
That was a nightmare.
People seem to have forgotten that Trump was watching gleefully.
So I'll never understand how this country could fall for all his lies.
It's just a cult, and they only see one side.
Now, I hope Trump has learned something and will do some good.
I'm not going to write him totally off because I have to have an open mind.
But I think Biden did a wonderful job, and I can't, I don't know.
All politicians are going to use their position to further some parts of their life.
But Anyway, I'm very frustrated that we have a felon for a president and he's putting all these terribly unqualified people in office in positions of power.
It's very scary.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
Thank you so much for letting me.
And this is Amy Leesburg, Florida, Republican.
Good morning, Amy.
Yeah, first of all, I have two things to say.
One is Biden was found with documents from back when he was a senator that was illegal for him to have.
So he certainly wasn't an old man with a poor memory then.
And they totally ignored that.
Secondly, more people died of COVID under Biden than under Trump, which they totally ignore that fact.
Now, he's pardoning his son, which is totally understandable.
He loves his son and all of that.
But then why did he keep saying that he wouldn't do it?
You know, why don't they look into all of the lies that Biden has told?
And one more thing before you cut me off, because they're always cutting off Republicans.
You find me one juror that found Trump guilty that actually knows what he was guilty of.
Nobody even knows because they kept making up these things and changing things so they could get Trump.
So you find me one juror that'll come forward and say, what did they actually find Trump guilty of?
All right.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
This was Democrat Glenn Ivey, a congressman and member of the House Judiciary Committee, expressing concern that the Hunter Biden pardon will hurt Democrats when they try to stand up to the Trump administration.
He was on CNN.
Take a look.
On the other hand, I got to say that even though I don't think Hunter Biden would have been prosecuted under most circumstances, a pardon at this point will be used against, I think, Democrats when we're pushing to defend the Department of Justice against politicizing it, which is certainly what President Trump plans to do, a president-elect Trump.
And, you know, the Patel nomination, I think many of the other nominations, it looks like he's going to try and use it in a way to go against and inflict retribution on people.
And I think this sort of gives him ground to argue that both sides are doing the same thing.
So I know that there was a real strong sentiment and wanting to protect Hunter Biden from unfair prosecution.
But this is going to be used against us when we're fighting the misuses that are coming from the Trump administration.
We are asking about your level of confidence in the U.S. justice system.
And on Facebook, Don answers the question this way.
He says, I have more faith in the Dallas Cowboys to win the Super Bowl this year.
And Laura says, in general, yes.
I am extremely concerned that the justice system failed to prosecute Trump for his crimes against the country.
He seems to be getting away with everything.
It's not right.
And this is Kathleen in Chicago, Line for Democrats.
Good morning.
Hi, how you doing?
Good.
Okay, two things.
This guy that you're showing on TV now, Glenn Ivory, he needs to shut up because Trump already said what he was going to do when he got back in office.
So what Joe Biden did the other day, he should have done.
The average person, like they said, what Hunter Biden did, he paid back everything.
He didn't shoot a gun.
But I wish you all would be more open.
You know, I know you all are not supposed to comment on what people say and let them say stuff.
But why don't you put up a list of how many people, criminals, actually criminals, that Trump pardoned and how many times his party called him and said it was bad.
I mean, these people actually were criminals.
And not only did he pardon them, he done turned around and put some of them in his cabinet.
How dare America?
How dare America need to put a list up there?
Run to Trump's, I don't know how many.
And then he won the pardon of January the 6th and went in there and caused chaos.
We saw that one lady was talking about fire one jury.
We saw Trump sit there in his castle with documents in the bathroom.
He stood there and sit there while people destroyed the Capitol because he actually lost the election.
You know, I wish you all would be more forthcoming.
Trump is a criminal himself.
And the Supreme Court pardoned him.
They tell him, you king.
You can do whatever you want to do while you're president.
So why is it that Joe Biden is president?
He can't pardon his child.
Come on, give me a break, America.
Republicans, the next one that come in, ask them how they feel about all the pardons that Trump did.
So Kathleen, I do have that list for you.
This is from Newsweek with the headline, who has Donald Trump pardoned, the full list.
And here is the list if you'd like to take a look.
So here are the high-profile pardons.
Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor.
Roger Stone, Trump ally, convicted of lying to Congress.
Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman, convicted of financial fraud, alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, conspiring to obstruct the investigation.
Charles Kushner, father of Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, convicted of tax evasion and witness tampering, recently nominated by Trump as a U.S. ambassador to France.
Steve Bannon, former Trump advisor.
George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign advisor, convicted of lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian intermediaries prior to the 2016 election.
It goes on.
Albert Pirow, the ex-husband of Trump ally Janine Pirro, Fox News channel host, convicted of conspiracy and tax evasion.
Rod Blagojevich, former Illinois governor, convicted of corruption for trying to sell Barack Obama's vacated U.S. Senate seat.
Lil Wayne, rapper convicted on firearms charges.
Kodak Black, rapper serving time for weapons charges.
And it goes on from there.
Here is Perry in Bellflower, California, Republican.
Good morning, Perry.
Good morning, Mimi.
I lost faith in the justice system when a president was allowed to knowingly, willingly, and with forethought send semi-automatic weapons directly into the hands of Mexican cartels with the sole purpose of creating murder and mayhem in a failed attempt to undermine the Second Amendment, only caught because whistleblowers came forward.
And never forget those whistleblowers' lives were destroyed for coming forward.
It's funny how whistleblowers, depending on who what president's party is, either are heroes or they're destroyed.
Thank you.
Anthony in Albany, Georgia, line for Democrats.
Hi, Anthony.
I agree.
Good morning.
Thank you for my call.
But I agree with the last guy from California about the whistleblowers and the guns and the trade down in Mexico.
But just being an African-American media and seeing what is taking place in the justice system and so much injustice have been portrayed upon black men and destroyed our lives.
And it seems as though white men can just live a lawless life.
All right, Anthony, and this is Marcus in Washington, D.C., Independent Line.
Hi, Marcus.
Hey, God bless you.
How's everything?
Good.
What do you think, Marcus?
Well, first, I want to say this is story about Joe Biden partying his son, right?
You know what this does?
It just exposes all the Democrats as hypocrites.
Because the ones that have called in, they all have brought up Trump.
Oh, well, Trump pardoned this guy and that guy, Paul Metafort, Roger Soon.
Yeah, but these individuals were not charged with what Hunter Biden was charged with.
Or rather, they weren't being accused of what Hunter Biden is being accused of.
So we have a laptop that the FBI said, and the media said that was Russian disinformation, right?
That's what they said on the media.
They ran with that.
And then come to find out it's actually real.
Yeah, they said it was in line with Russian misinformation, yes.
Yep, they said it's exactly.
So they duped the public into believing a lie.
And then now we find out it's true.
No one wants to talk about it.
Wait a minute, Democrats.
What happened?
What happened, guys?
We got a laptop.
We got some actual evidence or potential evidence of many wrongdoings and crimes.
Let's get into it.
Let's discover it.
Let's open the book.
But see, they don't want to do that because it's just going to expose their parties, their party.
That's all.
God bless you all.
Have a wonderful day.
And Senate Democrats did re-elect Chuck Schumer to be their party leader for the 119th Congress yesterday.
He spoke about the leadership team and how the caucus will navigate the new Congress.
Take a look.
I know that this leadership team will help lead our caucus through this time of rebuilding, reflection, and help serve the American people.
Serving as leader has been one of the greatest honors of my life.
And a large part of that honor is because my caucus is just an inspiring group of people.
I love them.
They work hard.
They have different views, but everyone talks to each other.
We respect each other.
And you know, over the last four years, when I've been majority leader, we've had one of the most successful Senates in decades.
And that is in large part because our caucus is so good.
And I appreciate that very much.
We don't agree on everything.
We have different philosophies, different backgrounds.
Every single member loves his or her country.
And every one of them strives for unity.
And that's one of the reasons, as I said, we've been successful.
After four years of the most productive and consequential years the Senate has had in decades, it's galvanized by faith in this chamber's ability to get big things done for the country, even when there's such division, which of course there is now.
Most of the major bills we've passed, big bills like CHIPS, big bills like IRA, well, except IRA, big bills like infrastructure and gun safety and gay marriage were done in a bipartisan way.
And that's a message to the new Senate.
You get things done, you get the most things done in a bipartisan way.
Senate Democrats will continue to dedicate every ounce of our strength, focus, and determination to fight and deliver for the American people.
That was Senator Schumer yesterday on the Senate floor.
And we're asking you this morning about your level of confidence in the U.S. justice system.
This is the LA Times that says Biden pardon Patel FBI nomination fueled debate over politics and justice.
It says that Biden said he issued the pardon after promising he wouldn't because he felt his own Justice Department had treated his son unfairly.
And it says one scholar noted that the leaders of both major American political parties have now argued that the system is politically biased.
What do you think about that?
And we'll hear from Ellis in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
Democrat, good morning.
Good morning.
First of all, let me give some background.
I'm an 81-year-old black male, grew up in the state of Mississippi.
The Justice Department being unbiased is a sore spot.
From the time that, as long as I can remember, blacks have always said that the Justice Department was unfair.
Now we find that the upper-level privileged people are using it.
We want to bring it out.
But this has been going on since time immemorial.
So the other thing that I wanted to talk about is I hear him talking about the pardons.
I think that President Biden should take Kash Patel's list of 50 people and give them all a pardon, a blanket pardon.
This is what Trump said he's going to do.
Trump says he's going to arrest anybody that was his enemy.
He's talked about putting generals in front of a fire squad.
I spent 31 years, seven months, and two days in the U.S. Navy.
He's talking about putting military people who have done their job to protect this country in front of a fire squad because they don't like him or they said something different about him.
You people need to wake up out there.
Wake up, wake up.
It's time to be awoke.
Thank you.
This is CNN on who is Kash Patel, Trump's pick for FBI director.
It says that he's an ardent supporter of the president-elect, has vowed to help dismantle the same organization he's poised to lead.
Former public defender, he's widely viewed as a controversial figure and one whose value to the president-elect largely derives from their shared disdain for established power in Washington.
Putting him in charge of the FBI would require forcing out current director Christopher Wray, who was appointed by Trump in 2017 before his 10-year term expires in three years, a future move that has already prompted bipartisan criticism.
FBI director must also be confirmed by the Senate, whose members are already bracing for how they'll navigate a slew of unorthodox elections.
It says in his 2023 book called Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy, Patel lays out his case against what he refers to as the deep state, an amorphous term he says includes elected leaders, journalists, big tech tycoons, and members of the unelected bureaucracy calling for a comprehensive house cleaning of the Justice Department,
which he claims has protected high-ranking members of the Democratic Party while unjustly targeting Republicans and their allies.
And here's Anthony in South River, New Jersey, Independent.
Good morning.
Hey, Mimi, thanks for coming in.
I appreciate C-SPAN.
Just a quick background on me.
I've been a Democrat all my life, but I switched now.
Now I am an independent.
My first vote was for Carter.
Yeah, I think Biden, anybody would pardon their son, I think that's a good thing.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I do have a problem with him doing him an overall pardon for anything he ever did for the last 11 years.
That's dangerous.
And then I want to comment from that Illinois lady who's talking about, oh, everything, you know, and we have to always point everything back to Trump because he did everything wrong in the world.
So I know you put that article on from Newsweek, which showed, you know, all the big names that Trump pardoned, like General Flynn and all these people.
So I did a little research when I heard that, and I went on Wikipedia and I said, you know, what were the number of pardons for each president?
I'm going to read those to you now.
Jimmy Carter, 566.
Ronald Reagan, 406.
H.W. Bush, 77.
Bill Clinton, 459.
George W. Bush, 200.
Barack Obama, 1,927.
Donald Trump, 237.
So just to just, let's use the math and the objective data.
So Barack Obama pardoned 1,000% more people than Trump.
So, you know, it's dangerous when we give an overall pardon.
And yet, you know, Biden is going to pardon his whole family.
And, you know, we'll never hear from those IRS whistleblowers who said that, you know, brought that to the forefront and said this is a bad thing because they got all of these accounts and they're making a lot of money.
All of that's going to go away because of this pardon.
So, you know, it's a sad thing.
So, you know.
All right, Anthony.
We got it.
Gwen in Detroit, Democrat, good morning.
Hi.
Good morning.
You know, it's weird listening to this conversation today about whether or not Biden should pardon his son.
And, you know, it's just hypocritical because the same people want to overlook everything.
Don't put your finger on the button yet.
Don't hang up on me, please.
Okay.
My finger's not on the button, Gwen.
Okay, wonderful.
Okay.
Anyway, I just got this point to get out.
It's just so hypocritical because Trump has done so much.
Biden does one thing, one thing this time, one thing last time.
Oh, it's going to cause Trump going to now have the right to do this and do that when he's already said he's going to do what Biden did, pardon people.
