Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
C-SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Mediacom.
Nearly 30 years ago, Mediacom was founded on a powerful idea.
Bring cutting-edge broadband to underserved communities.
From coast to coast, we connected 850,000 miles of fiber.
Our team broke speed barriers, delivered one gig speeds to every customer, has led the way in developing a 10G platform, and now with Mediacom Mobile, is offering the fastest, most reliable network on the go.
Mediacom, decades of dedication, decades of delivery, decades ahead.
MediaCom supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Coming up on Washington Journal this morning, your calls and comments live.
Then Executive Director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Benjamin Johnson, discusses President-elect Donald Trump's immigration proposals, including mass deportations and the end of birthright citizenship.
And we'll talk more about the incoming Trump administration with former Trump 2020 campaign strategist Ashley Hayek, who now serves as executive director of America First Works.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
Join the conversation.
This week in Washington, two senators proposed a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Supreme Court justices.
This morning on the Washington Journal, your take on this debate.
Here's how you can join the conversation this morning.
If you say yes to term limits for the Supreme Court, dial in at 202-748-8000.
If you say no, 202-748-8001.
If you're undecided or mixed feelings, tell us why at 202-748-8002.
You can join the conversation in a text at 202-748-8003 or on facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
And also, you can post on X with the handle at C-SPANWJ.
Senators Joe Manchin and Peter Welch proposed the constitutional amendment.
Here is the language from that proposal.
They would have a non-renewable 18-year term for Supreme Court justices, a new term starting about every two years, and no change to the overall number of justices.
And as we said, this is a constitutional amendment.
They want to change the Constitution for the terms for Supreme Court justices.
We're asking all of you this morning if you agree with that or not.
If you're undecided, you can also join the conversation.
This week, C-SPAN sat down with Senator Joe Manchin, who is retiring to talk about his career and legacy.
And this is what he had to say about proposing term limits for Supreme Court justices in these closing days of the 118th Congress.
I believe in term limits across the board.
Okay, that's the one that Peter Welch and I have done, but I'm on other ones too.
And I believe that simply, we picked the 18 years, makes sense.
It's a long period of time, okay?
And we thought that that gives everyone a chance whenever it would get implemented, but it doesn't do anything.
Right now, it doesn't do anything with its, the Supreme Court is setting now.
But whenever they would retire, whatever, then that new person coming in would have an 18-year.
Requires a constitutional amendment, doesn't it?
I think, yeah, I think it does, absolutely.
Because right now the Constitution says for life.
So, but then if I think the people would, right now, I think the people would support all term limits on all of us.
So I'm for one six year for the president.
I think the president should be commander-in-chief from the first day to the last day, never have to worry about running for re-election.
Do your job.
We need you every day.
Mind-focused.
Senate, I've been here 14 years.
12 years is enough, two terms.
I served two years, two years of the extended end of Bob Burst, and then two full terms.
And then maybe five or six terms, which would be 10 or 12 years for the House.
That's more than enough.
You need a turnover.
And he says, oh, you're losing too many experienced people.
The staff is where the knowledge is.
I mean, they're always, we have good people, solid people here can help.
So I just think that that would give us a little bit of a turnover.
Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat turned independent, sitting down with C-SPAN this week to talk about his career and legacy.
And on the way out the door, he's saying, let's have term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Do you agree or disagree?
That's our conversation.
According to polls, most of you do agree.
Take a look at USA Today's Ipsos poll.
63% of those polled overall say yes.
An 18-year Supreme Court term limit should be put in place.
51% of Republicans are in support of this.
83% of Democrats and 61% of Independents.
Ben in Altoona, Pennsylvania, you say no.
Good morning to you, Ben.
Tell us why.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning.
I hope you're doing well.
I personally disagree with term limits for Supreme Court justices.
First of all, we're talking that has to be done by constitutional amendment.
I don't know who thinks in this political climate that would be even possible to consider.
And then on top of that, I think it would invite retaliation from one administration to the next, having more warfare back and forth.
Each successive administration, each Congress trying to gerrymandle their courts around which politicians want to hear cases for the next two or four years.
Because at the crux of my argument, in my personal opinion, I think it would transfer them from Supreme Court justices in a realm all on their own to long-term, I mean, triple-term senators in a certain way if they're going to be 18-year terms.
So that's just my two cents on that topic.
Hey, Ben, we appreciate that.
To your point, the Washington Post story about this proposal by Senators Joe Manchin, Peter Welch, they call it a long shot because of what you just said.
It has to be a constitutional amendment.
And they note in here that constitutional amendments require approval from two, the House and Senate and subsequent ratification by three-fourths of the states or by a convention of two-thirds of the state legislatures.
Only 27 amendments have been ratified throughout U.S. history.
Ben?
Oh, yeah.
No, I think that would be the main roadblock.
Like I said, in this political climate, there's not even a remote chance of that happening.
So frankly, I don't even know why it's being discussed.
All right, well, let's go to Clay, who's in Augusta, Georgia.
Clay, you say yes.
Why do you say yes to term limits for Supreme Court justices?
Good morning.
One of the things I said, I have always believed that no one should have a lifetime appointment for any job.
Because, you know, when you get old, when you get older, say for instance, if Jimmy Carter, he's 100 years old or more, I think.
And he was a Supreme Court justice.
If he passed, he still will be a Supreme Court justice.
It's so hard for people at a certain age that can make good decisions, in my opinion.
So it's just ludicrous for anyone to have a lifetime appointment.
I don't know what the founding fathers of whoever come up with that were thinking about.
Well, Clay, I mean, if you say, though, that a Supreme Court justice gets 18 years, are you really addressing the age issue if they don't become a justice until, you know, mid-50s or 60s?
Well, like I said, my appointment is this.
They've come before they're in the 50s or 60s.
No one should have a lifetime appointment because they have someone to have a block thought about things.
There's nothing you can change.
Nothing you can do.
They always have it.
Clay, here's the argument against term limits for Supreme Court justices.
In the Wall Street Journal recently, in the opinion pages, Nathan Lewin, who is a lawyer and has a Supreme Court practice, writes, Supreme Court term limits are a waste of wisdom.
And this is what he writes in his piece.
One genius of our Constitution is its recognition of varying terms for federal office holders.
Articles one and two prescribe that representatives be elected for two years, presidents for four, and senators for six.
Article three specifies that all officials exercising the federal judicial power, both of the Supreme and Inferior Courts, retain their authority during good behavior.
That is for life, he says.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary was, quote, the weakest of the three departments.
He also warned that periodical appointments of federal judges would be fatal to their necessary independence and that judges shouldn't have too great a disposition to consult popularity.
Experience on the bench generates wisdom that term limits would swiftly eradicate.
Do you agree or disagree with that argument?
Michael in Ashburn, Virginia, you say no to term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Hi, Michael.
Hi, good morning.
Morning.
Yeah, I say no for no.
I think the first thing that could happen is Congress should give themselves term limits.
And once they give themselves term limits, then I think everybody would be more open to not having term limits for justices.
And the reason I say that is because, look, right now, everybody knows that the Supreme Court right now is more conservative.
And you read off the amount of Democrats and Republicans that agree with the term limits.
86%, I think you said, of Democrats agree that there should be term limits and 51% of Republicans.
But I'm pretty sure if the Supreme Court was flipped and it was more liberal, they would be the statistics would probably flip.
86% of Republicans would say that they should have term limits.
Maybe 60% of Democrats would say no.
So I think right now they should not until Congress gives themselves term limits.
And Michael, why is it important do you think for Congress to go first and give themselves term limits?
What would that do?
Why is that necessary?
Well, because we write up our laws.
Everything starts with them.
They pass our laws, and then they go to the Senate.
They're signed into the Senate.
So that's really the base.
And if you look at the judicial system, let's take it on the street.
Police officers have number one discretion on the street, whether they're going to give somebody a ticket or arrest somebody or decide.
They use discretion.
Well, then it goes to the court system in which the judges use their own discretion.
So it should start from the very beginning and work its way up.
Okay.
Thanks, Michael, for sharing this morning.
We appreciate it.
Your take on this debate here in Washington, prompted by two senators proposing a constitutional amendment for term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Mike, we want to hear from you next, who's undecided in Ohio.
Hi, Mike.
Good day.
How are you?
Morning.
I think eight years would be long enough with the majority Leonard Leo Fellerist Society court.
They also should repeal Citizens United and reinstate the fairness doctrine.
All right.
So, Mike, why eight years?
Well, I think that's plenty time for them to rig the system like they've already done with this immunity clause and the rest of these cover-ups.
This is ridiculous.
The rest of the world thinks these people over here listening and thinking about this and putting up with it is out of their minds, but they don't realize that because they're all suckers.
So, Mike, you obviously do not trust the Supreme Court justices, and it sounds like it started with Citizens United, that campaign finance decision that was made.
Yeah, made all this big money bribe system legal when us Lilliputians don't have a chance here in the hinterland.
It's ridiculous.
Mike, what would eight-year service for Supreme Court justices, would that instill trust back for you in the high court?
No, no, we need more oversight, accountability, and transparency, which we don't have.
What about ethics rules for the justices?
Would that do it?
Well, they threw those out the window with Citizens United, the way it looks to me.
Okay, Mike's lots there.
In Ohio, let's listen to what Supreme Court justices have had to say about this.
Justice Katanji Brown Jackson discussed term limits earlier this year on PBS News Hour.
She said it's up to the public to decide.
Take a listen.
Here's how I'm thinking about that.
There have been debates about term limits since the beginning of our republic.
I talk about this in the book a little bit.
Alexander Hamilton debated the anti-federalists as to whether or not judges should have lifetime appointments.
And the constitutional process was such that he won that debate.
And that's what we have now in our system.
And so it's a political process to make a determination as to whether or not that should be changed.
And then our democracy people are engaging in that debate right now.
The idea, though, as President Biden has suggested, that it's a good thing to have more consistency in this process and that 18 years, as he suggested, is a good approach.
Well, I'm going to let the political process play out.
And people are engaged in this decision right now.
And it'll be interesting to see what we decide.
Justice Contanji Brown-Jackson was sitting down with PBS News Hour talking about term limits.
You heard her.
It's up to the public, she said.
You also heard a reference in there to President Joe Biden.
He, too, is behind term limits for the court.
Recall this summer in July, and here's the headline of his opinion piece: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law.
We can and must prevent the abuse of presidential power and restore the public's faith in our judicial system.
He then supporting 18 years for Supreme Court justices.
We're asking you your thoughts on it this morning.
One more Supreme Court justice to listen to before we go back to calls.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett spoke about term limits during a 2022 interview at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
Do you have a view on how long someone is to stay on the court?
No, I think it's a very personal decision.
I think it really depends.
I mean, people, you know, people have people age differently.
You know, Justice Ginsburg used to say as long as she could do the job and do it well.
And, you know, I think that's the philosophy that many have about their working lives generally.
So I think that's a personal decision that each justice makes for him or herself.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, she says it should be a personal decision.
Do you agree with what she had to say?
Tad in Harrisville, Rhode Island.
Hi, Tad.
Good morning, Gooda.
I want to thank you and the staff for taking my call.
I think term limits, yeah, I'm in favor of term limits, but we have a flawed system where conservative presidents nominate conservative judges and liberal presidents nominate liberal judges.
The better way is the way they do it in Germany, where in Germany you have to be a lawyer to become a Supreme Court justice.
That's not required in this country.
But in Germany, if you want to become the Supreme Court justice, you have to pass a civil service test.
And the high scorer is the one that wants to be any kind of a judge, whether it be district court or whatever.
That way, there, politics is totally taken out of it.
You have to be the high scorer.
You have to prove that you're qualified and be independent.
You know, there's no politics involved.
And I think that's a much better way to go, but we're too far down the road now.
So term limits, I guess, will have to do.
All right.
Well, Todd, thank you for bringing that into the conversation this morning, comparing how other countries appoint their Supreme Court justices.