You know, pardon the January 6th, people.
I mean, people don't think that's terrible.
Where's the outrage in that?
You know, and on the C-SPAN, we are constantly giving my viewpoint of the world that I live in, other people giving theirs.
The facts need to come out.
The facts need to step in, the truth, the truth.
So when, like, people are arguing about this pardon thing, go, whatever, like, Trump didn't do this, Trump didn't do that.
It has to be brought out, and the facts need to show to stop this alternative facts.
You know, you can't live with alternative facts.
We need the truth to step in.
Thank you.
All right.
And we are going to go to open forum.
So you can give us a call.
You can certainly continue to talk about this topic of the U.S. justice system in general or any other topic on your mind.
Here are the numbers.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And Independence 202-748-8002.
Well, Joe Manchin, Senator from West Virginia, was on the Senate floor yesterday giving his final floor speech after serving 14 years in the chamber.
Here are some of his remarks.
And lastly, since day one in the United States Senate, I have worked to protect, and I want to repeat this, I have worked and I believe with every bone in my body and every fiber in me and every ounce of blood that I have to preserve the bipartisan foundation of this Senate.
And that's the 60-vote threshold of the filibuster.
I believe with that, with everything in me.
I do.
Each of these victories required senators to come together from both sides to find solutions.
These were bills that just made common sense.
And when each side could take a little step to find common ground, powerful things happen.
But with the successes, I've seen more than my share of missed opportunities.
Legislation that was overwhelmingly supported by the American public, bills that would have significantly improved the lives of millions of Americans, immigration reform, background checks for guns, balancing the budget.
Too many opportunities to fix what's broken in America that has slipped right through our fingers.
Not because of any disagreements we might have had or substantive disagreements.
These opportunities were missed because of the politics got in the way of doing our job.
It stopped us from doing it.
I'm not saying that dealing with politics is easy.
It's not.
And it's messy at times.
I've had my share of tough votes.
And at times I felt like I felt like the whole Senate was united in being upset with me.
So maybe we did, maybe we were able to bring you together.
I don't know.
I tried.
Anytime I was confronted with a tough decision, I know you've heard me say something, I relied on where I came from, how I was raised, and who raised me.
And I would just tell them, I can't explain this back home.
It doesn't make sense.
I can't vote for it.
I'm just sorry.
Please don't be upset.
It's who I am.
And you all have been tolerant at times.
We'll take your calls for another 25 minutes on this segment.
Here's the Washington Post that says, Trump's lawyers cite Hunter Biden pardon in New York hush money dismissal bid.
It says that Trump's attorneys wrote that a judge had to ensure their client, who's not been sentenced, would be released from the case involving guilty verdicts on 34 counts.
Joe in Pennsylvania, Republican, good morning.
Yes, good morning.
There's two parts to mine.
Your question about that's on the board there.
That's kind of the individual, I'll say it that way, individual idea of justice because there are different judges all around.
So I do believe that what was done in New York to Donald Trump was wrong through the justice system and some of the federal things that have been done through the justice system are wrong and they're political and that's wrong.
But the second part is I want to know if anyone out there really remembers the name of Tanisha Bannister.
If we're talking about the lady from Illinois that got on rant about that you showed some of the people that were pardoned by Donald Trump.
Tanisha Bannister was, I think, one of the first persons released under the First Step Act.
And I want to read some other, just statistics here quickly.
I know I have a little bit of time, but 4,360 people have been released via compassionate release.
7,239 are serving final portions at home.
And 4,000 have been released through retroactivity.
Now, they're the people that Donald Trump worked with.
That was a bipartisan act that benefited people.
I understand the political leaders that Donald Trump had under him, that they were attacked by the other side.
And that's been pretty much commonplace.
Maybe not to the extent, because we do have a lot of news that covers that type of stuff.
But I just want to make it clear to some people, like the lady from Illinois, that Donald Trump did do positive stuff while he was in his first presidency and he gave to the people and he worked with.
It's a bipartisan act.
I know I'm repeating myself, but just for people to know that people have been released through a compassionate move by Donald Trump that he was part of it.
And that's pretty much my take on it.
But I will say again back to the beginning: the justice system, I think, is unstable because if Joe Biden himself doesn't trust it, why would anyone else trust it?
All right, Joe.
And here's James in Akron, Ohio, Democrat.
Hi, James.
I want to answer that last guy's question.
If Joe Biden doesn't trust the government, I mean, the legal system, it wasn't a matter of trust in the legal system, it was a matter of trusting the people that are being appointed to run the legal system that is the problem, all criminals.
But I wanted to answer a few people's questions.
Someone asked about Donald Trump being convicted on felony with misdemeanors.
Well, there's a law throughout the United States that if you have three or four misdemeanors, it becomes a felony.
And that's all over the country.
So that's why Trump was considered a felon in New York because of the amount of times that he broke the law.
Now, back to Hunter Biden.
No one has ever been convicted in this country for tax evasion after paying their taxes.
Donald Trump brags about not paying his taxes.
Nobody's arrested him.
Donald Trump has yet to release his taxes as he said he was not going to do it.
And nobody said anything about it.
So you have to look at the law and understand what's going on.
So we are having a tough time with people in this country knowing what the law reads and understanding what government is.
So right now, with what Donald Trump plans to do in this country, and time will tell.
Hopefully, I hope it works out.
I hope he does what he's doing.
I hope it works.
But I don't believe that it will because that's never worked before in the past.
But there's always the first time for everything.
But Donald Trump is a true criminal in the White House.
It's embarrassing.
Every country around the United States is embarrassed.
And one other thing, and I'll let it go.
Donald Trump, he got information about all the spies that the United States had.
And when he released the names of those spies, there were several people that came up missing and never came back.
England, Germany, and France said they will not release pertinent information to the United States anymore.
So think about it, people.
Robert in Talmadge, Ohio, Independent Line.
Hello, Mimi.
How are you doing today?
I'm doing okay.
How's it going, Robert?
I'm doing good.
I just want to say Biden parted his son.
I just, only one question.
I just want to ask Joe Biden, are you going to pardon all the black men that was not that was innocent?
Would you pardon them?
That's the only thing I got to say.
You have a great day.
And this is the politico.com with this article.
Jeffries calls on Biden to pardon more Americans.
It says the House Democratic leader said the president should pardon on a case-by-case basis the working-class Americans who have suffered unjustly aggressive prosecutions for nonviolent offenses.
It says, quote, and this is a Hakeem Jeffries, quote, during his final weeks in office, President Biden should exercise the high level of compassion he has consistently demonstrated throughout his life, including toward his son, and pardon on a case-by-case basis the working-class Americans in the federal prison system whose lives have been ruined by unjustly aggressive prosecutions for nonviolent offenses.
It says that the comments echo the calls from some other Democrats who, in recent days, have asked Biden to use his clemency powers for more Americans in federal custody besides Hunter and to address sentencing disparities.
But it did not pass judgment on the pardon of Hunter Biden itself.
Some in the caucus have openly criticized the president since the pardon was issued and said it would tarnish his legacy and open a lane for Donald Trump to issue similar sweeping pardons.
Ron in Denver, Democrat.
Hi, Ron.
Hi.
I wanted to mention a couple stories that the quote-unquote liberal media never got out there.
I wonder if a lot of Republicans ever saw the video of Congresswom Lauter Milk giving a tour of the Capitol the night before the insurrection of MAGA people taking photos of the hallways, the stairwells the night before, and these people were at the insurrection the next day.
That's one story.
Then February of 2024, 10 months ago, the indicted SBI informant told investigators he got Hunter Biden dirt from Russian intelligence officials and the information in the Comer indictment of Biden, which blew up in smoke because their informant turned out to be a Russian FBI informant.
He was arrested.
He's indicted.
And this happened 10 months ago.
And the media, nobody even knows it.
They all say, oh, the Hunter Biden, the Amuel's emails on this hard drive were not even, less than a third of them were verified.
And the one about the big guys was not.
And all these emails about his family and his brother getting loans from Russia, they were Russian information, and people need to know that.
Anyway, and Ron, about what you said about Representative Lautermilk, this is PBS.org.
It says that January 6th panel releases video of Representative Lautermilk leading a Capitol tour the day before the attack.
It says that it released the video by a Republican lawmaker the day before the attack showing participants taking photos of stairwells and tunnels in the Capitol complex.
And that's on PBS.org if you'd like to see that.
And this is Gina Mississippi, Republican.
Good morning, Gina.
Good morning, Amy.
I'd just like to make a point to America and specifically the Democrats who are so happy that Hunter Biden has been excused.
I'd like to know how many of you people have family members or children or friends who are now in jail serving time or on house arrest, paying big fines because they fooled around with drugs in some way.
So now all of you people are, you know, all of your loved ones and everything are there.
You're having to just suck it up and deal with all these charges that your loved ones and your friends are having to do, you know, serve time now.
And now Hunter Biden is all scot-free.
So, I mean, nothing in America is fair anymore.
Nothing in America, you have no way of knowing the truth about anything anymore.
And I just think you Democrats are making yourself look so foolish.
Get over it.
You lost.
You need to quit downing Donald Trump.
You had your chance.
You put a poor mentally deficient man in office.
Then you put you ran a woman without a primary who was either an alcoholic or a drug addict who giggled all the time.
So get over it, people.
All right, Gina.
Let's talk to Roland in Detroit, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Hi, Graham Rise and to you as well.
You know, the American American justice system continues to be rogue, unfair, and pathetic.
You know, there are black inmates in a prison in Virginia, Red Onion, who are complaining that their conditions are so horrendous that they're burning themselves.
They're literally burning themselves so they can get out of there and go to a major medical facility just to get out of that situation.
In Angola prison in Louisiana, the conditions there are so horrendous that black men are committing suicide and worse.
This is my solution.
The cabinet nominee should be vetted by people from the community, organizations that work for justice and fairness and stuff, not by senators and all of those cats, but by people from the community.
In Detroit, Porter Burks, he was 22 years old.
He was shot 32 times by the Detroit police at 4 in the morning.
He was in the middle of the street carrying a pocket knife, a pocket knife.
This guy is thin as a pencil.
And the Detroit police shot him 32 times, shot some places in the neighborhood, too.
Rayvon Shaheed in Flint, 20-something years old, was shot in the back.
This is just a couple weeks ago, running from the police.
He was so afraid of the police.
They lied.
Oh, he had a gun and stuff like that.
So what are we doing here in America?
One thing I have to say about Donald Trump, he's a disruptor.
And if some of his disruption benefits African American men in particular, then I'm all for it.
I'm there for it.
But we'll have to see.
But the government has to be returned back to the people.
And these senators and representatives in the House, we can't trust them to uplift justice.
All right, Roland.
Here's Dave in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Democrat, good morning, Dave.
Yeah, hi.
My name is Dave.
I'm a Cameroonian American.
I've been serving in the Department of Defense for the past 30 years.
I just retired.
and supporting the most advanced technology in the military, U.S. military.
Now, I have a couple of things to say.
The President of the United States is in Angola, and you hear Americans saying, oh, he's in Africa.
You signed this concentration with respect to Africa.
And let me just tell you something.
Without Africa, the West cannot survive.
Everybody knows that.
You come to Africa, you take away the resources, you take away the intellectuals.
There are more African doctors in the United States and Europe than in Africa.
So when you see Africa today, the Chinese are coming in because they too want Africa.
I see the way you guys go around.
This white folks, ignorant white folks in the West tells you, oh, Africa is nothing.
You barely cover Africa in the news.
But let me tell you something.
Africa will put an embargo on the West sooner or later, and you will think.
Look at the economy of the West.
You take away the gold, you use it to benefit yourself.
You take away the natural resources.
You take away the intellectuals.
If Africa stands on its own, you have something to pay for us.
Because I say, you barely talk about Africa as if it's some remote backward place.
But without Africa, let me tell you, you will not be able to survive.
All right, Dave, let's take a look at President Biden yesterday in Angola talking about the history of slavery and that connected the U.S. to Angola while he was there.
Here's a portion of his remarks.
But the United States founded an idea, one embedded in our Declaration of Independence, that is that all men and women are created equal and deserve to be treated equally throughout their lives.
It's abundantly clear today we have not lived up to that idea, but we've never fully walked away from it either.
And that's due in no small part to the determination and dreams of African Americans, including Angolan Americans, the proud descendants of the Spora who helped build my nation as they rebuilt their own families and their own sense of self.
They were the forebearers as well, resilient, faithful, even hopeful.
Hopeful that joy would comeeth in the morning, as it says in the Bible.
Hopeful that our past would not be the story of our future.
And hopeful in time the United States would write a different story in partnership with the people brought here in chains to my nation from Africa.
It's a story of mutual respect and mutual progress.
That's the history that brings me here.
The first American president ever to visit Angola.
Over time, and I'm proud to be.
Over time, the relationship between our countries has been transformed from distance to genuine warmth.
Today, our relationship is as strong as it's ever been.
Throughout my presidency, it's been my goal, goal of the United States to build a strong partnership with peoples and nations across the continent of Africa.
True partnerships and in achieving shared goals, bringing to bear the dynamism of America's private sector and the expertise of our government to support aspirations of African entrepreneurs, experts, leaders, both inside and outside of government.
Because we know the challenges that define our age demand African leadership.
One of every four human beings on earth will live in Africa by the year 2050.
And the ingenuity, determination of young Africans in particular, like the young society leaders I just met with here today, will be undeniable forces in that human progress.
That was President Biden and Angola yesterday.
And this is Bob in Connecticut, Republican.
Hi, Bob.
Hi, good morning, Mimi.
I'm calling in earlier this morning.
A woman called in and mentioned that the 34 charges, the felonies against former President Trump, and that no one calls in and talks about it.
I'm going to take 30 seconds to explain to everybody what these felony charges are, because I haven't met anyone who can name one.
And no one ever comes on the show and saying, well, these are the charges.
From the grand jury, there were 34 charges, and they were misdemeanors.
They were all bookkeeping, accounting misdemeanors under New York accounting law.
So they came over as misdemeanors.
And there's three basic ones.
I'm going to make all the audience expert in the 34.
And it's only, don't panic.
It won't take less than 30 seconds.
The first count was that an invoice was received from Michael Cohen, the attorney for the Trump organization.
It was a retainer fee.
That was count number one.
Count number two: the accounts payable clerk prepared a voucher, gave it to the bookkeeper.
The bookkeeper made an entry in the books recording the retainer fee as a legal expense.
Count number three, the bookkeeper wrote a check and, as we all do, made an entry in the checkbook stub.
Those are the three counts.
Those counts are repeated 11 times.
So three times 11 is 33.
And then there was one extra entry in the books for some expenses on the retainer bill.
So you have, and why was it entered 11 times?
From February of 17 to November of 17, 11 invoices for retainer fees were received from Michael Cohen.
So every time an invoice was received, the prosecution recorded three more entries repeating.
Invoice was received, the bookkeeper made an entry, a check was counted.
And it's repeated, I'm telling you, 11 times for each one of those entries.
Those are the 34 felonies.
And Bob, I do have here for people that want to look that up.
This is npr.org has those 34 felony counts listed specifically.
It's the 34 felony counts in Trump's hush money trial.
He's charged with falsifying business records in the first degree.
They have it listed, which each type, which is invoices for legal services, checks paid for legal services, and then ledger entrance entries for legal expenses.
And it has all of them listed here with the date.
If you'd like to take a look at that, that's at npr.org.
And here is Jim in Horseheads, New York, Independent.
Good morning, Jim.
Yeah, good morning.
I just got a couple of questions, not questions or statements.
The GOP isn't the GOP.
It's the TQG.
It's a Trump QA and Grang Party, for one.
The other one is I don't understand why the women in the United States didn't do anything with a Trump with the abortion thing.
They should have played Cowboys and Indians like the Indians did with custard.
And I heard something about he was going to take the stars and make them into a key in the flag.
That's kind of scary.
And they won't have to be worrying about the abortion thing.
The women will probably have to fight for their rights to vote.
When Trump said, don't worry about, they won't be thinking about the abortion.
No, they'll be trying to keep their rights.
All right, Jim.
And that's all the time that we've got.
But there's more to come in the program because up next, transgender rights takes center stage at the Supreme Court later this morning when it hears a challenge to Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
We'll get a preview with Law 360 Supreme Court reporter Katie Bueller.
And later, a conversation about the state of higher education in America with Princeton University President Christopher Eisgrupper, board chair of the Association of American Universities.
You're looking at live, a live look at Outside the Supreme Court right now.
And we will be right back.
Be up to date in the latest in publishing with BOOK TV'S podcast
about books.
With current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists, as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews.
You can find About Books on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, C-SPAN has provided complete coverage of the halls of Congress, from the House and Senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings.
C-SPAN gives you a front-row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered.
C-SPAN, your unfiltered view of government.
If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org.
Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's Points of Interest.
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 Q ⁇ A, 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.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We're joined now by Katie Buehler, Supreme Court reporter for Law 360.
We're talking about that Supreme Court case on transgender health care.
Katie, welcome to the program.
Hi, thank you for having me.
And I just want to note that we are going to be, you'll be able to hear oral arguments live.
That kicks off at 10 a.m. Eastern, so right after this program over on C-SPAN 3, as you know, cameras are not allowed inside the Supreme Court, but we will have the audio of that for you to listen in live.
Again, that's C-SPAN 3, also on the web, c-span.org.
Katie, tell us about the Supreme Court hearing.
What is it about?
So this case is about a Tennessee law passed in 2023 that bans gender-affirming health medical care for transgender minors, both hormonal treatments and surgical procedures.
Today's case is specifically about those hormonal treatments and how the law explicitly prohibits transgender minors from accessing them while it allows non-transgender minors access to those same treatments to treat other health conditions such as early or delayed puberty.
And in the case in question, these minors do have their parents' permission?
Yes, they do.
They have their parents' permission and they've usually been consulting a doctor for at least several months.
And what can you tell us about who brought the suit and who's involved?
So the lawsuit was originally brought by three transgender minors in Tennessee, their parents and a doctor who treats transgender patients.
The Biden administration eventually also joined in to argue alongside of them and they claim that the law is unconstitutional on several several grounds.
The most important for today's arguments is that it violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Explain that a little bit more.
So the Equal Protection Clause prohibits governments from creating laws that discriminate against certain groups of people or based on certain characteristics.
So in this case, the transgender minors and the federal government is arguing that the Tennessee law inappropriately discriminates against the minors' sex and their transgender status.
So in this case, for instance, if there was a testosterone treatment, if it was for a boy who is maybe going through puberty later than usual, he would be able to get testosterone treatments.
But in Tennessee, that would not be allowed for a biological girl who is maybe experiencing gender dysphoria.
She would not be able to have that.
Yes.
The ACLU attorney is Chase Strangio.
He's got an opinion piece, a guest essay in the New York Times that says, may it please the court trans health save my life.
Tell us about him.
So he will actually make history today as the first openly transgender attorney to argue in front of the Supreme Court.
He will represent the trans minors and their parents and the doctor.
He will get a smaller amount of time than the federal government will to argue, but he will be able to present their point of view.
And he has said in press calls and interviews that transgender medicine did save his life.
And how did the Biden administration get involved and what's the role here?
So the Biden administration got involved roughly a month after the case was filed.
And they joined in the transgender minors side to argue that the law is discriminatory.
The federal government is allowed to do so in certain cases that deal with the equal protection clause or that they believe are harming certain rights.
So they've been kind of arguing alongside the transgender minors and their parents since the beginning.
And the Tennessee side, what's the argument that they're making on the other side?
Tennessee's main argument is that this law is about regulating medical procedures and which states have historically been able to do and have the authority to do.
And they argue it's not discriminatory because it is defining which groups can access those treatments based on their intended use.
So Tennessee argues that because minors of both of each sex can fall into either the group seeking gender affirming care or the group seeking just treatment for other health conditions, that it's not, it doesn't separate them based on sex or transgender status.
We will take your calls for our guest, Katie Bueller, of Law 360 about that transgender case being heard this morning at 10 a.m. in front of the Supreme Court.
The numbers are bipartisan, so Republicans 202748-8001, Democrats 202748-8000, and Independents 202748-8002.
The Kaiser Family Foundation has a policy tracker about youth access to gender-affirming care.
It says that there are 26 states that have enacted laws limiting youth access.
It says that there are 17 states are facing lawsuits challenging their laws, and 24 states impose professional or legal penalties on health care practitioners providing minors with gender-affirming care.
First, let's start with that.
What kind of penalties could health care providers face if they were to provide this kind of care?
So in Tennessee specifically, the law imposes civil penalties.
So individuals could sue health care providers that provide this prohibited care.
In some other states, there are criminal penalties attached to it, whether they're misdemeanor or felony charges for providing this care.
It depends on the state.
And this is, I'll just show the map so you can take a look at which states, what's in blue here is states that have enacted a law or policy against gender-affirming care.
Again, this is just for minors for 17 and under.
Well, you're going to be at the court this morning.
What are you going to be listening for specifically?
The main overarching argument will be whether the justices questions are aimed at deciding if this is a sex-based classification case and if it is discriminatory.
I will be also paying attention to whether they ask about some of the scientific studies that Tennessee and the United States have relied on to make their arguments.
So there are scientific studies on both sides proving both sides?
They support both sides.
Some of the studies on the Tennessee side have been disproven or found to be disproven by courts.
So it'll be interesting to see whether the justices bring up those studies and whether they bring up on the other side studies that Tennessee has criticized.
So once the court does come to a decision on this, what kind of impact is that going to have over these other states?
Either the ones that don't have policies against it or the ones that do?
So it depends on the court's ruling.
If a court rules very narrowly specifically about Tennessee law, it won't have that much effect.
But the court could issue a broader ruling about whether transgender status is a protected status or not.
And depending on how it rules there, we could see more legal challenges to the other laws, or we could see other states emboldened to enact additional laws if the Supreme Court holds that it's not protected.
And does that apply to other laws impacting transgender people?
So things like bathroom use, sports participation.
What could happen there?
It could, yeah.
Several of those laws are already being challenged under similar arguments.
But if the Supreme Court does, for instance, rule that transgender status is protected, most of those laws will at least be significantly challenged.
There can be other arguments to support those laws, but they do delineate based on a minor sex and transgender status.
All right, let's talk to callers.
We've got Dan up first in El Paso, Texas, Republican.
Good morning, Dan.
Yeah, I was just wondering why educators think that it's a good use of taxpayer dollars to focus on gender studies.
Thank you.
A little bit outside of our topic on gender studies, but he did mention taxpayer funding.
Is there any gender affirming care that is taxpayer funded?
Do you know?
Not that I'm aware of.
So I want to ask you about any other Supreme Court cases in the past that have, I mean, have they waded into transgender rights in the past?
Have there been any other cases that they've taken up on this topic?
So they have.
They've reviewed it in the employment discrimination context.
In 2020, the court issued a ruling in Bostock versus Clayton County, which ruled that the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their transgender status.
In that decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that a person's transgender status is intrinsically linked to their sex, and so it is, in that context, a sex-based discrimination.
But it's unclear whether that reasoning will be transferred to this case.
There is, sorry, I wanted to just show this article.
This is Reuters that says, putting numbers on the rise in children seeking gender care.
It says thousands of children in the United States now openly identify as a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth.
Their numbers surging amid growing recognition of transgender identity and rights, even as they face persistent prejudice and discrimination.
As the number of transgender children has grown, so has their access to gender-affirming care, much of it provided at scores of clinics at major hospitals.
Reliable counts of adolescents receiving gender-affirming treatment have long been guesswork.
Until now, Reuters worked with health technology company Komodo Health Inc. to identify how many youths have sought and received care.
The data show that more and more families across the country are grappling with profound questions about the type of care to pursue for their children, placing them at the center of vitriolic national political debate over what it means to protect youth who identify as transgender.
So here is some statistics for you from that study.
It says new diagnoses in the United States of patients ages 6 to 17.
And you can see here the numbers going from up here at 2017 to 2021, down here at 42,000.
And this is select states.
Here are some graphs of new diagnoses of Medicaid patients.
And that is some information for you at Reuters if you'd like to take a closer look.
And here's John in West Yarmouth, Massachusetts, Republican.
Yes, this is John from Mosheam.
I want to talk about the transgender in the military.
And I want to get your opinion.
How do you think that makes us more military productive by having people having operations and being out of service?
You have people running total military that are transgender.
It's a total disgrace.
And you're brainwashing our children with those books.
And that's how you get it all style.
You Democrats are evil people.
What do you think?
Not about the evil part, but transgender in the military.
I honestly don't have an opinion on that.
This case is not about that.
This case is about whether doctors and parents and transgender minors can collectively choose to treat gender dysphoria.
And that's what the argument is about today.
So this is the U.S. Army's website.
Change to policy allows transgender soldiers to serve openly.
This is from June 24th of 2021.
Of course, that might change.
Also, obviously, the Trump administration will be coming in in January.
What impact do you think that that could have on this case?
It's kind of up in the air.
So, based on campaign statements and other policy statements, the Department of Justice will likely change its stance in this case.
But it's unclear whether that will influence the justices ruling in the case because it will have already been fully briefed and fully argued by the time the new administration comes in.
It could a change in the stance of the administration could provide the justices a way to, for lack of a better word, dodge answering this question and for them to say that this case is moot.
But it is also an issue that is prevalent in a bunch of other lawsuits, and the case below would still exist even if the government wasn't involved because it was brought by those transgender minors and their parents.