Steve, Lake Placid, Florida.
Hi, Steve.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I would like to have what Michael said as far as eight-year term limits.
Okay.
And also, they should have the same code of ethics that a federal judge has to have.
And because there's too much corruption going on in the Supreme Court right now with some of the justices taking all kinds of money and all kinds of trips and all this stuff for political favors.
So, anyways, that's all I have to say.
I believe in term limits.
Eight years is good.
And there's too much corruption in the Supreme Court.
So I believe that big money, big money talks in this country.
So I believe that the big money in Trump's administration, new administration, is coming in.
And they're all billionaires and trillionaires.
And, you know, all the money that Musk has in his life, he could not buy what I have in my heart.
All right, Steve.
We'll leave it at that.
Manchin and Welch, two senators this week proposing a resolution on Supreme Court term limits.
It's a constitutional amendment.
You have to change the Constitution to make it happen.
They want to see non-renewable 18-year terms for the justices and a new term starting about every two years.
No change to the overall number of justices.
You'll recall there was a movement on the liberal side to put more justices on the Supreme Court.
These two senators, Joe Manchin, Independent West Virginia, Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont, proposing this week a constitutional amendment to change the amount of time Supreme Court justices can serve.
We're asking you to weigh in on this debate.
Ben, in Mississippi, you say no, Ben.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Yes, this is an easy question, an easy answer.
All you got to do is all nine judges have to have a unanimous decision.
They are the judge and the jury.
So why they can make a decision with a 5-4?
How would you feel as a plaintiff if you went before the Supreme Court and they couldn't reach a unanimous decision and then there was no decision?
I mean, how would justice be served by that?
What you have to do is make sure the lower courts have to be unanimous too.
Well, then, what's the need for the Supreme Court?
If it's not unanimous, then it goes.
No, no, no, no.
It has to be unanimous in the lower court.
And when it goes to the higher court, it has to be unanimous.
And those are the best decisions that you're going to get in cases, unless you won't turn limits because of ages of judge.
But if you won't turn limit because of the decisions that they make, then it needs to be unanimous because they are the judge and jury.
Okay, Ben, in Mississippi, we'll go to Michael, who's undecided in Virginia.
Michael, you're up.
Oh, good morning.
I love these band.
I can't thank you enough for it.
I've got a couple of perspectives.
The guy that was just talking about only unanimous decisions needs to go back and read some really basics on the court and how justice system works.
Everything can't be unanimous, but I unanimously agree that I disagree with him.
The guy before that, I really loved, and I mean, he stole my thunder because he said a lot of things, but my father was a my dad, was a Superior Court judge in California.
He was appointed by Jerry Brown the first time Jerry Brown was governor, and he went to his family who owned a piece of property that was leased to a company that had a casino in Nevada.
And he went to them and said, We need to sell this property.
And they said, why?
And he said, because gambling is not legal in California.
This was pre-internet lottery casinos and all this stuff.
So this is a long time ago, 70s.
But the reason I bring up this point is the whole impetus behind this to get these justices some type of regulation or limit on them is because they've acted poorly.
They've showed bad judgment.
They've taken all kinds of gifts in excess.
One of them was a helicopter ride down the main drag of Paris.
And I think that is the problem.
You know, do you change the law because people behave badly?
Well, hopefully not.
But I think that they would be better off not having term limits, but at least apply the federal standards of other federal judges, which is you have to make a declaration and there's a penalty if you don't.
And I really think that a couple of these justices could learn a lot from an old county judge out in California that had the decency to do what was right because it was the law.
It shows a total disregard for the public and the law, and it's an embarrassment to this country.
And Michael, are you now in the field as well?
No, no, I'm one of the non-attorneys in my family.
But I look back on this, and some days I wish I'd gone on.
I took a civil law class when I was at Cal Poly in San Los Obispo.
And one of the courses I took, I mean, that course that I took, one of the things they said was they hammered into us was: if you go for a constitutional amendment, when that happens, when they have a convention on this, suddenly somebody can say, Yeah, I would propose that all bald men have to wear tuxedos.
And it's like you start opening up the Constitution to problems, people playing around with things that you don't want them going there.
And I don't think they need to do this.
I think there can be an administrative fix that could be much easier and quicker and would make more sense because these guys are coming off like a bunch of slimy grifters, to be honest with you.
Michael in Virginia, his thoughts on if you went this route and you were trying to change the Constitution, what else could happen?
Mark in Philadelphia.
Good morning to you, Mark.
Morning.
Actually, Greta, you know, when you look at what's going on here with this court, you read from the Federalist Papers on there, and it said Madison and Hamilton basically wanted independence of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Well, how independent is this court now?
Just think about it.
With the, first of all, with the 14th Amendment Section 3 allowing Trump to stay on the ballot after January 6th.
I mean, if the 14th Amendment, Section 3 wasn't written for Trump, who was it written for?
How could Trump remain on the ballot?
You got me.
And then we have the immunity decision.
And now we know Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginny, is a straight-up election denier.
Do we know behind the scenes, what?
Is Trump calling Ginny Thomas and saying, hey, I want Clarence and the rest of the MAGA judges to rule this way?
There is no independence with this Supreme Court, none whatsoever.
They're nothing more than MAGA Republicans.
Let's limit the terms and make sure this doesn't happen again.
Even if it's with Democratic presidents, we need true independence back, not a bunch of MAGA Republicans.
Mark's thoughts there.
In Philadelphia, Gabe Roth of the Supreme Court watchdog group fixed the court, joined us on the Washington Journal in August.
He countered the idea that imposing term limits would take away the justices' independence.
Listen to what he had to say.
What we have here is the justices are exerting political power.
So the idea that you would sort of, you know, term limits would take away their independence.
I mean, if you read the Constitution, which to me I think is a little more important than the Federalist Papers, you have a president who's an elected official appointing the justices.
You have the Senate, which are all political elected officials confirming the justices.
So sure, maybe we get a, you know, over the last 20 or 30 years, we got a Kennedy or a Souter or an O'Connor who might be towards the middle.
But if you read the founding document, of course the justices are going to be political.
Of course, it's going to be based on political patronage and based on what their political views are.
You're not going to have a Republican president.
You know, if you're just reading the Constitution, appointing someone who's liberal, you're not going to have a Democratic president appointing somebody who's conservative.
The random flips that we've seen in the last, you know, like I mentioned with Souter, maybe with Stevens, that's happenstance.
That's the outlier.
What makes more sense is having, you know, given our constitutional contours, is the court is a political body.
So how do you make it less political by having regular turnover and having ethical guardrails?
Gabe Roth with Fix the Court on the Washington Journal.
They put out this statement, his group yesterday, about this proposal by Senators Manchin and Welch to have 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices.
And they say, say it's ratified in 2025, this proposal by the senators, and Justice Thomas decides to leave the court in 2027.
The justice who would be appointed to replace Thomas would only serve 16 years until 2043 since the 18-year clock on Thomas's replacement or whoever the first justice to retire post-ratification is had begun in 2025.
Well, that sounds fine in theory.
The challenges arise is if, say, Justice Kagan or Justin Gorsuch decides to serve until they're 90, which isn't out of the question.
In that scenario, the justices replacing would end up serving only a few years, which is not great from a judicial independence perspective.
We believe the trim terms envisioned in the amendment can be implemented via statute.
Though, again, our preferred method of ending life tenure is to give all future justices full 18-year terms.
They say, finally, we do appreciate the section of the resolution where, on a rotating basis, the senior most associate justice would become Chief Justice.
The idea that a justice on his or her first day on the job could be the chief always sat a little strange with us.
And that is what happened with Chief Justice John Roberts when he was nominated and voted on to the Supreme Court.
Your thoughts on term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Sheila in Pennsylvania, you say no.
Good morning.
Hello, it's Sheila in Worcester, Massachusetts.
Oh, all right.
Sorry, we got the wrong city and state there.
Go ahead.
Sarah, you got me.
I just, one of my thoughts is that with the term limits, there's going to be a, there'll be no continuity in what the Constitution says.
We have, right now we have the nine judges, and it's when they discuss something, you've got to go, it's going to be yes or no, agree or not agree.
I believe that the forefathers were absolutely brilliant and covered so much of what could happen in the future.
And I just don't think that term limits is the way to go.
And as far as these people calling up saying MAGA judges, that gentleman referred to the Democrats as MAGA people, give me a break.
They've got to get over Donald Trump being our president for the next four years.
And let's see what he can do to straighten out this country because we are in a lot of trouble.
And I thanks for taking my call.
Have a great day.
God bless all.
All right.
That was Sheila in Pennsylvania.
She says no to term limits for Supreme Court justices.
We're asking all of you this morning your thoughts on this.
We'll weave in some other news.
Sheila just talked about the incoming administration.
Yesterday in New York, President-elect Donald Trump was at an event where he was honored as Time Magazine's person of the year.
He also got to ring in this New York Stock Exchange yesterday morning.
Here's what he had to say about his team and expectations going into his second term.
I think we're going to have a tremendous run.
We have to straighten out some problems, some big problems in the world.
When we left, we didn't have any of these problems.
We didn't have Russia with Ukraine.
We didn't have Israel October 7th.
We didn't have the Afghanistan disaster.
We didn't have inflation.
We had no inflation.
And we had a very strong economy.
And we're going to do that again.
But I think we're going to even up it because now we have experience that we didn't have.
Now I know everybody.
You know, when I first came in, we came down, Melanie and I, a great first lady who's very popular, by the way.
She rang in.
She rang in the bell.
She rang in the bell.
But we came down and we're driving down Pennsylvania Avenue and it was so beautiful.
I said, you know, I've never done this before.
I didn't know anybody.
I got to the Oval Office and I'm picking all these big positions and I didn't really know the people in Washington.
But boy, did I get to learn fast.
And now we do.
And I think we have an incredible staff behind me and others that aren't here.
And we're going to do a fantastic job.
President-elect Donald Trump at the New York Stock Exchange yesterday after delivering remarks when he was named person of the year for Time magazine.
Take a look at the cover of the magazine for Time.
That was yesterday in New York, talking about his second term and what to expect.
Some other news this morning I want to let you know about in case you missed it at a press conference in Tel Aviv yesterday, White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said a deal on a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release appeared close.
Take a listen.
I believe that every day brings increasing risk, which is why there's such urgency to try to get this deal.
Obviously, we've seen the tragic death of hostages since the massacres of October 7th and over the course of the past 15 months conflict.
So as soon as we can close this deal, we should close this deal in the interests of bringing those hostages home.
The answer to your first question is no.
I do not get that sense.
I got the sense today from the Prime Minister.
He's ready to do a deal.
And when I go to Doha and Cairo, my goal will be to put us in a position to be able to close this deal this month, not later.
Now, we've been close before and haven't gotten there, so I can't make any promises or predictions to you.
But I wouldn't be here today if I thought this thing was just waiting until after January 20th.
I am here today because I believe every day matters and we are going to use every day we have to try to close the deal as soon as we possibly can.
Jake Sullivan in the Middle East yesterday holding a news conference on the situation there.
Another news story to share with you this morning is on the front pages of several of the national newspapers.
Here's the Washington Times.
Informants stormed U.S. Capitol on January 6th, but there's no evidence of undercover agents.
The FBI had more than two dozen informants in Washington surrounding the chaos of the January 6th, 2020 attack on the Capitol, and four of them entered the building as part of the protest.
According to an Inspector General report, 13 other informants were part of the mob that broke onto the Capitol grounds and breached restricted space, but they didn't enter the building.
None have been prosecuted.
The investigation found no evidence that undercover FBI employees were part of the protests.
All told, 13 FBI informants or confidential human sources and FBI jargon breached the restricted space around the Capitol.
Another 13 informants were in Washington connected with the election-related protests, but did not intrude on the Capitol.
None of these FBI informants were authorized to enter the Capitol or a restricted area or to otherwise break the law.
And they came here, according to this report, on their own.
They were not sent here by the FBI.