So it won't be a question that the Supreme Court could dodge for very long.
And if you would like to join our conversation, Katie Buehler of Law 360 will be with us to talk about this topic of the Supreme Court case on gender-affirming care for minors.
That is, she'll be with us for about 10 minutes, so you can give us a call.
The numbers are Republicans 202-748-8001.
If you're a Democrat, call us on 202-748-8000.
And if you're an Independent, it's 202-748-8002.
Martin from Chicago is asking, how many cases have there been of minors receiving any gender-conforming surgeries for the last decade?
As far as I know, it's zero.
Yes, so that's part of the government's argument.
The standard of care for minors is that they don't receive surgeries.
They would only receive hormonal treatments.
And then once they become of age and are older, then they could be eligible for surgeries.
Yeah.
And Irene on X says, after gaining personal health care decisions decades ago, we are going back.
Decisions should be between patients and doctors.
How are we back here?
Any comment on that?
It's a, you know, it's a new area that states are trying to deal with.
So that's why we're seeing this surge in laws, and it's a hot topic.
But this case is important for medical independence.
If the Supreme Court does rule in favor in Tennessee, we could see other laws regulating other medical treatments such as IVF, vaccinations.
It'll probably embolden states to step into those areas.
This is a Time magazine that says the stakes of the Supreme Court's major trans rights case.
It says that Tennessee's law, Senate Bill 1, which the Biden administration, a doctor, and three families challenged, prohibits doctors from prescribing pharmaceutical and surgical care for transgender minors that are looking to gender transition.
Tennessee is home to more than 3,000 transgender adolescents, and across the U.S. It says there are some 300,000 transgender youth according to the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute.
And we'll just put that on the screen for you, some statistics for you to take a look at from that UCLA School of Law Institute.
This is from 2022, by the way.
So they're saying that it's 1.6 million people, 13 plus, identify as transgender.
Of those, the breakout is 1.3 million are adults, so that's 0.5% of U.S. adults, and 300,000 are youth, and that's age 13 to 17, making that 1.4% of U.S. youth.
What do you make of those numbers, Katie?
I think they've increased over the years because of the evolution of medicine.
I mean, we've seen this with other diagnoses that are new and upcoming.
Once the medical field understands what gender dysphoria is about, there's going to be more diagnosis.
And once, depending on how open certain communities are, there will be more children and minors and adults willing to come out as transgender.
Do we know anything about the three youth that are named in this case and or are their identities protected because they're underage?
Do we know anything about their background story?
Their identities are protected.
They're just referred to by their initials.
But the father of one has talked about his daughter, who I believe is 16, who came out as transgender several years ago.
And she's been receiving treatment, hormonal treatments for a couple months.
And that treatment is threatened, and they would have to, he said they would have to leave the state and go somewhere else where this treatment is allowed in order to continue that.
Here is, sorry.
Callie in Columbus, Ohio, Democrat.
Good morning.
Morning.
I just wanted to comment on the importance of this.
I am actually in the hospital right now recovering from a gender-affirming operation, and I'm 30 years old, and to have access to this kind of care as a child would literally have changed my life.
I'm lucky to have made it this far.
But I just, I know we have a lot of stuff going on even in Ohio, and it's really disappointing to see.
I think that we all deserve to be who we are.
What do you think, Katie?
That's an important point.
The one thing I will say is that this, the ruling in this case, could eventually affect medical care for adults as well, depending on how the justices rule.
If they do rule that transgender status is not a protected classification, we could eventually see similar laws prohibiting hormonal treatments and surgical procedures for adults who are transgender as well.
And Greg in St. Louis, Missouri says, what is the definition of a transgender person?
So in this case, the transgender person is a person who identifies as a sex different from the one assigned to them at birth.
All right.
Last comment on what you're going to be looking for, what you think the implications of this case might be before we wrap up.
So I'll be looking for in these arguments the questions that Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts asked specifically because they were in the majority in that Bostock case that said that the Civil Rights Act protects transgender status from discrimination.
And I'll also be interested to see the types of questions that Justice Katanji Brown Jackson and Justice Amy Kumini Barrett ask because they weren't on the court back then.
So it'll be interesting to see how they're approaching this issue.
All right, Katie Bueller, a Supreme Court reporter for Law 360.
You can find her work at law360.com.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you.
Up next, a conversation about the state of higher education in America with Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruper.
He's board chair of the Association of American Universities.
And later, we'll be joined by Samuel Morrison, a lawyer focused on clemency who spent 13 years in the Justice Department's office of the pardon attorney.
We'll talk about the Hunter-Biden pardon and the debate over how broad the pardon power should be for presidents.
Stay with us.
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 BookNotes 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.
Attention middle and high school students across America.
It's time to make your voice heard.
C-SPAN Student Cam Documentary Contest 2025 is here.
This is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact.
Your documentary should answer this year's question: your message to the president.
What issue is most important to you or your community?
Whether you're passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, StudentCam is your platform to share your message with the world.
With $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work.
Enter your submissions today.
Scan the code or visit studentcam.org for all the details on how to enter.
The deadline is January 20th, 2025.
C-SPAN 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, afterwards, booknotes plus, and QA.
Listen to C-SPAN's Bookshelf Podcast feed today.
You can find the C-SPAN Bookshelf Podcast feed and all of our podcasts on the free C-SPAN Now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website c-span.org/slash podcasts.
C-SPAN shop.org is C-SPAN's online store.
Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our non-profit operations.
Shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
We are talking about higher education in America with the president of Princeton University, Christopher Eisgruber.
He's also chair of the Association of American Universities.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you.
It's a pleasure to be here.
So you just started your term as chair of the Association of American Universities.
Tell us about that organization, the mission, and who the members are.
Yeah, it's a great honor to be chairing the board for the Association of American Universities.
This is a group of about 70 of America's leading research universities.
So it includes public flagship universities.
It includes private universities.
What we share in common is a commitment to educating students at the highest level and a commitment to research of the highest quality that enables our country to enjoy prosperity and promotes the security of the country as well.
So what are your goals and priorities going to be for this coming year?
I think it's important to continue to, for the government to continue supporting the kind of research that we've had in the United States.
We've benefited tremendously in this country from having a partnership between the government and its universities that has produced both practical applied research and basic research that has laid the foundation for later discoveries.
So one of the things that I want to do is work very carefully and closely with the president of the AAU, Barbara Snyder, to support that funding in Congress.
We also need to protect the freedom of our institutions and help to make the case for what those institutions are doing for our students, for the country.
Well, make that case.
I mean, how would you describe the current state of higher education in America?
I think the current state of higher education is terrific in the United States.
Part of the evidence for that is that people all around the world seek to come to these universities as students and faculty members.
The return on investment from a four-year college degree, which is what all of us in the AAU offer, is tremendous.
For many families, that investment in higher education will be the best investment that they make in their lifetimes, judged just by the financial return.
And of course, there are lots of other benefits to getting a four-year college degree.
And the research that our universities produce is a difference maker in terms of our health, in terms of information technology, in terms of innovation, and in terms of jobs for this country.
You talked about return on investment.
I mean, a college degree has become extremely expensive, and it continues to get more and more expensive, outpacing inflation.
And it's a for a lot of American students.
Why is a college degree so expensive these days?
So, Mimi, I'm really glad you raised the point because I think there are a couple of things in what is a very common narrative that I would love to be able to correct.
One is the actual cost that people pay for higher education over the past four to five years hasn't been going up.
It hasn't even been going up at the rate of inflation.
It's been going down.
And that's something you can find in college board data.
There's a great article in the Hill.
Tuition itself has been going up.
The sticker price in tuition has been going up.
But what people actually pay is the sticker price minus financial aid at institutions.
And institutions, including mine, have been raising dollars from alumni and from endowments so that in fact our educations are more affordable than ever.
I'll just use some of our own data around that.
71% of the students at Princeton are on financial aid.
71%.
And that financial aid involves scholarships that are larger than the tuition price.
So the average student on financial aid at our university is getting a part subsidy for room and board at our university in addition to full coverage of the tuition price.
When people are looking at education, they have to keep two things in mind about it.
One is what matters is the net price and all of the AAU institutions, for example, are offering significant financial aid to their students.
So people have to look carefully at what they're actually going to pay if they come.
And then the second is the critical question about education is that return on investment.
Figure out exactly what the net price is, and then pay attention to what you're getting back from that.
Education isn't a consumer good that you simply use up in the way that some things that we purchase are.
Much more like the kinds of investments that you make for a lifetime.
And when you look at that investment, it is one of the best investments that you will ever make.
Nonetheless, there are people taking out a lot of student loans in order to pay for college.
Do you take a position on student loan forgiveness?
The AAU doesn't have an official position on student loan forgiveness.
We have a commitment to affordability.
We believe that the government should increase, for example, the Pell grants that enable students from low-income families to attend college and flourish when they go there.
We and other associations have supported the idea of doubling Pell.
Again, one of the things that I think people need to know as these narratives get out there through stories that I think often cover outliers is that these financial aid arrangements often enable students to graduate without any debt from college.
So our university, Princeton, makes a commitment to its students that all of them will get financial aid that will allow them to graduate with zero debt.
More than 83% of our students graduate every year debt-free.
The others are taking out relatively small loans on a discretionary basis.
So the reality when parents are taking a close look at what these leading research universities and other colleges are offering is different from what's often out there in the narrative.
Well, you've got to get into Princeton first to get that financial aid.
Well, that's why I say that.
That's not easy.
No, that is not easy.
And we have extraordinary students who are applying to us.
But what I've just said is true in differing ways across this entire extraordinary group of 70 universities and at many universities and colleges that are outside of that group.
So it's not just the very selective universities where this is true.
There has been a decline in enrollment across the board of American universities.
Is that a concern among university leadership and what's being done to address that?
Yeah, we're seeing a generational shift right now.
That is the there's, you know, just as you look at demography, we have known that we will see declines in the numbers of college-going students as demographic patterns change.
For the leading research universities in the country, the applicant pools remain robust and the sets of students who want to come to our colleges and universities from within the United States and outside the United States remains very strong.
But I think we are going to see effects in the sector more broadly as these democratic shifts, demographic shifts take hold.
And if you'd like to join the conversation, if you've got a question or a comment about higher education in America, you can give us a call.
Our guest is Christopher Eisgruber.
He's president of Princeton University.
The lines are biparty, and Republicans are on 2028-8001.
Democrats are on 2028-8000.
And Independents 202748-8002.
We also have a line set aside for college students.
So if you are currently enrolled in college right now, please do give us a call.
We'd love to get your perspective on this as well.
202748-8003.
There have been fewer protests on the Gaza war than we have seen in the past.
How are schools addressing this issue this school year?
Well, I think What schools have to do around this issue is to respect basically the principles that are part of our United States Constitution that for most of us are part of our university rules as well, which means we respect free speech.
And at the same time, we insist that students and others comply with what are known as time, place, and manner restrictions when they are protesting.
So in this country, in the city of Washington, D.C., where our government is located, you have more freedom to criticize our government than you do in just about any other country in the world.
I think that's a good thing.
And you have to have that kind of vigorous free speech on college campuses where people can speak up about controversial topics like the Israel-Gaza war.
On the other hand, we do have rules in the United States and on our college campuses.
You can't just pitch a tent in order to protest on the Capitol Mall.
You can't occupy a building here in Washington.
You can't spray paint your message on the Washington Monument.
And we have to have the same kinds of rules on college campuses.
So that's what we've done at Princeton.
It's what other universities are doing around the country in order to enable people both to speak up and to make sure they do so in a way that allows everybody to go about their business on the campus and doesn't disrupt the activities of the campus.
I'll say two other things about what we have to do there.
We have to be elevating the conversation.
So you get talk, again, in our country and on our campuses.
A lot of it is shouted.
That gets covered a lot by the news media.
You can have a lot of discussions going on in seminars that are balanced, rational, and thoughtful.
What gets the pictures are the students with the signs.
But we've got to take those conversations on tough issues that are happening on our campuses and elevate them.
I think we're doing a good job with that.
The second, I would say, is that we do want students to be engaged around these issues.
So there are people who just go about their business and don't pay attention to the issues that are happening in the world.
We want our students to grow up to be engaged leaders.
And so I respect the right to protest.
I don't respect the right to disrupt.
That's not a right that people have.
What was your experience on the campus of Princeton University?
And also not just the protests, but the freedom of speech aspects.
I think we did a good job at Princeton.
That's what we hear from our students when we survey them as well.
When we ask them about their student experience, and we do this every year, last year, students continued to report a high sense of satisfaction with their student experience.
In fact, it was a little higher than the previous year.
And I mentioned that because it's important when you have these tumultuous events, and they are tumultuous, the feelings are raw and people can hurt during them, that you're able to give students the kind of educational experience that they want.
We had a lot of people who were upset and upset with me about various things that happened on the campus.
We had students chanting slogans that I will say I'm Jewish.
I have relatives in Israel.
I found some of those slogans very offensive, but I also felt I had an obligation under the Constitution and under our free speech rules at Princeton to protect the rights of people to say things.
We also had to enforce our rules, including through arrest at Princeton when people were violating time, place, and manner rules.
We were very clear about what those rules were, and that enabled us to get through the year.
But what I'm proudest of is that we had a number of different events that allowed people to explore these issues in more detailed ways.
So I'm just going to mention one very quickly.
Our dean of the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton and Manage Mall is probably the most prominent Palestinian American political scientist in the United States.
She did a couple of sessions with her counterpart at Columbia's policy school, Karen Yarhi Milo, who was an Israeli who was previously in the Israeli military.
The two of them became friends when they were assistant professors at Princeton before they became deans of these two schools.
And they, in the fall of last year, not so long after October 7th, were doing public events at both Princeton and Columbia in order to model for students what it meant for people with very different backgrounds to disagree with one another and disagree civilly.
Those don't get, those kinds of events don't get the kinds of attention that the protests do, but that's the heart of what's going on on college campuses, and I don't think it's happening in many other places in our society.
There's an article here from Higher Ed Dive, Why Colleges Are Turning to Institutional Neutrality.
Can you first explain what that means and is that a good approach?
Yeah, so institutional neutrality is a kind of slogan that describes a view about when universities should take positions and when presidents should make statements on issues.
This had been something that had been discussed among university presidents and other people in higher education for a period of time.
It kind of exploded into view after some of the unsuccessful statements that were issued last year.
Institutional neutrality reflects the view that universities at a broad level ought to be very circumspect.
They ought to be restrained, which is a word I like better than neutrality, about when they speak out.
The idea behind it is that, to take a broad phrase that I agree with, that universities ought not themselves to be the critics.
They ought not to be taking positions as Princeton University that are, for example, critical of our government.
They should be the sponsor of critics.
They should be enabling faculty and students to raise their voices.
I'll just note, I personally don't like the phrase institutional neutrality.
I don't think I've got a neutral institution.
I've got an institution that stands for the value of research.
It stands for the value of free speech.
It stands for the value that people of all backgrounds should be able to flourish on our campus.
And those are real values.
So I think neutrality doesn't express this idea well.
But I do agree that universities have to be careful not to be taking positions as institutions, except in a very limited set of circumstances.
Let's talk to callers.
Chuck is calling from Syracuse, New York, Republican.
Hi, Chuck.
Hi.
So I'm a little bit surprised that we have this gentleman out here that's saying that you have to be putting forth college.
You have to go to college to be successful.
Princeton is worth the money.
You had Mark Zuckerberg, you had Bill Gates.
You have other people who've been really successful.
You have Mike Rowe, who has a show about dirty jobs, about plumbers, electricians, other jobs that you don't have to be successful.
But I think one person who would agree with you that it is a good idea to get a college degree would be Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who was a math professor who went to Berkeley.
I'm sure he put his degree to good use.
What do you think, President Eisberger?
Gruber.
So thank you.
Thank you for the question.
And thank you for the opportunity to clarify what I think about this.
I agree entirely that you can be successful in a number of different careers without going to college.
And I don't think that everybody should go to college.
And I think it's very important for us to recognize that as a country and for academic institutions as well as the government to support people who make other choices.
On the other hand, what I do believe and what I did say is that for people who want to go to college and people who make that choice, it's going to be a spectacularly good investment to go to college.
So if you just take a look at the data about my institution, the institutions in the AAU or four-year college degrees more generally, the return on investment, judged in economic terms, is very strong.
And it provides you with a lot of other opportunities as well.
Doesn't mean it's the right choice for everybody.
It just means that for people who are thinking about this choice and asking themselves the question, hey, I'd like to go to college.
The kinds of careers that you get by going to college make a or sound attractive to me.
Will that investment pay off?
The economic news is very good about that.
But it's not the right investment for everybody, just as other good investments are not right for everybody.
Michael in Denver, Independent Line, you're next.
Yeah, thank you so much for taking my call.
And Mr. Icegruber, thank you so much for being here this morning.
And I just had a quick kind of comment and question.
So what I was going to bring up is the issue of mental health at colleges.
You know, statistics have shown as high as 40% of students on college campuses are experiencing some form of mental illness.
And, you know, many times I think the problem is a lack of access that students have in many cases to forms of treatment or services.
And so the question I was going to ask you about this is what have you implemented or feel should be implemented in terms of making sure that students have access to mental health care and furthermore identifying mental health issues kind of before it's too late.
Yeah, Michael, thank you for this question, which is so important for our colleges and for our country.
What I would say first of all is we're facing a mental health crisis in the United States right now for much of our population I would say but it is especially acute among young people and that includes both high school aged and what we typically think of as college aged students.
I put it that way because it's not as though this is worse for students who are actually in college.
The numbers I've seen suggest that it's actually a bit better for students who are in college than it is for peers of the same age.
But you are absolutely correct that this is an issue that we need to worry about on college campuses and it's an issue that we need to worry about in the country.
I'll just give a, to respond to your specific question a little bit from my own institution at Princeton because it's the one that I know best.
We've worked very hard to increase the availability of counseling and psychiatric services at Princeton.
We work hard to educate our students as well as our faculty to recognize signs of distress in themselves or in their peers.
We've taken a comprehensive approach to mental health on the campus, recognizing that mental well-being isn't just a matter of counseling and psychological services.
It's a matter of making sure that people feel supported and have ways of talking through problems throughout their life in this academic environment.
But I think you're right to bring up the question, and I think it's something that should concern us all, not just in terms of access to resources, but in terms of understanding what are the sources of this issue.
You know, people point to things like loneliness in our society.
They point to the impact of social media.
We are providing on many of our college campuses at this point better access to these services than people will ever enjoy in their lives after leaving those campuses.
We need to find ways to make sure that we're producing citizens who are resilient and are able to live flourishing lives.
And that goes beyond the care that we're able to offer on campus.
It goes to the sources.
Ken in Seabrook, Texas says this, there's a great deal of waste in higher education, which significantly adds to the cost.
These costs have been attributed mostly to administration and paying for tenured faculty that do little teaching.
Yet these costs continue to rise.
What do you think?
Well, let me, first of all, look, one of the things that I do as a president, and I did it before as provost of the university, which is chief budget officer, is always to look for ways to cut waste and to find more efficient ways for the university to do things.
I think of my job, both now and when I was the chief budget officer of the university, is maximizing the impact of our mission-based dollars.
But let me say a couple of things about why it is that any university is going to have to invest aggressively in people, both on the faculty side and on the staff side.
I'll just mention on the staff side, the conversation I just had with our previous caller, Michael, about counseling and psychological services.
All those people are staff.
They're not a waste.
They're doing critical work to support our students and other members of our community in order to enable them to flourish.
And I think that's true of the vast majority of people who sometimes get grouped under this word staff or administration.
Faculty are the core of the enterprise at any great college or university.
And they're doing teaching and they're doing research.
And both of those things are important, especially at America's leading research universities.
I think the thing that drives expense, whether you're at the university level or whether you're dealing with high schools or elementary schools, is that what matters is to get great teachers and great minds in classrooms with students that enable them to push those students.
That means investing in talent, and that's what we do, and I think we do it well.
Let's talk to Thomas in Ferndale, Michigan.
Democrat.
Hi, Thomas.
Hi, good morning, Dr. Dean Gruber.
My name is Thomas.
I'm actually a Princeton alum, so it's great to speak with you, and thank you for being on the show.
I think Princeton's actually done a pretty good job handling the complex issues and controversies that arise with the Israel-Palestine conflict.
However, my question for you is how can students get the attention of the administration when they have important issues that they want to address, like a divesting from weapons manufacturing, divesting from institutions that might support ideals that are not what Princeton supports, so that Princeton can serve in the service of all nations.
Thank you.
So Thomas, thank you for calling in.
And just for other viewers, in the service of all nations, actually Princeton's motto now is in the nation's service and in the service of humanity.
So our alum is quoting that back to me.
Thomas, I appreciate the question.
I think there are multiple ways that students and others can bring their concerns to the attention of myself or the administration.
You may well know as an alum that at Princeton we have meetings of something called the Council for the Princeton University Community basically once a month during the academic year.
It ends up being about six meetings per year.
One of those is a town hall where just as I'm doing now, I take questions from whoever shows up.
But I'm present at almost all of those meetings as are my colleagues.
And we hear what the concerns are of the community.
People who are concerned about things like divestment have the opportunity to present petitions to what is a student faculty and staff committee that considers issues about divestment or the use of university resources.
So there are a lot of different ways to do that.
And by the way, it is permissible too to protest.
As I said earlier, protest on a college campus is fine.
Disruption is not.
And sometimes students choose that as a way to bring issues to people's attention.
I will note there's a difference between bringing up issues and getting attention on them and getting the particular outcome that a group wants when you've got an issue and questions about the Israel-Gaza war or about divestment are often perfect examples of this.
There are going to be multiple opinions on a college campus, multiple opinions and strong disagreement within the student body on those issues.
And it may be the case that people bring up issues.
They're then discussed through a fair process where lots of different viewpoints come in and the university doesn't end up taking a particular position.
That goes back maybe to this question of institutional neutrality or what I would prefer to call institutional restraint.
On some of these issues, the right thing is for the university to say, look, I understand you're really excited about this particular issue, but it's not one where the university should take a position.
We encourage you to continue taking positions as students or faculty members.
Thanks for the question, Thomas.
I hope I see you at reunions.
And let me just show this newly introduced bill.
It's called Protect Economic Freedom Act, and it essentially cuts off federal student aid to colleges that participate in a commercial boycott against Israel.
It says this.
It prohibits colleges and universities from receiving federal student aid if they engage in commercial boycotts dedicated by those, dictated by those in the boycott-sanctioned divest or the BDS movement.
And that comes out of the House Education Workforce Committee.
It's not expected to go anywhere, but your response to that.
Well, look, I'm going to say this first.
Both I and the AAU have strongly opposed the idea of boycotts in general.
I put out a statement opposing boycotts in the first year of my presidency, which was now about 12 years ago.
I think that as universities, we depend on building bridges rather than creating walls.
It's important for us to be interacting with other institutions around the world.
And again, with regard to these issues around what I would prefer to call institutional restraint, I just don't think it's appropriate for universities to be engaging in those kinds of actions.
On the other hand, I also think there's a huge danger if Congress starts picking out particular issues and saying with regard to these universities that make such a difference in the world, look, we're going to pick on this political issue or that political issue and use it as a reason to start cutting off aid that ultimately makes these institutions more affordable and enables them to do the research on which our country depends.
Here's Jeannie in Austin, Texas, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Hi.
Hi, Mr. Eisenberger and guest and host.
I'm going to speak fast because I know y'all are out of time.
I'm Jeannie Romeris from Austin, Texas, and I do believe in higher education.
I'm 61 years old.
I wish I could go on a speaking tour to all these high school kids and tell everyone, when you make bad grades, you end up being an organic housekeeper like myself.
And I also got to do training at a job where I learned poblotomy and EKG technician does not pay well.
I'm also a musician for 38 years.
That doesn't pay well, but that's my passion.
I love it.
And I am for protesting, you know, as long as it's civil.
But in Austin, Texas, Governor Abbott brought in the state troopers, and it got real violent because of the state troopers.
That was terrible.
And I want everybody to know I quit buying into the Israeli propaganda years, about five years ago.
I learned a lot.
And to me, I believe the Doctors Without Borders and their reports right now and all these major newspapers saying that these children have bullets in their heads.
They are kidnapping doctors.
And yes, the students are passionate and they don't want that.
Okay?
And I think universities should protest against that.
But I don't want any, you know, with the Republican House and now Senate, they're going to pass that bill y'all just showed.
Anyway, thank you, C-SPAN, for giving us the people the voice.
All right, Jeannie.
Any comment, Professor?
Yeah, Jeannie, thank you for calling in.
The one thing I would say is we want our students to have engaged in passionate opinions as you have engaged in passionate opinions.
And they're going to have different ones than they do.
And over this past year, they're sometimes protesting both sides out on the lawn with different slogans.
And we think that's important.
But we don't think it should be the university doing the protesting or the speaking in those circumstances.
And moreover, As important as protest is, it's really important too for what we do to have these conversations like the one we're having here this morning that take these topics and try to elevate them and get people to appreciate one another's sides to the extent that that's possible and look for solutions that are going to make a difference for the future.
We've got a text from Doug in Toronto, Ohio who wants to know your opinion regarding free college for all.
And I'll just show this NPR article here, University of Texas, MIT and others announce free tuition for some undergraduates.
Well, I think free tuition for some undergraduates is a great idea.
And as I said earlier, I think that the AAU schools are all doing this in one way or another.
We all do it on the basis of financial need.