There is more on this story, and we will get to it later on in the Washington Journal.
We are an open forum, and you can give us your thoughts on this story as well as other news of the day.
Let's go back to our conversation on term limits for Supreme Court justices.
There are the lines on your screen.
Continue to dial in this morning.
Jim's been waiting in Pioneer, Ohio.
Hi, Jim.
Hi.
I'm kind of antibiotic about term limits, but I have an alternative.
Hey, Jim, you're a little bit difficult to understand.
Can you put the phone a little closer?
Okay.
I have an alternative proposal for a tenant reconfirmation hearing every six times here.
Constitutional terms for.
Jim, I apologize.
Too difficult to understand you.
Maurice in Bowie, Maryland.
Hi, Maurice.
Good morning.
Hopefully, you can hear me.
Yes, we can.
Go ahead.
No one has made an argument of why there shouldn't be terms because one mentioned continuity on the bench, one mentioned the experience on the bench would be broken up.
And then the others complained about the decisions that the justices make when they're on the bench and in terms of favors and things of that nature.
That has nothing to do with term limits.
That is the, you know, that's the judge themselves, you know what I mean, making bad decisions or making biased decisions.
Now I am on the undecided, but now I'm decided.
I believe there should be term limits.
If you turn the question around and say, should there be term limits on the president?
Should there be?
We already know that they're not.
You know, they have eight years.
No one else has lifelong appointments except Supreme Court justices.
18 years is a little long.
I think eight years is good.
I mean, it's not about continuity, experience, and all those things.
It's about qualifications.
So every time you switch one judge for one that's already been on the bench forever, that judge that's coming in is qualified.
So they're able to follow the Constitution and make the right decisions.
Well, Maurice, members of Congress don't have term limits.
They can run for as many terms as they want to.
And as long as they get elected, they can serve.
We've been sitting down with members of Congress who are retiring this time around at the end of this 118th Congress.
You have Grace Napolitano, who's 88 years old.
She's been serving since her early 60s, and she's now retiring.
I agree.
So I don't, we're speaking about the Supreme Court.
I mean, it's no question that that should apply to the Congress and the Senate.
I mean, that's a I think you would probably have 98% approval of term limits on them across the board.
So that's not, but we're speaking about the Supreme Court justices.
So, I mean, you say that, like, my name is though I agree with them having, you know, no, I don't agree with Senate and Congress.
They need to have, they really need to have term limits.
I mean, if you look at most of them, they come in making six-figure salaries.
You Google Nancy from Democrat to Republican, they're worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
How can you be worth that much money when you've been at, you know, when your salary doesn't fit that?
Well, you know what I mean?
You would get Maurice.
Look at their spouses as well and what they do for a living.
If you're curious about why members of Congress have the wealth that they have, they may have also had the wealth before they came in.
And perhaps what you're alluding to, they gain wealth while they're members of Congress.
Dan in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Hi, Dan.
Hello.
I think that we really do need the term limits for sure, but we need to go a step further, I believe.
Over 50 years ago, when I was in high school and taking American government class, which was required for all high school students at that time in Nebraska, that there were nine.
Circuit Court of Appeals and the president, along with the senators from the district, would get together and choose a judge fit for the Supreme Court, and then there was a nomination.
So you didn't have all these horrible, horrible fights for nomination.
But that was then.
There were nine Circuit Court of Appeals, if I remember right, if I've got that right.
Now there are 12 plus the DC circuit.
And it seems like almost all of our justices are chosen from the D.C. circuit.
They aren't choosing from the rest of the country.
There should be a representative from each of the 12 districts now plus the D.C. Court of Appeals.
So that should be 13.
So the proposal is good, but does not go far enough.
It makes for a court that is in no way representative of the country when they're all chosen from the D.C. Court and they all have Harvard Ivy League background.
And that's the argument that Senator Welch and Senator Manchin are making, that this would provide more diversity in opinion and culture and just different perspective on the court if you have term limits.
And that's what you're arguing.
We'll never wring politics completely out of it.
There are politics and court selections, you know, from the beginning, I believe.
But if the president follows the norm and selects from the different D.C. circuits, and we have representative, we have representatives from all the different federal court of appeals, then I'm gone.
Yeah, no, we heard you, we're listening.
Yep.
When we have representatives from all 12 plus the D.C., then we have 13 justices, not nine.
Shouldn't be limited to nine.
All right.
Dan's thoughts there in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Dan, I'll share with you and others from the Washington Post reporting on this proposal by Senators Welch and Manchin that they quote Senator Welch, times are changing.
We need people from different iterations of life.
You want to make sure you're keeping up with the judges that understand the culture.
Welch and Manchin's constitutional amendment faces long odds, at least for now, an abbreviated timeline.
Constitutional amendments require approval from two-thirds of the House and the Senate and subsequent ratification by three-fourths of the states or by a convention of two-thirds of the state legislatures.
Only 27 amendments have been ratified throughout U.S. history.
Senators Joe Manchin, Independent West Virginia, Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont, proposing an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices.
We're asking you this morning, do you agree with the idea of term limits for the high court?
Dan, excuse me, Caleb in North Carolina, you say no.
Hi, Caleb.
Hey, good morning.
I must say I'm a little bit disappointed in C-SPAN to be talking about this subject because quite obviously, if you're realistic, doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of happening.
I mean, you have a better chance for Congress to impose term limits on itself than you do for Congress to agree to pass term limits for the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
And as far as this guy before me, there are justices who served on appeals courts that were not in D.C.
I just was doing a Google search right before I came online.
Alito and Tony Barrett are two of them who didn't.
Tony Barrett was 7th District.
Alito was 3rd District.
But getting back to the main point here, you know, just being realistic, you had Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. who appointed judges who, quote unquote, grew on the court or became more liberal than one would their nomination would have wanted from the president who appointed them.
You had Blackman, Stevens, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter who grew in office, right?
Now that Trump has solidified the conservative standing, Democrats are upset, okay?
Okay, go cry in the corner if you want.
This is not, this proposal is going nowhere.
I mean, I could equate it with a low, no labels effort, right?
They wasted millions and millions of dollars getting on state ballots, and they couldn't even find a candidate.
Thank you.
Caleb, his thoughts there in North Carolina.
Mark, Westwood, New Jersey.
Hi, Mark.
What do you say?
Hey, good morning.
Thank you for C-SPAN.
I definitely think Supreme Court justices should get term limits now.
Things change.
And the reason why is mostly there's so much corruption on the Supreme Court.
I mean, I remember in 2000 when they decided who our president was going to be.
And Clarence Thomas took $2 million in gifts, quote unquote.
I mean, it's getting ridiculous.
Mitch McConnell wouldn't let Obama have his Supreme Court pick for 11 months, but he pushes Trump through when Trump only had two weeks left, a twice impeached president.
I mean, the corruption is just ridiculous.
And, you know, I don't want unelected monarchs ruling over my life because I'm an American.
Thank you very much.
Mark in Westwood, New Jersey.
He says yes to term limits.
You heard his argument.
Do you agree or disagree with Mark or any other caller that you've heard from this morning?
Marilyn in Elizabethton, Tennessee.
Hi, good morning to you.
Good morning, Greta.
How are you today?
I'm doing well.
Thank you.
Great.
Great to hear that.
Well, yes, I totally agree.
And I agree that the corruption is beyond, beyond.
As a nurse, we couldn't take more than $20 gift from a patient.
Those rules applied to us.
We had very strict ethic codes.
So why don't Congress and the Senate let the public vote on these term limits?
They should not be the ones making that decision because the court represents all people.
Well, Marilyn, it would have to go to the citizens.
If you're going to change the Constitution, which is what would have to happen here, it would have to be ratified by two-thirds of the states.
Correct.
But it should be on a ballot by the public.
So the public can make the decisions, not the politicians, because of course they're going to make decisions in their favor.
And that's just the way this world is running right now.
All right.
It's a very, very sad time for the United States of America.
Marilyn, there in Tennessee with her thoughts.
Let's listen to another Supreme Court justice on this.
Justice Elena Kagan discussed term limits during a 2018 interview at Georgetown University's Law Center, and she spoke about the advantages and drawbacks of proposals like the 18-year term limit.
Time we have a new nominee for the court.
There's the questions that gets asked.
Primarily, should justices have life tenure?
And if you could give us what you think are the advantages and then maybe the disadvantages of life tenure for Supreme Court justices.
So are we retroactively applying this?
It's because you're absolutely out there.
I'm pretty happy.
Seems like a good job.
I'm happy with it being life tenure.
I don't know.
It's a hard question.
I mean, obviously, the reason for life tenure is a very important one, which is that it makes people independent.
And it means that none of us are thinking about the next job we'll have because we won't have a next job.
And nobody's ever going to be in a position where they need anything from anybody ever again.
And that's a really important thing to ensure that the judicial branch is independent.
Now, could you do that with sufficiently long terms?
You know, 18 years seems to be the going proposal.
Maybe.
So I'm not saying that there's nothing to proposals like that.
I think what those proposals are trying to do is to take some of the high stakes out of the confirmation process.
And certainly to the extent that that worked and that people could be a little bit, you know, could feel as though no single confirmation was going to be a life and death issue, that that would be a good thing.
So I think it's a balance among good goals.
And I wouldn't pretend to have the answer to it.
And, you know, thankfully, that one is an article.
Justice Kagan on this debate.
Should there be term limits for Supreme Court justices?
Gary in Oceanside, New York.
Let's hear from you.
Hi, good morning, Greta.
Good morning.
How are you?
Yeah, it's not necessarily to have a term limit, but I believe my opinion is that, say, every eight years, they should go through a re reconfirmed by a bipartisan group of congresspeople.
You know, Congress, the current Congress has no term limit, but the constituents vote in the congressperson.
So, number one, if it's the example, if Congressman's been 15 years, Republican, the next thing you know, the Democrat comes in.
That's because their constituents have changed their mind.
So, not necessarily, I believe, that they need a term limit.
I just think they need to constantly be monitored so that they're doing the job.
All right, Gary.
Gary, there in New York, we'll go to Chico, California.
Wanda, you say no.
Yeah, that's right, because I don't think that this would even be a topic if Ruth Bader Ginsburg was still there or if this was 1973, Roe v. Wade, then they would be happy, totally happy with the courts.
And the liberals always ran to the courts to get their agenda through.
And now that the court is conservative, they want to change the court and they want to add judges also, not just limit the years that they serve.
They want to change everything when they don't get their agenda.
It's like rule or ruin.
Wanda in Chico, California, Van in Paris, Ohio.
Van, go ahead, Van, with your thoughts.
Good morning to you.
Yes, I believe that the Supreme Court should have a term limit, just like the secretaries that the president appoints.
The FBI director is in there for 10 years.
And I think 18 years would be too long for a Supreme Court justice to be there.
They should be there for 10 years, just like the other appointees, and they should be approved by the Senate.
And I think the Senate and the Congress should only have two terms like the President.
Elected officials, make room, get out, got somebody with new thoughts, new blood, come in, new ideas, and move the country forward.
There's Van in Paris, Ohio with his thoughts.
Term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Jeff, in Avon, Ohio, you say no.
Yes, good morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
Yeah, I say no.
And the reason is when you flashed that article that Joe Manchin wrote for the reason for his proposal is he wants to, he thinks the Supreme Court should keep up with the changing times and the changes in our culture.
Well, that's really not the reason to put in term limits.
The purpose of the United States Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution.
It's to focus on our Constitution, ensure equal justice, and protect civil rights.
It has really nothing to do with the culture of our society.
The other reason is, if we start enforcing term limits on the Supreme Court, how far does that go in our society?
Do people working in companies now have to face mandatory retirement after so many years?
Does Congress now have to have mandatory retirement after so many terms?
So I'm against that.
I think some of the other callers focused on the confirmation process.
I think that's where we need to focus also to make sure that we get the right justices that are not politically influenced.
And so that's my opinion.
All right, Jeff, thank you for those thoughts.