That is, for students who are qualified to attend our institutions and aren't able to afford to go to our institutions, we provide aid that makes it possible for them to do so.
And for some students, that makes it free.
I don't believe in free tuition for all because I think there are some people who are able to afford to make this extraordinary investment in college education.
It's a worthwhile investment and it's a good thing for people to do.
So let me give you some numbers.
So this is MIT as an example.
It says that undergraduates with family income below 200,000 can attend tuition free starting next year.
That's up from its current threshold of $140,000.
There is, as you know, President Ice Gruber, big endowments at some of these Ivy League colleges, including yours at Princeton.
Should those be maintained at that level or should that be used to increase the amount of aid given to students?
So, Mimi, it's a great question.
I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to this.
Endowments are meant to be used, and we are using those endowments.
So, if you look at MIT and why it's able to do what it's doing, or I talked earlier about how Princeton has 71% of its students on financial aid with scholarships that are in excess of the tuition price and students as a result graduating debt-free, that's because we're spending our endowments on financial aid.
We're spending our endowments on financial aid.
We're spending them on research endowments.
People sometimes think they're like savings accounts that sit off to the side.
They're not that.
They're like annuities.
They're like what pays for your retirement.
At Princeton, we're currently spending 5.3% of our endowment every year to maintain the operating budget of the university across all that we do.
And the reason why I was able to answer your first question by saying, look, the affordability of American universities is getting better and better is because for those of us with endowments, we are deploying them aggressively to do things like what's happening at Princeton or at MIT or the other schools you mentioned to create scholarship opportunities that didn't exist before.
That's what we ought to be doing.
All right, Christopher Icegruber, he is president of Princeton University, also chair of the Association of American Universities.
You can find out about that organization at aau.edu.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you.
It's been a pleasure to be here.
Up next, we'll be joined by Samuel Morrison, a lawyer focused on clemency who spent 13 years in the Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney.
We'll talk about that Hunter-Biden pardon and the debate over how broad the pardon power should be for presidents.
We'll be right back.
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 cspanshop.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's Cyber Monday sale.
Going on now with up to 35% off at c-spanshop.org or scan the code on the right.
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.
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.
Non-fiction book lovers, C-SPAN has a number of podcasts for you.
Listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the Afterwords podcast and on Q ⁇ A. 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.
Welcome back.
We are talking about presidents and pardon power with Samuel Morrison.
He's a former staff attorney for the Department of Justice in the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
Sam, welcome to the program.
Thank you.
Thanks for having me.
So what was your reaction to President Biden's pardoning of his son, Hunter?
Well, I actually wasn't surprised at all.
I know he said he wouldn't do it, but I expected that he would just because the impulse of a father to help his son was going to prove to be too much, and he had the authority to do it.
So I understand that people find it somewhat disquieting.
I get that.
But it certainly wasn't invalid.
It was an entirely lawful constitutional exercise of the pardon power.
So we can debate about whether it was a good idea, a wise use of the power, but it certainly wasn't illegal.
It's also not, it's very broad, and in that sense, it's unusual.
The only modern grant that even comes close would have been Ford's pardon of Nixon.
And that seems to have been the model that they used.
We'll talk about that, but I want to first show a portion of President Biden's statement on his pardoning of his son.
It says no reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter's cases can reach any other conclusion that Hunter was singled out only because he is my son, and that is wrong.
I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.
And once I made the decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further.
I hope Americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision.
What I want to ask you about is his line, raw politics infected the process that singled out Hunter Biden for this harsher treatment, according to the president.
What was your reaction to that?
I thought the statement was unnecessary and that it adds to the controversy.
He didn't have to sort of attack the justice system in doing this.
He could just do it.
He doesn't have to explain it at all.
And I think people would have understood that a father is going to help his son.
So was Hunter singled out?
Maybe so.
He did plead guilty to the tax charge, and he was convicted of the gun charge, and there's no issue or dispute that he got due process in that proceeding.
So in that sense, sure, he came to the attention of the authorities because he came from a prominent family.
That also comes with lots of advantages that other people don't have.
And a lot of people get targeted by the federal government.
They have a conviction rate of 98%.
So the problem with what he said is that is he going to extend that same consideration to anyone else?
One hopes that he will, because it doesn't only apply to Hunter.
You said before that only one other person has received a presidential pardon that was so sweeping, which was Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford in 1974.
So explain the similarities there and the differences.
So if I could just step back for a second, people need to understand that the president's authority to pardon people for committing a federal crime is very broad.
It applies to any offense that's been committed.
It doesn't have to be reduced to a charge or a conviction.
So anytime the president wants to pardon somebody for an uncharged offense, there's always going to be a problem of how do you frame that grant so that we know what charge you're talking about.
And in Ford's pardon to Nixon, he did it in terms of a date range.
He didn't say any offense related to Watergate.
He said any offense from 1969 to 1974.
Now, the purpose was to get Watergate behind the country.
He wanted to get past that.
But on its face, that would have pardoned any crime, even crimes we didn't know about that occurred within that date range.
Well, that's what President Biden did with his son.
He said Hunter was pardoned not only for the two convictions that we know about, but for any offense that occurred from a date in 2014 to 2024.
Why do you think he did that?
Well, I think it's obvious that there are other potential crimes out there, and he was afraid that the Trump Justice Department was going to continue investigating Hunter for other potential criminal violations, and he wanted this to end.
And that was the only way to do it.
Some people have said, have questioned, well, is that a valid use of the power because he didn't specify the offenses?
I personally don't agree with that.
I think as long as they're readily identifiable, the Supreme Court is never going to constrain the president's exercise of the pardon power in that way.
So I think it's lawful.
And if it were to be challenged, I think it would be upheld.
But it is extraordinarily broad.
And if you'd like to join our conversation with Samuel Morrison, if you've got a question about the Hunter-Biden pardon or presidential pardons in general, you can give us a call.
Our lines are biparty.
So Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
Democrats can call us on 202-748-8000.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can also text us at 202-748-8000 and 3.
Going back to history for a moment, where did this idea, where did it originate from, this idea that presidents should have the ability to pardon federal crimes?
And what were the founders thinking?
And were they worried that it could be abused?
They actually discussed all those things.
So it originates in the king's power to grant pardon in England.
That is the historical origin of it.
And so it's modeled on that, in a sense.
The founders were creatures of the Enlightenment, but they understood that no legislature could pass a law in the abstract that covered every single situation that might arise when you tried to enforce that law, because the real world is always more complicated than we want it to be.
So they understood that there might well be reasons or circumstances that mitigate somebody's guilt or that for public policy reasons, for larger political reasons, the president might want to exempt somebody even if they were, strictly speaking, guilty under the letter of the law.
So they vested that power in the president, in his discretion, and they assumed that he, because he would care about his reputation, that he wouldn't abuse it.
So it's a political power of the president and the remedy, because the opponents of the pardon power said, well, what if he, they actually raised, what if he grants pardons to his cronies or to his family or to himself?
And the answer was the impeachment power.
So if there's, it's a political power of the president, it's extraordinarily broad.
That's why you do it right before you leave office.
That's a loophole in the Constitution.
So, you know, we are seeing, you know, they didn't think of everything.
As Marshall said, it's a Constitution, not a code.
So this is one of the, there's some play in the joints here, and this is one of them.
So yes, it can be used that way, and there's very little you can do about it.
And what's your opinion on, I guess, President-elect Trump, one doesn't know what to call him, future President Trump pardoning himself?
My own view is that he can, although it's sort of like the pardon of Hunter.
It would be unprecedented, and it probably is a bad idea, and he probably shouldn't do it, but I think he could if he wanted to.
And the reason is the Supreme Court has interpreted the pardon clause to mean exactly what it says.
He can pardon any offense against the United States except for cases of impeachment.
So he can't stop an impeachment proceeding.
That's the political check.
They've also said any limits on the pardon power have to be found in the text of the Constitution itself.
And I don't see any limit in the text of the Constitution that would implicitly prohibit him from pardoning himself if it's an offense against the United States.
Can a president pardon a future offense?
I mean, could he just say, look, anything that they could do in the next five years?
That's a good question.
The answer is no, because the Supreme Court has actually addressed that.
So when it says offenses against the United States, they have interpreted that to mean in the past tense.
So, a pardon for a future crime, which would be a license to commit a crime, would be void.
All right.
Let's talk to Anthony first in Staten Island, Republican.
Good morning, Anthony.
Good morning.
Hello, sir.
Before I ask my question, I just find it funny that if they really had evidence against President Trump, he would have been in jail already.
And how I think this is President Biden's, you correct me if I'm wrong, sir.
This is Biden's last chance.
He covered his son, I believe, for 10 years from 2014, 2024, which I really believe he only pardoned him that far off because I think he knows if they really dunk, they would have evidence leading back to him.
I just kind of find it pretty funny.
I mean, how can you pardon somebody for a 10-year period when they haven't really been charged with any of those crimes?
Yet, can you actually pardon somebody from a crime he hasn't been charged with yet?
Yes, you can, actually.
The Supreme Court has actually said that several times.
It's the commission of the offense, not the charge or the conviction.
Patsy in St. Louis, Missouri.
Democrat, you're next.
Hi.
I think that President Biden should pardon his son because even though he was convicted of such minute crimes, considered that President Trump did such hideous crimes, was convicted, that he didn't go to jail, for him to let it not pardon his son.
And here comes the presidency and the Republican Party with all the houses against him and the Supreme Court.
And if he calls his Trump is going to vindicate or have revenge against different people, Biden's son would be one if they threw him in jail and they didn't put Trump in jail for his convictions.
And his convictions was greater deeds than Biden's son.
So I think he should have pardoned his son because who would want his son to be convicted under their Republican regime and they throw him in jail?
I think Biden should put, since he still got a month or so to go, he should put Trump in prison because he's still the president and he has been convicted.
But I sure wouldn't leave my son in there.
I think he did the right thing.
All right, Patsy, what do you think?
Well, I guess all I would say is I certainly hope that President Biden extends the same consideration to other people.
There are lots of people who have pending petitions requesting pardon.
Many of them, in fact, most of them, accept responsibility and ask for forgiveness.
They're not challenging the validity of their conviction.
So I think the only way to take some of the sting out of the political scandal around this pardon is to grant pardons to a bunch of other deserving people.
I just want to show a chart from the BBC.
You can see this at BBC.com.
Biden has pardoned fewer people than most U.S. presidents in recent history.
And it goes back here to Truman, who apparently had a lot of pardons during his term, but it goes down all the way here.
You can see commutations is in yellow, Obama having over 1,500 commutations and Biden with very little down here.
What do you make of those numbers?
Unfortunately, in modern times, with the notable exception of President Obama, presidents have tended to wait until the end.
They sort of neglect this at the beginning, and then they find they run out of time.
So they rush to get done what they can at the end, and it's not as easy to do as it sounds because you have to vet the cases.
So that's why the numbers aren't so great.
Talk about that process of vetting the cases.
You were involved in that, weren't you?
I was.
I used to work at the pardon office.
So by tradition, the Office of the Pardon Attorney, which is part of the Justice Department, gets petitions for pardon and commutation of sentence on behalf of the president, investigates them, writes a recommendation, and then advises the president about whether he should grant it or not.
The problem with that is it's very slow and cumbersome.
They take a long time.
They also are, you know, this is the Justice Department.
So they're a party to every single one of those cases.
And so they have a conflict of interest.
So I actually don't think that President Trump in his first term was entirely wrong to be skeptical about the Justice Department's recommendations because they almost always say no, regardless of the merits of the petition.
What President Trump didn't do is replace it with some other rational way to review the cases.
So it became kind of a free-for-all for whoever could get access to the White House.
That's not a rational way to vet these.
So what he could do, and what I advocate that he should do, is simply move the pardon office out of DOJ into the executive office of the president and have the pardon attorney report directly to the White House counsel.
That doesn't mean DOJ wouldn't have a role.
Of course they would.
And it's perfectly appropriate for them to weigh in on cases.
They just shouldn't control the entire process.
Let's talk to Larry in Galesburg, Illinois, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I had a question if somehow a foreign government official comes forward with proof that Hunter Biden and his father committed treason in this 10 years that he's been granted a pardon, could anything be done to them or could they be brought into court?
Or are they just scot-free with whatever they've done for the last 10 years?
Well, any offense that falls within the scope of that 10-year period, Hunter's been pardoned for if it's a federal crime.
But it doesn't apply to the president.
He didn't pardon himself.
Does that answer it, Larry?
No.
So in other words, I'm a high official of Saudi Arabia, and I gave $110 billion to split with his dad.
Now, neither one of them can get in trouble because he's pardoned for the past 10 years.
No, that's not what I said.
I said Hunter can't be charged if the offense falls within that 10-year period.
So if it's a completed crime within that 10-year period, he's been pardoned.
President Biden hasn't been pardoned.
He didn't pardon himself.
So if he committed a crime, in theory, there's no reason that he couldn't be prosecuted.
Can any pardons be undone by a future president, by an act of Congress, anything like that, Supreme Court?
The answer is no.
If it's a valid pardon and it's accepted and received by the grantee, it is final.
Here is Michael in Lynette, Alabama, Independent.
Yeah, I'm concerned about the fact that everybody is concerned about President Biden giving a pardon to your son, but no one seemed to be concerned about President Trump.
Elect President Trump is threatening to release the January 6th people with a pardon.
Can he do that?
I think he can.
He actually can.
And there's actually a historical tradition of presidents doing that.
For example, when President Jefferson was elected president in 1803, he pardoned everyone in prison who'd been convicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Because in his view, those were unconstitutional, even though they'd been upheld by the courts.
Wait, what did those people do?
They were alleged to have engaged in sedition against the United States.
And Jefferson thought it was all political, and it was just aimed at the Federalists' political opponents.
Very similar to what Trump is saying.
I'm not trying to say, draw an equivalence.
I'm just saying it's been done.
So he could.
He said he's going to.
I wouldn't be surprised if he did.
And Thomas Jefferson, was he the first president?
He was the third president.
Was he the first to pardon?
No, no.
George Washington pardoned the participants in the whiskey rebellion.
And John Adams granted a few pardons.
I can't tell you off the top of my head how many, but there weren't that many because there weren't very many prosecutions.
Sam in Baltimore, Democrat.
Good morning, Sam.
Good morning, Ceaseban, Mimi, and Mr. Morrison.
Here's my point.
I think that President Biden changed his idea because he's seeing what Trump is talking about with his vengeful attacks.
He's going to use the Department of Justice to go after people repeatedly.
So I think, didn't Biden have a plea deal?
But they don't care about that.
They want to keep him in the papers.
They want to keep him in the press.
They want to keep continually attacking them.
So I understand why he'd give a broad, maybe 10-year idea out there because Trump is vindictive and vicious and wants to hurt people that he feels has wronged him.
Could you please comment on that?
Thank you.
I mean, I think you're right.
That was their concern.
That was clearly why they did it.
They were concerned that there were other, at least potential charges out there and that Trump would pursue them.
So this was a way of closing the door to that.
Joe in New Jersey, Republican line.
Good morning.
Good morning.
My question is about Hunter Biden.
A previous caller said that he didn't commit any egregious crimes.
He has all these images out there that they found on the computer of him and, you know, naked and with, you know, drugs and guns and all that.
I don't understand how he can be pardoned for that when other people can't get pardoned for that.
They, you know, it just doesn't make sense to me.
Well, that's what I said before.
That's the big question.
What is President Biden going to do with the remaining time he has in office?
There's plenty of time for him to do something, lots of pending petitions.
So we all hope that he grants pardons to a bunch of other deserving people.
And I think, as I said, that's really the only way to sort of take the sting out of this a little bit.
You mentioned, I just wonder what changes you think should be made to the whole process of pardoning.
You mentioned taking the office out of the DOJ and putting it in the executive office of the president.
What other changes do you think should be made?
I think that would solve most of the problems because then the pardon attorney would be independent.
And that's important.
I'm not implicitly criticizing the people in the pardon office now.
Assume that they do everything in good faith.
They still have a conflict of interest.
And they're still part of DOJ.
And DOJ definitely uses that office to try to control the president's exercise of the pardon power.
And they do it by controlling the information that he gets.
So the only other thing I would do is I would make it a little bit more transparent.
Right now, a pardon applicant can submit his petition, but he doesn't get to see what DOJ says about it and can't respond to it, which means DOJ gets to do this in secret.
That to me is a problem.
In any other legal proceeding, DOJ has to, there's a give and take.
Both sides get to see what the other side is saying and respond.
So I think if the pardon attorney was independent of DOJ, DOJ's recommendation could be disclosed to the petitioner and the petitioner could respond.
And then the pardon attorney's advice to the president would be confidential, but at least the petitioner would have the opportunity to see what DOJ is saying about his case.
How does one petition or apply for a pardon?
Well, in the normal course, there is a formal pardon application form and there is a commutation application form.
And you download them from the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
You fill them out and you submit it to that office.
How many does the office get per year, let's say?
Thousands.
Thousands.
I would say they get on the order of maybe hundreds to a thousand or so pardons.
So the rest are commutations.
Those are people in prison trying to get their conviction cut short, typically.
So what's the success rate typically?
Well, for the pardon office, it's extremely low.
It's less than 1%.
I can give you some concrete numbers that I know personally.
When George W. Bush was president, the Office of the Pardon Attorney received about approximately 8,500 new commutation petitions that were filed after he took office.
Of those 8,500, roughly, six got a favorable recommendation.
Okay, that's a really good question.
Essentially none.
What they're really saying is everything's perfect and we never made a mistake and there's no reason to look at any of these.
And of those six, three were almost already out of prison anyway.
So in only three cases was there any sort of acknowledgment that there should be meaningful relief.
And that illustrates the problem that I'm talking about.
And I don't think anything has really meaningfully changed.
Even numbers might go up a little bit or whatever, but they're not going to go up that much.
So that's essentially what we're dealing with.
Let's talk to Mike in Ruston, Virginia, Democrat.
Hi, Mike.
Hi.
I mean, president has the right to pardon, and it's his legal right.
People don't like it.
That's fine.
Republican went after Hunter for political reasons.
And we all know this.
Many people commit this crime, they never get charged, but they did it for political reasons.
And I don't understand why C-SPAN is focusing on this.
How is this going to affect our lives?
How are we going to change?
What's happened to inflation and borders and immigration and all these subjects?
And we're talking about Hunter Biden.
This is ridiculous.
I mean, come on.
Come on.
I mean, Trump, a convicted parent, is running for the United States.
He became a president of the United States again, and he tried to overthrow our government.
And we're talking about Hunter Biden committing a crime like this.
It just doesn't make sense.
Our system is not working right.
How big of a deal are the crimes that Hunter Biden was convicted of?
Oh, I mean, in the grand scheme of things, I think they were on the minor end of the scale.
And they're rarely, you know, they aren't prosecuted that often.
In a tax case, if you pay the money back, you often aren't prosecuted, at least if you don't lie during the course of the investigation.
That's usually why you get charged.
The gun charge, it's there.
It was a valid charge.
I'm not saying that it was an invalid charge.
It's just not used very often.
So he was one of the unusual people who got prosecuted for that.
That's all true.
Neil in Cleveland, Ohio, Republican line.
Hi, Neil.
Hello.
For Mr. Montgomery, and it's interesting because he just discussed what I was about to ask.
The tax case against Hunter Biden.
Well, to begin with, Hunter Biden had tax issues that were relieved by the statute of limitations back some years earlier.
But then when he was found to have the tax fraud for the current period, they convicted him of this, or charged him with this, I should say.
So when you're charged of this tax fraud, my understanding is, you know, when you do something wrong in tax, if you come forward and pay, you're okay.
But if they come and sign that without you coming forward, then you're guilty.
And these people who do that, whether they pay or not, my understanding was they go to jail.
So, I mean, what Mr. Montgomery just said is not that not the case.
So he's saying that, oh, well, he paid it, including the penalties, I know.
Mr. Morrison.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
Go ahead.
Well, no, I mean, I actually don't agree with that.
I didn't say that somebody like Hunter Biden would never get prosecuted.
I was asked what typically is the case.
That's all I'm saying.
That is very often the case that if you self-report, as you say, and pay the fine and you don't lie to the IRS while they're investigating you, you often can work it out.
On the other hand, it was a valid charge.
He did, in fact, evade taxes.
He admitted it.
So in that sense, there's nothing wrong with the conviction.
Quick question for you from Jay in Greenville, North Carolina.
Does the presidential pardon power apply to state court jurisdiction or only rulings of federal courts?
And can you discuss the Oliver North pardon?
It does not apply to state crimes.
It's only where the United States is the prosecuting authority.
So that's district courts, military courts, D.C. Superior Court.
The Oliver North pardon.
I'm not sure what he's interested in as far as the Oliver North pardon.
I mean, he was alleged.
I'm not even sure Oliver North was pardoned.
Oliver North got an immunity deal.
So I'm not sure I follow that question.
All right.
That's Samuel Morrison, former staff attorney at the Department of Justice, Office of the Pardon Attorney.
And thanks so much for joining us.
Thanks for having me.
Coming up, more of your phone calls after the break in open forum, so you can start calling in now.
And as you're dialing in, a little Christmas update for you.
Last month, the Capitol Christmas tree rolled into Washington, D.C.
This year's tree is an 80-foot Sitka spruce from the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.
Yesterday, that tree was lit up on the west front lawn of the U.S. Capitol during a ceremony with Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and members of the Alaskan delegation.
Take a look.
I know it's not a short trip from Alaska, so we want to thank all of our friends who came this long way to be here.
Thanks also to Alaska's extraordinary delegation here in Congress, your senators, your member of Congress.
They make great sacrifices to serve an extraordinary state and one of our favorites.
And what a great thing to share the culture of Alaska here tonight on Capitol Hill.
I also want to reiterate our thanks to the drivers who made this tree possible to get it here 4,000 miles.
We've heard so many times.
It's pretty awesome.
That's why we keep repeating it.
But Fred Austin and John Schenck, and I'm told, this hasn't been mentioned yet tonight, but I think John made this same trip the last time Alaska had a tree here.
And I'm not sure how many people in the history of the United States have made that trek twice, but that's really something.
And we're grateful for their hard work.
Yes, indeed.
Well, we love this event every year.
It's a great celebration for all the reasons that have been stated.
And as this tree is placed in front of the Capitol, we remember that this is the people's house.
And that means that this tree is truly the people's tree.
This holiday season, more than 100,000 tourists will tour the halls of this monument to our great republic.
And as they leave, they'll stand on the National Mall and they'll see this tree.
You'll be able to see it all the way down the mall.
It'll be well decorated, of course, with colorful lights and ornaments.
And the lights on this tree symbolize something.
They symbolize the light that this season brings.
As has been mentioned tonight, the light of hope and happiness and tradition, the light of joy that comes with having meals with family and friends, and of course, the light of gratitude that comes with reflecting on the blessings of the year that is past.
And as we dedicate this tree, we look up to see the star atop its branches, and it's a star not unlike the one that guided those three ancient wise men to Bethlehem 2,000 years ago.
These wise men, looking to the star above in the east, were filled with faith and hope and love, and they looked beyond, beyond the kings of the earth, to see the birth of the King of Kings, Jesus of Nazareth.
It's Congress's duty as representatives of the people to follow the example of those wise men and look up for wisdom, to look to God, our Creator, who has so greatly blessed our nation.
We look to Him for guidance as we pursue the unity and the well-being of this great and beautiful nation.
All right.
Would you all join?
We will do a countdown.
We'll say five all the way down to one.
And then Rose and I are going to, or she's going to flip the switch here.
Ready?
Want to count down from five?
Let's go.
Five, four, three, two, one.
There you go.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We are in open forum, so you can start calling in now.
A couple of things for your schedule.
Starting at 10, so in about 25 minutes, over on C-SPAN 3, we'll have the Supreme Court oral arguments on their considering whether Tennessee's ban on providing gender-affirming care for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
And that is a live look on your screen in front of the Supreme Court right now.
We'll have that, that's oral arguments live starting at 10 a.m. on C-SPAN 3, on C-SPANNOW and at c-SPAN.org.
Then this afternoon, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan will give an update on the U.S. Defense Industrial Base and America's warfighting capabilities.
That's live at 2 p.m. Eastern, also on C-SPAN 3, C-SPAN Now, our app and online at c-span.org.
And before I get to calls, just a quick news update for you.
This is the Wall Street Journal is reporting this: that Trump Mull's replacing Pete Hegseth with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
President-elect is discussing replacing current Pentagon nominee who faces scrutiny over allegations about his personal life.
It says that picking DeSantis, a 2024 GOP primary rival for the presidency, would amount to a stunning turn for Trump.
But he would also find in the governor a well-known conservative with a service record who shares Trump's and Hegseth's view on culling what they see as, quote, woke policies in the military.
So that is a developing story about the pick for Defense Secretary.
And we will go to the calls now.
Zach, South Beach, Oregon, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Yeah, good morning.
Earlier, you had the president of Princeton University on, and I thought that was really interesting.
But I was really wanting to ask him about, because there was a couple callers that talked about like, you know, cutting waste and then also the cost of education overall.
I was curious because I'm a big sports fan, and I know it's just recently certain college athletes have started to get paid, which I'm not really sure how I feel about it because I haven't heard a lot of information about it.
But I was just curious where that money comes from and if it's caused any not just financial issues with colleges or if it's caused any social problems too with other students.