Another news story to share with you, front page of the New York Times, in sweeping act, President Biden commutes 1,500 sentences, a record for one day.
Most have been placed in house confinement during the pandemic.
That is the front page of the New York Times.
Listen to White House Press Secretary Corine Jean-Pierre discussing the pardons issued by President Biden yesterday.
Some of the names that have been floated around preemptive pardon solutions, it would just be such an unusual, extraordinary staff.
We talked about in the news, we've seen Liz Cheney, Dr. Fauci, Mark.
You're talking about the preemptive pardoning.
Right.
I understand you don't want to get ahead of the president's thinking, but are any of those names wrong or still?
I mean, do you want to tell us anything about it?
It would be a bad move on my behalf if I preempted the president or previewed anything that the president was thinking about, considering.
And so this is something that he's going to talk with his team about.
And I just don't have anything beyond that for you.
Again, I think today is a very important day as we talk about the criminal justice system, as we talk about giving people who have shown that they can reintegrate into their community, back into their families, a second chance.
I think that's a big deal.
And I think that shows the president's commitment to this.
And, you know, the president talks a lot about what this country has to offer and possibilities.
And you see that in every action that the president certainly has taken when it comes to this issue and so many other policies that he's put forward.
Pardons and commendations.
President yesterday setting a record front page of the Washington Post, Biden begins a series of pardons and reduced sentences for 1,500 others.
Sweeping move is one that the president-elect cannot reverse.
Linda, in Warsaw, Kentucky, you say yes to term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Thank you for joining the conversation.
Go ahead.
Thank you for taking my call.
And yes, I do have very, very strong vote issues with no term limits for the Supreme Court, but I am concerned when they start changing the Constitution of the United States.
We cannot just, it's not just a piece of paper we can throw out the door and make our own rules as we want them to be.
The Supreme Court right now is very corrupt when they're taking all this stuff from other people, special packs, their wives working for political offices and stuff.
But it is our Constitution, and we should always, always, always feel that we have that to stand on and to take refuge through.
That our founding fathers knew what they were doing and pray to God that we can make it through whatever comes next.
Charlie in Warren, Massachusetts.
Good morning to you.
Your thoughts on term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Good morning, Greta.
You know, it's interesting.
I'd like to say to everybody out there with a brain, how come it's whenever the liberals lose or feel like they're losing or they don't have the upper hand, they want to change the rules.
Now they want to limit the terms for the Supreme Court justices.
Six months ago, a year ago, they're talking about expanding the Supreme Court to make it even.
Whenever they, that's what it's all about.
Everybody knows it.
Wake up, America.
All right, Charlie.
Let me go to Roger, who's in Minnesota.
Roger, you say no as well.
That's right.
This is nothing more than our career politicians who want to be able to control the Supreme Court.
We have our Amy Klobuchar up here who just brags about her career in politics.
She'll be there like posting them until she's 90 years old.
That's my comment.
Thank you.
All right.
All right.
We will leave it there for that conversation.
Another conversation coming up here in the Washington Journal.
After the break, we'll talk with Benjamin Johnson of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
We'll talk about President-elect Donald Trump's immigration proposals, including mass deportations and the end of birthright citizenship.
And then later, Ashley Hayek, Executive Director of American First Works and former 2021-2020 campaign strategist for Mr. Trump, discusses his incoming administration and how his cabinet is shaping up.
Stay with us.
American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern, the St. Charles County Historical Society in Missouri hosts a conference of the American Revolution in the West.
Historians discuss the weapons of the American Revolution, the role of Spain and Native Americans, and the 1779 Mississippi River campaign.
Then, at 8 p.m. Eastern, on Lectures in History, the second of a two-part lecture by University of Maryland history professor Michael Ross on the 1893 trial of Lizzie Borden, who was accused of murdering her father and stepmother with an axe.
The murders and trial received widespread publicity at the time, and Lizzie Borden became a lasting figure in American popular culture.
And at 9:30 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, we'll revisit the Ford presidency with scholars reflecting on events from a half century ago, including secret White House tapes and oral history interviews with Ford administration officials.
Exploring the American story, watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/slash history.
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 8 p.m. Eastern, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Peggy Noonan shares her book, A Certain Idea of America, which is a collection of her columns from over the past quarter century.
And then at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwards, economist and investment advisor James Rickards talks about the potential threats that AI poses to the global economy and national security in his book, Money GPT.
He's interviewed by George Mason University Distinguished University Professor J.P. Singh.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
The house will be in order.
This year, C-SPAN celebrates 45 years of covering Congress like no other.
Since 1979, we've been your primary source for Capitol Hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policy is debated and decided, all with the support of America's cable companies.
C-SPAN, 45 years in counting, powered by cable.
Washington Journal continues.
Joining us this morning is Benjamin Johnson.
He's the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, here to talk about President-elect Donald Trump's immigration plans.
Let's begin with your association.
Who do you represent?
We represent about 17,000 immigration lawyers all across the country doing almost every conceivable type of immigration, whether it's asylum to highly skilled folks.
Yeah, in just about every jurisdiction in the United States.
What do you think about President-elect's call for mass deportation?
Well, it's hard to know what to make of that.
I think Donald Trump is famous for, I think he calls it the weave.
Like what he says and what ends up happening could be very different things.
If he's true to his word and he's talking about truly a mass deportation, then I think it is deeply troubling.
I think it's going to have enormous ramifications both financially, economically, and socially.
There's a lot of people in this country who have been here for a very long time, and ripping them out of the workplace, ripping them out of the communities where they live is a reality that I think it's going to settle in pretty quickly.
And I think people's view of that will begin to be shaped by the truth, not just by rhetoric.
And the truth is it's going to be very hard and very disruptive.
Which agency right now is in charge of finding and deporting immigrants who are here illegally and who are committing crimes?
Well, overall, it's the Department of Homeland Security.
Specifically, the sub-agency is Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Also known as ICE.
ICE, yes.
Maybe, you know, with the added involvement of the CBP, Customs and Border Protection, certainly at the border doing that.
But yeah, those working together, ICE and CBP, are primarily responsible for that.
And do they have the authorization in law to do so?
And are they doing that?
Sure.
I mean, there's no question that the law, somebody who is here without authorization is subject to deportation.
I think what's driving most of the way that we enforce immigration law is a reality check.
It is the fact that because in large part Congress has not done anything to align our immigration policy with economic reality, we have a lot of people here who have been here for a very long time out of immigration status and randomly and enforcing the law against all of those would be incredibly disruptive and incredibly difficult.
So primarily most organizations, most agencies, excuse me, most administrations have operated under the theory of discretion, figuring out who we can focus our attention and resources on because we just don't have the resources to say we're going to try to find, arrest, and remove somewhere between 11 and 13 million people in the United States right now.
I mean it's sad that we've gotten to that point allowing that to happen, but the answer is not to be naive about the reality that we are in now.
Of those undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants who are committing crimes, do they have a right to a lawyer before they're deported?
They do have a right to a lawyer, but it's different than in a criminal context.
The proceedings can continue whether they've got a lawyer or not.
So the ability to find a lawyer, particularly when you've been put in really remote locations, really remote detention centers, is incredibly difficult.
So many, many of the folks that are going through the system don't have a lawyer.
They don't understand it.
I mean, immigration is incredibly complex and confusing.
So there's a lot of folks that are getting moved through this system without any understanding of what their rights might be or how the process should work.
But I also want to underscore, you know, we can't, there are folks that are committing crimes in the United States, but it is a tiny fraction of the undocumented population.
What is the percentage?
Well, I mean, look, 85, 90% of the folks that are here in the United States have been here for a very long time, majority more than 15 years, and they have no criminal record.
Of the ones, that other like 10, 5%, they have a criminal record that's almost all traffic violations.
It is a tiny fraction of the immigrant population here, the undocumented population, that has committed a serious crime.
So there is an opportunity then to focus on those folks because that is a very small number.
I know that folks have been playing fast and loose with what that number is in the current environment, but it is a very small number.
If they wanted to go after serious criminals, that's something that's doable.
And I think that's something that across the board people would support.
It doesn't help that under immigration law, we have a very broad definition of what's a serious criminal.
I mean, the definition of an aggravated felony can include shoplifting and murder.
So that doesn't help with the ability to really decide what do we mean by criminal alien.
Murderers?
Sure.
Shoplifters, I'm not sure we should make that a priority.
How quickly are those folks deported?
It can happen very quickly, particularly if it's a very serious offense.
You'll go through something called the expedited removal process.
So you could effectuate removals in that context in days, weeks, if not hours, depending on the circumstances.
I do believe, as a lawyer, I do believe that the system can move very quickly without losing our core values as Americans, which is everybody needs an opportunity to be heard.
You can lose your case, but you got to be able to make a case of what happened and assert your rights.
So I would be really concerned about America in response to this environment, giving up the things that we believe to be true and sacred, which is a judicial system that is fair.
can be fast, but it should be fair first.
Here's a headline in the national section of the New York Times.
Trump will need help to fulfill his promise of mass deportations.
Local level cooperation would be indispensable to make a policy work.
You're probably going to need either a massive increase in capacity for the immigration and customs enforcement or some cooperation with some local folks.
And I think, you know, the idea of these sanctuary cities is a little bit of a misnomer.
Mostly what that means is, look, states are saying, I'm going to do my job.
I'm focusing on enforcement of state laws, state criminal laws, and let the federal government do their job.
But even sanctuary states or cities, I think, would agree that when we're talking about serious criminals, states would be willing to cooperate.
Everybody wants their streets safe from real threats to the safety of a community.
Where I think there is disagreement is what do we do with those folks that have been here for 15 years and they are actually very important, productive members of those communities.
Treating them the same as serious criminals is a mistake.
Let's listen to President-elect Donald Trump.
He appeared on NBC's Meet the Press last Sunday and criticized the leniency migrants face when they go through the immigration process in the United States.
Somebody walks onto our land and we have to now say, welcome to the United States.
They could be a criminal or not a criminal.
We release them into our country.
It's called catch and release.
We release them into our country.
Wait, just one second.
And now they get them lawyers.
And the lawyers are good lawyers.
And everybody has a lawyer.
And do you know how many judges we have?
Thousands.
Thousands.
Now, here's what other countries do.
They come into the land and they say, I'm sorry, you have to go.
And they take them out.
Okay?
With us, once they touch our land, we're into litigation that lasts for years, costs us hundreds of billions of dollars.
We have judges, and I'm sure they're all honest, but I don't know that for a fact.
You can imagine what's going on with the judges.
But just so you, because I have a lot of judges, I tell you what, I know more about judges than any human being in history.
Look, we have judges.
Every time somebody puts two feet or even one foot on a piece of our land, it's welcome to long-term litigation.
Other countries, every other country, when somebody walks on and they see that they're here illegally, they walk them off, they take them back to where they came from.
We have to get rid of this system.
It's killing our country.
Benjamin Johnson, your reaction.
I mean, if what Donald Trump is saying is that by getting rid of the system that we get rid of judges and lawyers, then, I mean, that's a complete remaking of who we are as a country.
It's what distinguishes us from many of the authoritarian, oppressive regimes that we have always stood up against.
So I think he's just dead wrong if what he means is we need to get rid of judges and lawyers in the system.
He's also wrong that everybody who comes in and sets foot in the United States is entitled to stay here.
We do have asylum laws.
I think there's been some manipulation of asylum laws by cartels and smugglers.
But the answer is not to abandon our asylum laws.
Our answer is to invest in the system so that we can decide who really deserves protection and who has to be sent home.
We could do that quickly and fairly without getting rid of judges and lawyers is the richest country in the world.
How do you do it?
How do you address the asylum laws?
You do need to hire more judges.
You need to create processes that are workable, but you've got video technology.
You've got the ability to invest in lawyers on the ground there and judges who can evaluate these cases.
These cases could move quickly.
Cases could be made in a matter of weeks or months rather than years.
And when you're talking about people whose lives are potentially at stake, I think that's an investment we can and should make.
I mean, keep in mind that there's a lot of talk about the manipulation of the asylum system, but the thing that we should be proud of in terms of having an asylum system is that it protects people that are being persecuted in China for being Christians.
It protects women who are in oppressive regimes where the Taliban is treating them like animals.
So the idea that we can and are a place where people can receive asylum where they're being persecuted is something we should be proud of, and we should invest in a system that can figure out who deserves that protection and who doesn't.
Throwing that away because it's a challenge is a mistake.
Let's go to Alexis, who's in Detroit, an independent.
Welcome to the conversation.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you.
My question is, and I know the guest won't have an answer, but I'm posing the question, I guess maybe more to C-SPAN, Greta, and if you guys could do a segment on this, on immigration with this angle.
How many housing units are going to be opened up once the mass deportations start, and what is the effect going to be on housing costs?
I believe millions will open up and housing costs will fall precipitously.
This is the problem with having illegal aliens in our country.
And I just want to say to you, sir, I believe all the current modern immigration lawyers are bleeding heart traitors.
Mr. Johnson.
Well, I think that the last comment obviously was wrong.
And bleeding heart traders were folks who believe in the American system of justice and work to ensure that the decisions that are made by the system have integrity.
And I think that the integrity of those decisions is improved by there being a real process and an opportunity to be heard.
That can happen in an expeditious way, but I think it's an important part of who we are as a country.
In terms of the housing units, the thing you have to remember is, sure, if you removed all of those folks, would those houses be available?
But what about the jobs that they are working in?
What about them as consumers of goods in those communities?
So you have to remember there are places like Topeka, Kansas.
Topeka, Kansas is literally paying people to move to Topeka, Kansas.
You move to Topeka, Kansas, and get a job.
The city will give you $5,000.
That's because they are really desperate for workers and citizens to be living in that community.
So maybe what we should do is be thinking about how do we deploy this resource, which is hardworking people, ready to make a better lives for themselves and for the communities where they live.
How do we put them in places where they can succeed in a legal way that allows the communities to benefit from that?
That doesn't mean all of the folks that are coming will fit into that equation, but it means we are missing an opportunity to say, how about if those folks came legally to places and communities that needed them?
then that problem becomes an opportunity.
But that's going to require Congress to look past the politically expedient solution, the rhetoric of mass deportations, and think about how do we create a system that will work, that will put immigrants where we want them and need them, and create a legal system to do that.
If we did that, then again, I think we could absolutely solve this problem.
We'll go to Eastern Pennsylvania.
John, Democratic caller.
Hi.
Mr. Johnson, I was wondering if you can explain to me why immigration is a problem when the very people who wrote our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights were immigrants.
Our whole First Continental Congress were immigrants.
And why is the border a wall on the border when Mexico is part of the free trade agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement?
Just like Canada.
There's no wall in between us and Canada.
And why is Trump saying immigration is a problem?
He's a product of immigration.
You're a product of immigration.
I'm a product of immigration.
Credit is a problem immigration.
Thanks, John.
Mr. Johnson.
Yeah, to be clear, I don't think immigration or immigrants are a problem.
It is true that we are facing problems in the way that we manage immigration.
It's not properly funded.
There's too much political infighting and partisanship in figuring out how do we build a system that will work.
So our immigration system is the problem.
I think immigrants are caught up in that.
And look, here's the basic reality.
When you pit the world's largest economy against an immigration system, the economy is going to win every time.
There is a demand for workers.
There is a demand for the unification of families, of people that are living and working in the United States.
And for 30 plus years, we have ignored the economic reality and the community reality.
And we have not updated our system to meet the needs that we have.
And so again, as long as we continue to say, hey, let's see who wins between the U.S. economy and the U.S. immigration system, the U.S. economy is going to win.
And we're going to see people trying to do anything and everything they can to come in.
That's the problem.
Let's focus on solving that problem.
Let's create legal channels of immigration that reflect the realities of our economy and the needs of communities.
And then we will have a system that will work that won't be a problem.
It'll be an asset.
What do those legal channels of immigration look like?
I mean, well, they look like, take an example, one of the highest demand areas in the U.S. economy right now is sort of the hospitality industry and the construction industry where we have a lot of homes that are being built, a lot of services that are being provided.
And we have fewer and fewer Americans that are entering into that labor force.
They're getting college degrees.
They're graduating from high school.
They're looking for different kinds of jobs.
Right now in the immigration system, there are almost no temporary worker programs that would allow people to go into those industries because they're not seasonal.
Construction is a year-round thing.
We have good seasonal temporary worker programs, but temporary, you know, work that's not seasonal, we don't really have a temporary system for that.
And we have a total of 5,000 green cards across the United States across all industries available for these less skilled workers.
That's a ridiculous mismatch to the reality of the U.S. economy.
So you create a legal immigration system that allows for people to come here to work in places where we need them, both in the economy and in the communities where we need them.
Then you will have a legal system that will be the envy of the world.
The rest of the world is dying for the kind of talent and resources that our immigration system could be providing us in a legal way.
It's time for us to harness the power of that to meet the needs of the United States.
The Senate proposal, bipartisan proposal, James Lankford and Democrats put together, would it address what you are talking about?
It did address some of those things.
It recognized the need for an increase in illegal immigration to its credit.
It recognized the need for the system to move faster.
The availability of lawyers should be part of that.
So it had funding for a system that had some integrity and could move faster.
But it importantly had an increase in legal visas.
Look, there was other problems with that bill.
I think it's good to celebrate the fact that there was a bipartisan effort.
I was, you know, we congratulated the folks for stepping into a very difficult political hornet's nest and trying to solve this problem and not just talk about it.
So it was a good bipartisan effort.
The end result should have been the beginning of the conversation about what we need, not the end of it.
It wasn't a perfect bill.
It needed significant improvements, particularly in some of its enforcement strategies.
But it was a process that has to be replicated.
People got to get together, look past their partisan differences, and find common ground on an issue that should matter to all of us.
All right, Mike, Houston, Texas, Republican.
Good morning to you.
Good morning.
Benjamin, that bill was so bad.
That bill was so bad.
It basically, it was one senator, one Republican senator.
There were more bipartisanship with the House immigration bill.
Not even close.
More, but it's never talked about.
H.R. 2.
Yeah, there's no bipartisan support for that bill, but go ahead.
Mike, it passed along party lines.
No, there were six House Democrats who supported it.
Now, the thing is, the one that did go through the Senate, or may have gone through the Senate, had all this kind of discretionary, like, oh, there's this, and they didn't count kids and they didn't count this.
And all these stipulations that gave so much power to the Homeland Security that there were so many discretionary parts, it sustained the problem.
It didn't solve the problem.
Second point, you've never talked about the cost to society.
You said, Benjamin, that we are the richest country on earth.
I'll tell you why.
Look at that debt clock someday.
$38 trillion, $36 trillion.
You know, we pay as much for our interest on our debt as we do for our military defense.
Now, that is not a rich country.
We have too many costs.
We have too many people.
Why don't we get to choose who comes into our country?
Rather than have the TSA agents on the border, I call them TSA agents.
They're doing their job, but they're having too many people to process.
They come through like they step aside and just let them in.
That's not how you operate.
Third thing, third thing.
What about these 300,000 kids missing?
You haven't spent one second on the 300,000 kids missing in the United States.
Tom Homan is sitting on Fox News while you're talking, and he's been talking about all these kids missing.
And what do you think is happening to them?
Do you want to go down that path and imagine what happened to them when they crossed the border?
How many of them were raped and assaulted and found stranded on their own from those drug, those human trafficking cartels?
That is disgusting.
Those kids, they're people, a lot of people lost their lives coming across that border.
You know, you talk about these things and you're not addressing the cost to our society.
Milton Friedman said, a nation will fail if it has a social safety net and an open border, and it will fail.
And you can say all you want about the broken system and all that.
Trump had it fixed 84% better than what Joe Biden did.
Joe Biden stopped building the wall.
You need to control who comes in.
All right, Mike.
I think we got the point.
We'll ask Mr. Johnson to respond.
Wow, there's a lot there.
not sure where to begin.
Actually, where I will begin, sort of where he was starting to talk about this idea of folks getting raped and assaulted on the journey to the United States.
That is true and it is a tragedy.
The discretion that he was talking about in that Senate bill really was discretion about when do we completely shut down the border.
It was something that a lot of us struggled with, the whole idea that there would be these triggers and that we would simply close the border.
And the reason that there is if you're going to do that, which I'm not sure we need to, but if you're going to do that, there's got to be a lot of discretion is that keep in mind, those people that were assaulted, robbed, and raped or murdered on the way up here, when you close the border, you push them back into the hands of the people he's just talking about.
So that's one of the reasons that I think this remain in Mexico problem might be a good political situation and it pushes the problem 200 yards away from the border and maybe out of the view of the news cameras, but it doesn't solve the problem.
And it doesn't deal with the fact that those people then will be pushed back into Mexico and subject to the abuse of the cartels that brought them here.
So we should be really, really cautious about that whole idea of closing the border.
Who gets to choose?
We get to choose who comes to the United States.
There's no question about that.
We have to have a system that allows us to decide who gets to come in and who doesn't.
But we should do that under a system that's consistent with our values.
Our values say that we're going to hear a case.
We're going to find out, make decisions based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
We're not just going to sweep people and issues under the rug.
So we can do both.
We can choose and we can do it in a way that's consistent with our values.
And when we do that, immigration is a net positive by every measure that's ever been done on immigration.
Are there social safety nets, social investments that have to be made?
Absolutely.
It's true with all workers who are in, particularly in less skilled categories.
Workers and people are expensive.
Their kids need education.
They need access to a health care system.
That's true of everybody in this country.
Immigrants actually, sadly, are less expensive because we deny them access to a lot of those things in the first five or six years of their probationary period here in the United States as legal permanent residents or as temporary workers.
What are they denied access to?
They don't get immediate access to direct benefits.
So they don't get cash benefits, for instance.
You're not eligible for those types of welfare benefits for the first three to five years of permanent residency in the United States.
There is a bit of a trial period there.
We could debate about whether that's right or wrong, but it is the reality now.
So we have a system that's set up to make immigration a really powerful, effective tool for the improvement of our economy.
The truth is we need workers in certain places.
We should use our immigration system to put them there.
If it's displacing U.S. workers, we should stop doing that.
But if it is enhancing the U.S. workforce that's there and enhancing the economy, that is a completely legitimate goal for our immigration system.
So how about we focus our attention on doing that right and not on simplistic solutions like border closures and mass deportation?
That's not going to get us the immigration system that we want and need.
Wall Street Journal headline, President-elect prepares for legal fight over his birthright citizenship curbs.
Is this a pull out?
He's going to have a legal fight over that.
I mean, that's a basic tenet of the 14th Amendment, that if you're born here and born or naturalized in the United States, you're a citizen of the United States as long as you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
So it'd be very interesting to see what the argument is.
I think Donald Trump believes that he can, through executive order, say that folks born in the United States are not citizens.
I guess maybe because they're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
If that's the case, we're going to have a very hard time prosecuting folks that are here because they're not subject to our jurisdiction.
I mean, so the best example of people that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are diplomats and other folks who have immunity.
They are not subject to our laws here.
And so if they're born here in that diplomatic space, for instance, then they're not U.S. citizens.
But if you're subject to the laws of the United States and you're born here, you're a citizen.
We'll go to Brad, Upper Marlborough, Maryland, independent.
Good morning.
I have a few points I'd like to make.
This guy, well, first, Mike, the previous caller, was right on pretty much all of his points.
This guy, this lawyer guy that's on the show right now, he's blurring the lines between illegal immigration and legal immigration.
This morning, his guest speaker started with the drawbacks of mass deportation and how much that would cost and the cost to society, but he's ignoring the cost of society of illegal, illegal immigrants coming over the border.
Also, he's way off on his crime stats, saying that it's a very small percentage.