I mean, I know that the transgender thing is a big heated argument, but I would think if I was going to school and I wasn't an athlete, or even if I was an athlete that wasn't paid, maybe a less known one, that it could cause some animosity and things like that.
So I'm just curious if there's any other information on that.
All right, Zach.
And here's Martin in Pennsylvania, Republican line.
Good morning.
Morning.
Yeah.
If a federal judge is sitting on a case involving a family member, wouldn't he have to excuse himself?
Shouldn't Biden, being a federal employee, have to excuse himself with the son?
Also, some of the charges brought against the son, Biden was involved in it.
Now, if Biden pardoned himself first and got off the charges that he was involved with the son, that may be a way of going it, but he excused the son before he pardoned himself.
Sidney in Bradenton, Florida, Democrat, good morning.
Good morning.
You know, I'm glad that Biden did go ahead on and pardon his son because really he only was there because they were trying, because of the person running for president at the time and had become president, he just needed a scandal to try to bring down Biden so that when he run against him,
so he went all the way to sent people all the way to Ukraine to do that stuff and moved all kinds of people out the way to be able to get to Biden, who was, I mean, to his son, who was just a private citizen.
And the people that were working with him had no, it's almost like nothing happened to them.
In fact, they testified against him.
But because of the president himself and the elect president, Trump, he's such a loathsome person that, I mean, I've never known anybody to expedite death row sentences.
At the last, since he has done everything else to harm people and to be vindictive, he took the last part of his presidency before he left office to expedite death row prisoners and had at least, what, 13 of them killed in a short period of time, just so that I guess so that he could exercise all of the power that he could have had.
And I just thought that was ridiculous and never really came up.
It was reported, but never, nobody ever said anything about it.
That's my story.
All right.
And what you're looking at is our live look at the Supreme Court building there and some people holding signs.
This is in anticipation of arguments this morning in about 20 minutes on the transgender health care.
It's a case involving Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors.
And we will have coverage of that live starting in about 20 minutes over on C-SPAN 3.
We'll have oral arguments of that case that you'll be able to follow.
We're an open forum for until the House gavels in this morning, and you can call us on our lines.
Republicans, 202-748-8001, Democrats, 202-748-8000, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
Paul is in Leola, Pennsylvania, Independent.
Wow.
$34 trillion in debt.
And we're paying to get our Christmas tree trucked in all the way from Alaska.
Wow.
Robert in Virginia Beach, Virginia, Republican.
Good morning.
Hey, good morning.
So I just wanted to talk real fast.
I know a lot of people have been breaking down why Trump won in the manner that he did, overwhelmingly.
So I'm, I guess what you would call still sort of younger, under 35, ethnic minority.
I voted for Trump basically because the inner city crime is out of hand.
The Democrats don't want to stop that.
So I've been following a lot about the Daniel Penny trial.
I hope he is found innocent.
I've been on trains when these issues are unfolding.
And Robert, this is just to be clear, this is the situation with the unhoused gentleman and the strangling.
Remind us of that case.
Yes.
So there was an issue on the train.
And he, you know, I guess wanted to come to the aid of someone who was targeted.
It's a very, very scary situation.
I've been in those environments.
So that's about all of my comments.
I just voted for Trump to try to clamp down on this inner city crime.
All right.
And let's go to San Diego on the line for Democrats.
Bob, you're next.
I just had to mute my TV.
I've been switching it back and forth between CNN and Fox watching this morning and C-SPAN.
And I've been listening to the C-SPAN conversations about the pardon and all that.
I think President Biden had no choice but to pardon his son.
And if I was, I'm not a father, but if I was a father, I would have pardoned my son as well.
I don't think it's very, you know, I think it's a bummer that it's come to that point.
But When I'm watching TV, switching back from Fox to CNN, CNN was breaking the story where a CEO of United Healthcare was gunned down in front of a hotel in New York.
It's like real news, what's happening right now, what the news should be reporting.
And so then I switch it to Fox.
And of course, they're reporting about New York, but they're reporting about migrants in New York.
And I was just like, are you kidding me?
Let's keep up this, you know, this migrant story so that we can have the incoming president come in and clean it all up because there's not very many of them coming over to the border right now.
I live in San Diego.
There are no illegal aliens running through San Diego.
It's just, it's so blown up.
And the way news is being covered on TV is so business model oriented.
Fox News' business model is to undermine democracy so that they can be the mouthpiece of Donald Trump during his next presidency.
Their ratings will go up even more and they'll repress CNN and then Elon Musk will probably buy MSNBC to gobble up more of the news media.
You know, that's a conspiracy theory at this point, but well, more news from Fox News is this.
Florida Sheriff Chad Cronister withdraws as Trump's nominee to lead DEA.
He says there's more work to be done for the citizens of Hillsborough County and a lot of initiatives I'm committed to fulfilling.
So he has taken his name out of the running to lead the drug enforcement administration.
And this is Richard in Elkins, Arkansas, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Morning.
I'd like to say something about that transgender thing.
You know, using clothing, drugs, needles, surgeries does not create a gender.
I defy anyone to show me any physical evidence of a transgender.
When a forensic examiner finds a body in the woods, have you ever heard any of them say, oh, look, it's a transgender?
Find a different name for it, training people, because it's not a gender.
Thank you.
Monica in Shelby, Michigan, Democrat.
Hi, Monica.
Hello, dear.
God bless you for this program.
I think Mr. Biden did the right thing because Trump is right on his tail.
And if he didn't do this for his son, we don't know what Trump would have done to him.
Trump gets away with everything.
I'm a true Democrat.
I'm 86 years old, and we are in trouble with dear Mr. Trump.
I pray every day that we don't go to war.
And God bless you.
That's all I have to say: is that Biden is a great president, and you have a great day.
God bless.
And this caller mentioned this breaking story.
This is CNN, United Healthcare CEO, fatally shot in Midtown Manhattan, according to law enforcement officials.
It says that he was, his name is Brian Thompson.
He was walking toward the New York Hilton Hotel to attend the United Healthcare conference being held in the ballroom.
The gunman, who investigators tell CNN was waiting for some time before Thompson's arrival, opened fire from 20 feet away, firing multiple times, striking him.
The 50-year-old was shot in the chest and was taken to the hospital.
He was pronounced dead.
Details are not immediately clear, but investigators say it appears to be a targeted shooting, and no arrests have been made so far.
Here's Thomas in Memphis, Tennessee, Independent.
Hi.
Oh, my God.
I just spilled my coffee all over me.
Hey, how you doing?
Why'd you spill your coffee?
Man, I was leaning over the, I just dumped outside.
I wanted to get some air.
I just saw you guys just bring in a story, and I just saw it on TV at the same time.
But what I want to say is, you know, everything's winding down a little bit.
It's the holidays.
Just everything's just, you know, refreshing itself, reciprocating.
We got a great spring on the way.
And just for everybody to be more grinding-centered, I just want to remind everybody that we all still have our own light that shines.
And not everybody can have that glorious spotlight, but everyone's light does impact the next person.
Like, you know, like diamonds, it reflects on each other, reflects, you know.
And I just want to remind everybody that keeps speaking up.
You know, your voice is your light and your face is too.
And just, you know, just don't dim yourself because each one of us does matter.
And we're supposed to be meeting in the middle in a bipartisan way, at least.
I'm independent, though.
All right, Thomas.
And here's Pat, North Carolina, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Goodness, I don't know where to start.
First of all, I think President Trump, the people who hate him, is because the national media has so demonized the man.
I'm going to go back to the gentleman that said President Trump pardoned 13 inmates on death row.
That is false.
There were 13 executions during his presidency.
I just looked that up.
And President Biden is the worst president we've ever had.
His family has laundered money from, gosh, at least three or four different countries.
Eventually, they're going to find the connection between him and Hunter and laundering this money and his brother and his sister.
But I just get so infuriated.
There are so many people out there who are just ignorant to facts because they do watch MSNBC and CNN.
It's like watching two different worlds.
I don't know.
That's one reason the country's in so much trouble because there is so much misinformation out there.
And Pat, what do you watch for news?
I switch between, I watch C-SPAN a lot, and I see a lot that goes on.
I watch the committee hearings, and there too.
There are a lot of things that come out of these committee meetings that aren't reported on unless you watch Fox.
But I watch MSNBC, CNN, and Fox just to see what they're all saying.
And MSNBC and CNN, it's like they're on another planet because they say things that I get from C-SPAN watching congressional hearings and the Senate that I know this is not true or they twisted it.
But, you know, people hate Trump because they think he's the devil because he gets so much bad press from the elite media who hate him.
All right, Pat.
Here's Albany, New York, line for Democrats.
John, you're next.
Yes, hi.
I'm an 80-year-old Democrat, lived about four miles away from where Trump was born in Queens, New York.
And the only thing I have to say, there's about 330 million people that live in the United States right now.
And I assume that probably 30 million are too young to vote.
The other 300 million have the ability to vote, at which 150 million people didn't bother to vote.
75 or 78,000 voted for Trump, and about 76,000 voted for Harris.
And I consider the people that didn't vote or voted for Trump as willfully ignorant of what's going around in this world today.
I'm 80 years old.
I don't care what's going to happen to me or my kids who are in their 50s.
But I have five grandchildren.
Those are the ones who I fear for.
I'm not going to be around to see them grow up, I wouldn't think.
And it's a sorry, sorry thing that I'm leaving this world to people who are completely ignorant of what's going on in this world.
And that's what I have to say.
Thank you.
And to Louisville, Kentucky, Republican Bill.
Hello.
Hello.
I'm 84 years old, and I'm from eastern Kentucky.
My family was 14.
My father taught us to vote.
And he always said that politicians make very strange bedfellows.
And I didn't know what he meant by that until I got 80 years old.
And I know what it means now.
I've been a Democrat all my life.
I've been a union man.
But I changed over to a Republican because when I go to McDonald's and I give $3 for a Big Mac, and then I go in the last four years, it went up to $12 for a Big Mac.
And then I live in a house for 60 years that at one time I couldn't even get $100,000 out of it.
Now I get letters every day that they offer me $300,000 for it.
I see things like that, and I said, this country is going to hell in fact.
And my poor wife, before she left this world, before she went to the doctor, I stayed in the hospital with her in August.
And for four days.
And they asked her before they took her to the hospital, they said, who's the president?
After she told them who her husband was and where she lived.
And you know what she said?
Donald Trump, the election had never happened.
But she was a bright lady.
She was a lady of God.
And, you know, people just, I don't look at the politicians.
I looked at what's going on in the country.
I don't look at the popular.
I look at what's going on.
How can people not see these things?
You know, a house go from 100,000 to 300,000 within four years?
What in the world?
All right, Bill.
Let's talk to Al in Tucson, Arizona.
Democrat, good morning.
Yes, good morning.
I've been studying Trump for so many years of How the U.S. elected a con man to be president of the United States.
Him and Putin have something in accordance with how they view themselves.
And I'm still surprised that Americans didn't see how Trump expressed himself when he met with Putin and how he walked behind Putin and looking down on the ground and then the speech that he made on backing Putin up and putting the U.S. down.
And it's an insult to our country.
And Republicans, they're stuck in the wall of fantasy with Donald Trump.
And it's an insult to the minorities, black Americans, Mexican Americans, of having a president who doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.
And it's a shame.
And America's going to pay the price once he takes.
All right, Alan, this is Donald in Raleigh, North Carolina, Independent Line.
Yes, I had just a couple of things to say.
In regard to the lady's statement, she's from North Carolina that said Trump, McCalla, said that Trump pardoned 13 prisoners.
That is not what he said.
What he said was Trump escalated their executions.
That means that he required them to be executed.
And see, she spoke about hatred.
So she's so blinded with hatred that she misheard what was said.
She didn't even hear what was, she heard that he escalated the sentences.
So she interpreted that as saying that he had pardoned those people.
No, he had them killed, ma'am.
And just one more thing.
There was a gentleman that called C-SPAN earlier, I think it was in November, it was in November before Thanksgiving.
And he said that he was hoping that for one day we could get above hatred.
And the C-SPAN calls, it was an elderly gentleman, said that he hoped that we could not have any hatred expressed on the line on Christmas Day.
And I want to say sorrowfully and regretfully that, you know, it seems that the MAGA Americans, the Trump followers, they hate every day and they lie to support their hate.
Thank you.
Heather in Kansas, Ohio, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I just wanted to point out with I fully support President Biden pardoning his son.
He should have.
As a father, I mean, he's not only a president, but he's a father, and that's his son.
Of course, you're going to pardon him if you can.
And I just want to point out that Harold Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes that he committed or any future crimes.
So when Republicans are getting all mad about the pardon, just think about that.
Miss it.
Steve in Long Island, Democrat.
Good morning, Steve.
Yeah, hi.
I'll just make a couple quick points because I know that you're almost lost.
I am arrived today because of an abortion back in the 1950s.
It was my mother had a miscarriage and the operation was classified as an abortion.