He's somewhere in the area of 10 or 15 percent.
He said even a fraction of that is violent crimes.
Well, I mean, no violent crime is acceptable, and those are probably the gangbangers, the MS-13, and so forth.
But he said the other crimes are traffic-related.
Well, those are the hit and runs where people don't have insurance or a driver's license or a DUI and they hit somebody and they don't want to get deported, so they flee the scene.
And sometimes that could be vehicular homicide.
But let's be real: 100% of the people that are here illegally are criminals.
They're here illegally.
By that tenant, they are, in fact, breaking the law.
All right, Brad, let's get a response.
I'm not sure what to say.
If I'm perceived as blurring the lines, let me be clear.
We shouldn't have undocumented immigration in the United States.
We should create a system that allows for people that we want and need to be here legally.
That's the problem, but that's not going to happen as long as we've got laws that were crafted before we had the internet.
I mean, the last time we have updated our immigration laws in any meaningful way was 1990s.
1992 is probably the closest we came to anything that looked like an update of our system.
So, you know, what do we expect?
If you've got an outdated system, you're going to get outdated results.
So I'm not trying to blur any lines.
I'm saying let's create an immigration system where we end undocumented immigration as we know it today.
But let's not ignore the fact that right now we have people, 70% of the undocumented population have been here for 15 years or longer.
So you're talking about five, six million people that actually have been here 25 years or longer.
To create an enforcement regime that treats them the same as the folks who just are trying to come in in an undocumented status now is ignoring reality.
So let's be realistic and let's be clear out about the system that we're trying to build.
That's what I think we should be doing.
The caller doesn't trust your statistics.
Where do you go for your statistics about immigrants, illegal, and crimes being committed?
Even there's there.
This is one issue that has been tested and studied for more than 100 years.
This question of immigrant criminality.
Literally for 100 years.
It's always been on the folks' mind.
Wow, aren't they more likely to commit crime?
The answer is unequivocally no.
They are not more likely to commit crime.
And they are less likely to commit crime than the native-born population.
That is a fact that has been proven over and over again.
That doesn't mean that the bad apples that do commit crime shouldn't be subject to the full force of enforcement of our laws.
That's the same whether you're a citizen or an undocumented immigrant or a legal immigrant.
Bad people exist in our world, and we should focus on punishment, rehabilitation, whatever your strategy might be.
But let's not pretend that those bad apples define the entire population any more than the folks that commit violent crimes in the United States define all of us.
There are bad people.
Let's focus on that, but let's not pretend that they are the majority.
We'll go to Ruffin, South Carolina.
Danny, Republican.
Good morning.
Immigrants, they're hard-American people.
They're good and bad in everybody, every racist.
So why are they always going with the immigrants, picking on the immigrants?
So why is it all right for President Trump to marry an immigrant, but they don't say nothing about that?
She's reaping all the benefits, all the riches and everything.
Why do you want to complain about that?
Thank you.
All right, I'll go on to Alice, who's in Chicago, Independent.
Hi, Alice.
Hi, who are you?
Immigrants who come here under the guise of asylum should show that they were denied asylum in the nations they came through en route to cure.
They came from China and they stopped in Mexico, walked through Mexico, then you have to have something to show Mexico denied them asylum.
Also, people relocate all the time from one state to another, from one country to another, and they take their children with them.
They don't leave their children behind.
Children go with the family.
There's nothing wrong with when these illegal aliens are sent back to their home country or back to Mexico.
They take their children with them.
And by right, they should.
You don't leave the kids behind.
And the kids are not being punished or hurt because they're going back to there where they have in-laws and cousins and the same language.
There's nothing wrong with that.
All right, Alice.
Well, let's take your points, Mr. Johnson.
I don't know where to begin there.
Folks that are coming here in an undocumented status and aren't eligible for asylum should be removed.
I think we can do that safely and humanely.
That may involve the removal of an entire family.
That can be done safely and humanely.
So I don't disagree with the idea that if we had a system that could fairly and accurately and efficiently adjudicate these claims, then I get the fact that the result is removal if you didn't win your claim.
And if you made your claim with your kids and your family, then yeah, the kids would be beneficiaries of a victory, and they would be removed if there was a denial.
Chris is a Democrat in Dayton, Ohio.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'd like to talk about their mass deportation.
I don't think Stephen Miller or Donald Trump have any idea or the general public have any idea what a million people look like.
So I'm going to give you a reference.
If you ever watched a football game at Ohio State, that stadium holds 100,000 people.
100,000 people.
Now you need 10 of those stadiums to get to a million.
Where you're going to put those kind of people?
Where you going to put them?
Mr. Johnson?
Yeah, well, first of all, go bucks.
My daughter goes to Ohio State.
So yeah, look, the entire population in every jail and prison in the United States, that entire population is 1.9 million people.
So we have incarcerated more people than the rest of the world, and it's still just 1.9 million people.
That's a huge population.
But you think about what he's saying is right.
To attempt a mass deportation would result in a mass incarceration of a size that we've never seen and that could end up involving some replication of this entire jail system that we have now.
So those are huge numbers.
And again, it's going to have huge economic consequences.
I think the reality is that a lot of this is rhetoric.
I think it's reflecting, and I think Donald Trump is, if I give him the benefit of the doubt, I think he is speaking to an anxiety and not to a policy.
He's good at that.
He's good at capturing people's fears and anxieties and speaking to them, often inflaming them.
So I think the truth is that at some point the desire to get control of our system is going to collide with the economic success that he's reaching for as well.
And then we're going to have to figure out when that overlap happens.
A lot of pain can happen in the meantime.
A lot of families will get divided.
A lot of communities will see that, oh my God, I didn't know you were talking about removing that person.
I sit next to that person in church.
I work next to that person in my business.
So I think there's a reality that'll settle in as this is happening.
And then there's going to be an economic consequence that we're going to have to deal with because it just is true.
And Donald Trump says this and recognizes it.
We need immigration.
It is a powerful tool for us.
And we better get serious about not just the deportation part, but about the legal immigration part because it's part of our superpower is the ability to choose the best and brightest in the world.
And the fact that there are people literally dying to come to the United States is something that most of the rest of the world would want.
Anyway, but listen, we all should take stock of the fact that this is not just a U.S. problem.
The world is moving.
The world is in motion.
And lots of countries are struggling with the rise of nationalism and nativism isn't just happening in the United States.
It's happening in lots of other countries as they struggle to figure out like how do we set up regimes that allow us to control our borders in an effective way.
I think we have an opportunity to lead the world and showing the world how that can happen.
And I think that will involve us resisting the temptation to do the politically easy and challenge ourselves to do the politically difficult, which is build an immigration system that will once again be the envy of the world.
Earlier this week on Capitol Hill, the Senate Judiciary Committee took up this question of mass deportation, talking about the consequences, economic on the military, etc.
C-SPAN cameras were there.
We covered the hearing in its entirety, and you can watch online at C-SPAN.org or our free video mobile app, C-SPANNOW.
We have gold stars at the right of your screen.
Those indicate the points of interest throughout the hearing.
If you don't have hours to sit through it, you can click on those gold stars and get an idea of the questions and the answers that lawmakers got on mass deportation this week on Capitol Hill with C-SPAN coverage.
Laverne in Converse, Texas, Democratic Caller.
Good morning.
I'd just like to say number one, I do believe that the president-elect of this country has no, he's an idiot, an idiot and an ignorant man.
He has no understanding of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
Number two, he, because he has money, was able to get his current wife, an immigrant, a genius green card.
Now, what makes her a genius? is being a nude model, a new standard for being a genius in this country?
I don't think so.
Then her parents follow her here.
Father was a member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.
Please, I am just, I have no words.
The other thing I'd like to speak about is the portrayal of those people from Ethiopia, wherever, in Ohio.
In Springfield, Ohio.
Saying that they were eating the cats and the dogs of the people of the country, of the city, when that was explained and that was proven false.
Those people were invited there by that city.
All right, well, let's talk about that, Laverne.
It was the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio invited there.
Are you familiar with the story?
Sure.
Who wasn't familiar with it at the time?
It was everywhere.
And I think Mike DeWine, a good governor of Ohio, a good solid Republican, been around these issues for a very long time.
I think he was absolutely right when he said it was disgusting.
It really was a low point in political rhetoric in the United States.
That, you know, the sort of the disinformation that was being spread in just horrible ways.
Those were valuable contributing members of that community.
They were there, you know, helping to build and provide and support the economy of Springfield.
And the governor knew that.
And I think other folks spoke out about it.
And, you know, look, for that same reason, I'm not, I hate the politics of personal destruction.
It's one of the things that I dislike most about the president-elect is his willingness to go after people in vicious ways.
So I'm not going to, you know, saying he's an idiot or maligning his wife, that's not going to get us where we need to be in politics in America.
It's time for us to step back and start finding common ground on issues that should matter to all of us.
And the immigration system is an issue that should matter to all of us.
So somebody has to try to be the adult in the room and end the vilification and the politics of personal destruction.
I know the American Immigration Lawyers Association prepared to do that.
We're willing to work with anybody that's serious about solving this problem.
And I'm not going to call anybody names if they're willing to sit down at the table and talk about how we build a better immigration system than we've got now.
We'll go to Hale, Michigan.
Dave, Independent.
Yes, good morning, Ben.
Your lawyers have ways to verify, I'm sure, or try to verify other immigrants that are leaving their country.
Now, what I'm trying to get at is trying to go around the money-making deal with these coyotes and everything.
I feel that this must be a way that I, as the United States, can tell those people, all those immigrants from other countries, to have a signed, file for us signed and sealed by their government leaders, a document that says that, and they're going to pay their leaders to leave this country if that's on a permanent scale to go work for somebody else.
That means they're not coming back or whatever.
And when they do, they come over here.
We've got verification that that government has been paid a certain amount of money to leave their country and now come into ours.
Now we charge them to come into our country.
If they don't pay, we can go back on the government, on their government, to get the money that they filed for in order to come into this country.
All right.
Well, Dave, let's take your idea.
Mr. Johnson.
Well, look, the reality is most of the places that people were fleeing when they were coming to the U.S. border were places that we're not going to be able to negotiate those kinds of deals with.
They were failed dictatorships, whether it's Venezuela or Cuba, Haiti, that is, you know, just devolved into chaos.
So that's the point is that those folks were fleeing really, you know, places that were collapsing.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they were entitled to asylum under U.S. law, but I get why they were leaving.
Here's the thing, though, that it's kind of sad that the only line that they could go to stand in was the line at the U.S. border.
What a great world it would have been if we could have created ways for them to stand in line at their U.S. consulate at home to line up for visas that we put forward in places in the economy and places in the geographic regions of the United States that needed them.
Then they wouldn't have had to walk 5,000 miles through the Darien Gap, risking their lives and being subjected to the abuses that he's talking about in terms of these cartels.
So when the only line to stand in to have a shot at addressing the challenges those people were facing is the line at the southern border, that's where they're going.
So it's our really challenge and our obligation to figure out how do we address that.
You don't address it by pushing them 100 miles or 100 yards away from the U.S. border and calling it a win.
That's not a win.
They're still trying to get to that line.
And so I think the answer is, how do we deal with the country conditions that are driving them out?
And how do we create opportunities for them to stand in lines other than at the southern border?
Can our viewers find recommendations at your association's website?
Absolutely.
You know, ailaila.org.
We have been trying to be in the business of solutions for a long time now, including during the first Trump administration.
I think we need to focus a little less on random acts of anger and outrage, and we ought to focus more on solutions.
That's what we've been focused on, as has been an organization we've worked with for a very long time, the American Immigration Council.
Their website also has a lot of solutions-based work, a lot of research and analysis.
They've got a great map on map the impact where you can go onto that and you can select what does immigration mean in economic terms in Ohio and Arizona and Wisconsin.
And so it tells the story of the resource that we should be trying to manage rather than just the story of the deportation that needs to happen.
What is that group's name again?
American Immigration Council.
Benjamin Johnson is the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
That website again is AILA.org.
Thanks for the conversation.
Thank you.
We'll take a short break.
When we come back, we'll talk about incoming Trump administration with Ashley Hayek, former Trump 2020 campaign strategist and executive director of America First Works.
We'll be right back.
American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern, the St. Charles County Historical Society in Missouri hosts a conference of the American Revolution in the West.
Historians discuss the weapons of the American Revolution, the role of Spain and Native Americans, and the 1779 Mississippi River campaign.
Then, at 8 p.m. Eastern, on Lectures in History, the second of a two-part lecture by University of Maryland history professor Michael Ross on the 1893 trial of Lizzie Borden, who was accused of murdering her father and stepmother with an axe.
The murders and trial received widespread publicity at the time, and Lizzie Borden became a lasting figure in American popular culture.
And at 9:30 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, we'll revisit the Ford presidency with scholars reflecting on events from a half century ago, including secret White House tapes and oral history interviews with Ford administration officials.
Exploring the American story, watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/slash history.
James M. Bradley's biography of Martin Van Buren is the first full-scale portrait of the eighth president in four decades.
Mr. Bradley is the co-editor of the Martin Van Buren Papers and teaches in the public history program at the State University of New York at Albany.
In his introduction, James Bradley writes: As this biography will show, reaching the nation's highest office was not Van Buren's greatest achievement.
He built and designed the party system that defined how politics was practiced and power wielded in the United States.
Unquote.
Van Buren is known as the principal founder of the Democratic Party.
James Bradley, with his book, Martin Van Buren, America's First Politician, on this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
LookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
For over 45 years, C-SPAN has been your window into the workings of our democracy, offering live coverage of Congress, open forum call-in programs, and unfiltered access to the decision makers who shape our nation.
And we've done it all without a cent of government funding.
C-SPAN exists for you, viewers who value transparent, no-spin political coverage, and your support helps keep our mission alive.
And as we close out the year, we're asking you to stand with us.
Your gift, no matter the size, goes 100% towards supporting C-SPAN's vital work, helping ensure that long-form, in-depth, and independent coverage continues to thrive in an era where it's needed more than ever.
Visit c-span.org/slash donate or scan the code on your screen to make your tax-deductible contribution today.
Together, we can ensure that C-SPAN remains a trusted resource for you and for future generations.
Washington Journal continues.
Ashley Hayek is joining us this morning, the executive director of America First Works, to talk about the incoming Trump administration.
Ms. Hayek, let's begin with your organization, America First Works.
What is it?
So, we are a 501c4 advocacy organization.
We're the sister organization to the America First Policy Institute.
In addition to advancing state policy at the state level, we work on federal policy, but also this past year was a very exciting year because we were very involved in the ground game for the presidential campaign.
There was a rule that was, I guess, reinterpreted or interpreted in late March of 2024 that allowed 501c4s to work with federal candidates on door-to-door canvassing.
So, taking that lead, we decided that that's exactly what we were going to do.
We started by talking to voters about policies and understanding what mattered to the American people in the battleground states.
We visited voters 5.7 million times in those battleground states.
We sent over 30 million text messages having conversations about the policies that really drove people to want to go to the polls.
And then, using that information, we turned out voters that were no or low propensity voters.
So, these are people who typically didn't vote in elections or did not vote in the last 2020 election.
And we're able to bank 606,733 voters going into election day.
And in those battleground states, it was more than the margin that we lost by in 2020.
Ashley, Hayek, when you went into these battleground states and you talked to these voters, what issues did they tell you that would drive them to the polls?
And did it differ in the battleground states?
That's a really great question.
So, the number one issue we heard, as you could probably imagine, was the economy.
And it really depended upon the state.
So, in some states, like Nevada, it came in the form of housing.
In other states, it came in the form of gas prices.
In some, it came in inflation.
So, the wording was a little bit different, but the number one issue, you know, by a very large margin, was actually the economy.
The second issue we heard was the border crisis.
And people were really scared.
People were very upset by what was happening, that the border was open, that there was drug cartels running the southern border.
There was a lot of talk of human trafficking, and of course, the tragic cases of Lake and Riley and many others who were murdered.
And so, that issue was a very big issue for voters as well.
There was one interesting development when we were doing the door-to-door canvassing, and it was in Michigan.
And education popped as a top two issue around September when kids were going back to school.
And if you recall, Michigan had some of the more egregious lockdown requirements where kids were kept out of school.
And I think we saw that in September when voters were sending their kids back to school, and they realized they were still really far behind from an education standpoint.
You engaged with these viewers 5.7 million times, I think you said.
So, how would you engage with them?
What did you send them?
Or what sort of messages did they receive?
And how did they receive them that then drove them to the polls?
So, on door-to-door canvassing, we visited 5.7 million voters or 5.7 million times.
It was about 4.9 million households.
And some of them we visited three times, some of them we only visited once.
And we just had a conversation, really.
And we wanted to hear what policies did they care about.
We had a literature piece that we would leave with them.
It had, we call it our exploding groceries literature piece.
It had, you know, groceries coming out of a paper bag.
And that message, it showed the prices from 2020 versus today, 2024, 2023, just comparing the cost of items.
And we were able to just have a conversation.
We had another piece that was focused on the border.
And then, as we got closer to election day, we had a piece that was shaped like the state of California.
It said, don't let Kamala Harris, California, or America.
And then it had both President Trump and the Senate candidate on the back.
And then we also, on the text messaging, it was all focused on policy.
It was not focused on candidates at all.
And that was the conversational piece of: are you ready to vote?
Will you be willing to vote?
And then just using President Trump's message on what his solutions are, extending the tax cuts, making America affordable again, securing the border.
He was able to provide the communication strategy.
He provided the policies through Agenda 47.
And we just had those conversations with the American people.
And I will say, I think the big contrast that we heard at the door was that the other side was not able to provide the solution that they could buy into.
And that's why people turned out and voted for President Trump.
And these voters were, you described them earlier as low frequency voters, I believe.
What does that mean?
What did you know about them?
So we knew party affiliations.
Some were independent, some were conservative, some were mixed households where there may be a Democrat who lived in the households, but they were mainly people who don't regularly vote in elections.
So you have no propensity, low propensity, mid-propensity, and high-propensity voters.
And, you know, high-propensity voters are people who vote every single election.
It's like that's what they live for.
They're going to make sure that their vote counts.
And then you have people who are mid and maybe they vote in every presidential or any big election.
And then you have low and it's like they may skip elections.
They may be a one in four election voter and no propensity are people who just stopped voting, who haven't voted in the past four elections.
So that's what we knew about them and that we wanted to understand why didn't they vote maybe in 2020?
What were they looking for in their candidate?
What policies were they looking for to address?
And so having those conversations.
And then I'll tell you, after the election, we reached out to every low propensity Democrat, Republican, and independent and said, what do you want to see in the first 100 days of a new administration?
And the answer is really still economy and secure the border.
And we'll continue to monitor that and then make sure that we have policies ready to go.
What role will your group play in the incoming Trump administration?
You touched on it a little bit there.
You've provided this information by going back to these voters, what they want to see in the first 100 days.
What else will you do?
Well, a lot of it is going to be about education.
So how do we continue to have the conversations with the American people of what's coming out of the administration?
America First Policy Institute, the sister organization to America First Works, has about eight cabinet secretary nominees that will be going in, Brooke Rollins for agriculture, Linda McMahon for education, Lee Zeldon for EPA, Doug Collins for Veterans Affairs, and the list goes on and on.
Pam Bondi is one of our chairs.
She'll be going in for Department of Justice.
And so what we view our opportunity is to educate the American people on the policies that are coming out of the administration, what's happening, how do they impact your life.
And then we'll continue to do the work for the state policy.
We believe that power belongs to the American people.
Really, the state policy matters a lot.
I think a lot of people kind of overlook the state work.
So we'll continue to do that as well.
And then on the America First Works side, we'll continue to advocate for those policies in the states.
We'll continue to work with the grassroots and then make sure that, you know, when we get through these nominee nominations, we can help provide support on the ground with the grassroots to make sure that our nominees make it through that Senate confirmation process.
When you talk about the first 100 days and you say it's still the economy and it's still the border, as you said, the economy is nuanced.
Some people want to see this administration, they voted for this administration, they want to see gas prices dealt with, grocery prices dealt with, housing, et cetera.
So what is the president-elect going to do on the economy on those different issues?
Yeah, there's a couple of things that he's already talked about.
He's talked about making the tax cuts permanent, talking about making our, you know, making us energy independent once again.
He wants to make sure that, you know, we stop a bunch of these regulations that are also driving up costs, bringing jobs, bringing work here to the United States instead of shipping everything overseas.
That's been a huge issue, I think, is deporting our energy source or having to import it now and stopping all of the energy production here in the United States.
So I think that there's a lot of different things that the president is going to focus on.
He talked about no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits, no tax on overtime made in America.
So there's going to be a number of things that he's going to do to deliver those promises to the American people that will alleviate some of the regulations and the stifling that we have on our economy today.
And is he looking at the first 100 days?
Is that what you're hearing, your group?
I think everyone always looks at the first 100 days.
I think the president has said he's wanted to make sure he signed executive orders within the first month of his administration on the first day of his new administration.
I think that's exactly what he's going to do.
He has shared a very aggressive policy agenda so far.
And one of the things, if you recall from his first term in office, it was promises made, promises kept in delivering those promises to the American people.
So I think everybody, the media, the American people, we always look back at the first 100 days to see, okay, what has been accomplished so far?
I know we did that even in the Biden administration.
So I'm sure that that's what we will all be doing at that point in time.
Ashley Hayek is our guest.
She's the executive director of America First Works.
Josephine in Livingston, New Jersey, Independent.
You're up first.
Good morning to you.
Good morning.
Yesterday, or the day before the president-elect said, quote, I cannot do a thing about the prices of food.
So he finally told the truth.
We knew that.
Sadly, a lot of people were duped into thinking he was going to be even labeled food and just automatically it was going to be changed.
So it's not going to happen.
And the other thing which concerns me, when the tariffs went up, I only can explain my experience.
I had to put an aluminum drain pipe that should have cost me $200.
It cost me $800 because of the tariff.
So there again, tariffs are going to be the answer.
Yeah, people are not going to be able to afford anything.
Thank you.
Ashley Hayek.
Tariffs are going to be a big issue, especially when it comes to reciprocity.
And that's an issue that he's talked about a lot.
And we did see success in that in the first administration.
Also, you know, one of the things the president is going to focus on is make sure that the food, the big corporations, they have such a stranglehold over our domestic food supply and over our costs.
So I think that that's going to be a very important issue moving forward.
He's addressed that, whether it's through the Department of Agriculture, through the Maha Initiative.
But yeah, costs are high, and there's tons of regulations that are driving up costs.
And so I think that we're going to see a bunch of changes happening again, likely in the first hundred days.
Some of it may take a little bit longer.
But I'm very confident in the president's ability to take on these economic issues.
If you recall the first three years of his presidency, we did not have $8 for a jug of orange juice.
That was the massive spending that happened during this administration.
That's got to stop and just reprioritize the American people over foreign interests.
Let's go to James Wilson, North Carolina, Democratic caller.
Good morning, C-SPAN.
I'm calling.
Trump says, Grill, baby, grill.
I'm an 84 years old man, and gas prices is not going to go down.
I don't care how much we drill.
It's not going to go down.
It's going to stay the same.
Now, gas prices, when I first started, got my driving license, gas prices were 15 cents a gallon.
And I barely had 15 cents to put in my father's car because I wouldn't let me have a go out on a date or something.
All right, James, let's take your comments that he cannot with Drill, Baby, Drill, bring down gas prices.
Well, I think the goal from this administration is to restore American energy dominance, and that's going to cut back on inflation overall.
It will cut American energy prices in half, hopefully within the first year.
The idea is to really help support jobs and economic growth and expand economic incentives so that we can have energy infrastructure investments here in the United States.
So I know that there's a long-standing goal that they have for energy independence, and a lot of it has to do with the regulations that people are experiencing.
Kent in Erie, Illinois, Republican.
Hi, Kent.
Give me just a second before you pull the plug.
I got two different comments for Ashley.
The first, I wonder how come Trump should be so constrained about worrying about the legalities of deporting illegal people.
They're illegal.
You don't go up to a bank robber and say, no, I don't want to hurt your sensibilities.
You robbed the bank, but we want to make sure all your legal bases are covered before we put you in jail.
That's insanity.
The people are legal.
Nobody said to Biden, hey, you're taking your first thing that you're supposed to be responsible for and just ignoring it, letting millions of people come in.
All right, Kent.
Ashley, Hayek, when you went door-to-door, your group in these battleground states before the election and you talked about securing the border, did you propose or talk about mass deportation?
What the president, the candidate was talking about at the time, how did people respond?
People are very much in favor of having a deportation effort.
I mean, also understand that what you're seeing, especially even in very, very blue places, some of these very Democrat governments have prioritized illegal aliens over the American people, over the people in those communities.
And it's frustrating when your kids are getting displaced out of their schools, when social services are going to people other than the taxpaying citizens in those communities, when they're getting free handouts, free health care, free everything.
And there are people that are Americans that are putting in, they're going to work, they have jobs, they're paying into the tax system.
It's very unfair.
And then also, not to mention the drugs that are pouring into the communities right now because of the border crisis.
This is a very serious issue.
And then not to mention all of the crime that we're seeing, whether it's in New York City or you saw it in Springfield, Ohio, people are fed up.
And so it is very clear the president said he will close the border.
He's going to stop the invasion at the southern border, enforce the immigration laws, defeat the drug cartels, and make sure that we end human trafficking.
And so that's going to be a day one priority of this administration.
We'll go to Macon, Georgia.
Ralph, Democratic caller.
Yes, I had a question, please, about the border.
But remember, Reagan opened the border, but then he was telling, go back to the Tyler Network.
I would like to know, those people that were sent from Texas and Florida by that governor, were they vetted to see if they had a criminal record in their hometown before they were sent to New York?
What's your point, Ralph?
What's your point with asking that question?
I'm asking that question because we're talking about all these people, these criminals that we have around the cities here that are committing crimes.
We're saying that, hey, all these people are committing crimes here in the state.
And the other thing is that these people that are coming from the border, they are not bringing in the drugs.
in there.
How is Congress not being true to us because it's a sophisticated operation and the drugs, they are not bringing drugs.
They are coming in here.
And the worst day in America is better than the best day in these countries.
That's why they are coming here.
All right.
Thank you.
Ashley Hayek.
Well, because your country is not as great as America is not a reason for you to allow to illegally enter into our country.
That's just a fact.
And we have seen from this current administration tens of thousands of criminals who were, because of the policies of this administration, caught and released into the country.
So if there's anyone who is upset or if you're upset with how that, what those rules are, it is this administration to blame as they're the ones who set forth that policies that have allowed rapists, murderers, criminals into the country, released with maybe a court date.
So, and by the way, it was taxpayer dollars that moved the murderer of Lake and Riley from New York to Georgia.
So if you're upset with that, it is this administration that allowed for those policies.
And so that is exactly what President Trump is going to address on day one of this administration.
Richard in Savannah, Georgia, a Republican.
Good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
Ashley, I would like for you, if you can, to get to the Trump organization and to change the White House press briefing room.
The people that have been sitting on the first three rows have lied about Trump for the last three years, four years, eight years.
They've had a big part of hurting what's going on in America.
And I think they've even contributed to helping, you know, calling him Hitler, et cetera, to the assassination attempts, et cetera.
I'd like for you to, if you can, to get like podcasts from Rogan, Kelly, Tucker Cross and et cetera, in there and change up what we've been doing.
Our press is destroying this country.
And I would love to see you possibly help getting that White House press briefing room where it's honest because the last four years have been disgusting.
And I thank you for your letting me talk.
Thank you, Greta.
All right.
Ashley Hayek.
Well, first of all, I love that idea.
I love the idea of bringing in some of those podcasters to be a part of the media class.
And I think you're exactly right.
People are really frustrated, which is why you've seen so many ratings go down.
I have no authority over the White House briefing room, but I'll tell you a quick story.
In the first administration, President Trump was doing a press briefing and he did not go in order in the row of how you're traditionally supposed to call on reporters.
And that just completely blew the establishment media's minds.
And that's, I think you'll see more of that.
I think you'll see JD Vance and President Trump doing the podcasts, reaching out to non-traditional forms of media and going directly to the people where they are.
I think we're in a new time.
We have to meet people where they are and talk to people on those different platforms.
So that's a really great idea.
And thank you for sending that along.
On those that are intending to serve in the next Trump administration, let's talk about his nominees.
As it stands today, what are the chances of President-elect's choice for Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, getting enough Republican support in the Senate?
I think he will absolutely get enough support in the Senate.
You know, unfortunately, it's the left, the media, the swamp special interests are the ones who are speaking out against Pete Hegseth.
You're not hearing the American voters.
We are hearing that there is a group of over 100 Navy SEALs who will be going to the Capitol in support of Pete Hegseth, for example.
But it's a bureaucratic state that is the group that Pete Hegseth threatens the most.
And that's a good thing as far as the American people are concerned.
This was a change election.
I mean, not only do we have Republicans control of the White House, of the Senate, of the House, but the popular vote and also of a majority of the governors.
If Americans wanted the status quo, they would have kept things same old, same old.
And Trump wouldn't have won in the way that he did.
So there's a lot here.
And I think that Pete Hegseth will be very successful.
We're going to see him be able to increase recruitment finally.
I think there's going to be a change to the warrior mindset to have a strong military.
And that's exactly what our country needs right now.
What did you mean by not listening to the American people when it comes to this defense secretary nomination?
I'm sorry, say that again.
What did you mean when you said that they're not listening to the American people on the support for Pete Hegseth to serve as Defense Secretary?
Anybody who votes against Pete Hegseth is not listening to the will of the American people, period.
And so that is the number one message.
Pete Hegseth is, this is chosen, this was a mandate by the American people to put forth President Trump's vision.
And Pete Hegseth is a part of that vision.
And so if those senators, you know, if I think Senator Tepperville said it best, he repeatedly brings up a great point about for Republican senators, not a single Democrat senator voted against any of Biden nominees.
So we need to the exact same thing on our side.
Any Republican that has said they're a no for any of Trump nominees, they're going to likely face a primary or there's going to be some repercussions because of that.
So that's what I mean.
Charles, Fort Collins, Colorado, independent.
If Trump implements this 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada, our two largest trading partners, Mexico has already said they're going to retaliate.
And it is going to drive inflation up higher.
Costs are going to go up on the normal people.
And then he's going to cut the corporate tax rate to 16%.
I don't see where this works at all economically.
It's just insanity.
Ashley Hayek.
What I did see is Trudeau and the president and many other world leaders having conversations with President Trump, which is by far more than what we have seen from this current administration.
Having a president who's able to sit down, have those conversations, discuss policy in a meaningful way, bring people to the table.
We are already in such a better place compared to this current administration.
And I have absolutely complete trust in the president to be able to help us with economic growth, drive down inflation, and make us prosperous again.
How do you think this next Trump administration will differ from the first one?
I think that the president has a lot more experience in terms of what's going to work and what's not going to work.
He has an incredible team around him.
He did before what this team brings.
They've been there.
They understand.
They know the rules.
They've been preparing.
I think they're going to be more prepared than ever before to lead this administration.
Rich in Marion, Ohio, Republican.
Yeah, great discussion.
One thing on food prices that could change right away, Pennsylvania does not charge tax on clothes or food.
Some other states do.
If they would straighten the taxes on the states that food and clothing does not get taxed, it could drop the food prices down right away.
The other one is that we have problems in Springfield where people don't have driver's license and it's causing problems that you could have accidents on the road or death.
We also have people required to get vaccine.
Oh, that's U.S. citizens, but if you're not a U.S. citizen, you don't need to have any vaccine, and that also causes sickness and death.
We just could just close the border until we could figure this out, and it would stop a whole lot of problems.
Then we could go back and take care of the problems.
Under Reagan, he agreed that he would drop the things on the border, but they were supposed to stop the illegals to the 2 million people a year we have already.
They liked the part about letting people in, but they never got the other side to regulate it.
I'll hang up.
Let's see your answer.
All right, Ashley Howe.
There's a lot to unpack there.
Yeah, there's a lot that the states could do that could help reduce the costs and to reduce taxes in general.
And that's something that America First Policy Institute and America First Works has looked at.
In states like Wisconsin, for example, you have a massive state budget surplus in the state of Wisconsin, yet they have higher tax rates than other states.
Well, they should cut back taxes and let Wisconsin people keep more money in their pockets.
And this administration is going to extend the tax cuts and it's going to really work on reducing regulation.
And yes, I think that will have a big impact on cost of food and cost of goods across the board.
There's so much you can do from a state level, and there's also work that you can do from the federal level.
And as I said, we really believe that a lot of work has to be done in the states as well.
In terms of illegals, receiving driver's licenses, healthcare, all of those things, again, it's been very unfair.
And that's what we heard at the doors from people and from voters.
All of these different rules that don't apply to them, but were forced on the American people or the services that they get, the American people did not get.
And those are, you know, part of the issues that I think this administration will take on.
We'll go to California.
San Bernardino Norris is watching there, an independent.
Good morning to you.
Hey, good morning to you.
Hey, I wanted to ask if we're going to send all the immigrants back to their respective company, respectively, Mexico, and shut them off at the border.
Well, I got like a two or three part question.
How is that going to do anything for food prices going down?
As a matter of fact, it's not.
And I noticed you brought up Lincoln Riley.
It's funny that the Republicans never bring up Molly Tibbetts, who was unalive during the Trump administration, but you guys never bring that up.
That proves you guys are politicizing it because they were both just as tragic.
But more than that, how can you explain how is anything going to get cheaper?
If you're getting rid of all these immigrants, you're going to have to charge more for things to get picked.
Out here in California, we got some of the biggest crops that are sensitive.
Can you please tell me how are things going to go cheaper if you're getting rid of people that are going to actually pick these vegetables and fruits out here?
All right, Norris.
How is that going to happen?
Well, there's a couple of things.
First of all, we're not deporting, or the Trump administration has never said they're going to deport all immigrants.
It's people who have entered the country illegally, illegal aliens, not people who are here, you know, with work visa or green card or anything like that.
It's people who are not here legally.
That's the first issue.
The second issue is I would never consider California being a place where I would want to have any state have those types of standards where you have crazy employment laws, rocket sky-high prices, tons of regulation, and a lot of fraud and corruption.
I am from the People's Republic of California, and that is not the gold standard for any state whatsoever.
And it does not spur economic growth.
In fact, you have tons of companies that have been leaving California tenfold to go to other states like Texas and Florida.
We need to make sure that Americans have the opportunity to obtain some of these jobs as well.
So there's a number of issues here.
The other thing is the people that are coming across the border are not all people that are looking for a job to go work a farm.
I think that's a little stereotypical.
There are a lot of people that have been identified as potential threat terrorists to the country.
There have been people from a whole variety of backgrounds, military-aged men, people from China around the world.
So I would just be very careful in how these folks are being stereotyped and who exactly the president would be sending back.
Remember, there have been foreign countries that have emptied their prisons and sent their prisoners into America through our southern border because they didn't want to have to support them in their prisons.
They need to go back to those countries' prisons.
We should not be paying the price for what they have done to our country.
Dahlia in New York, Democratic caller.
Hi, Dahlia.
Hi, good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
Good morning, Ms. Hayek.
I am so glad to get you on the phone, and thank you for what you're doing to put America first.
I live in New York.
I live in Harlem.
And I can tell you yesterday, I was looking at the mayor, Eric Adams, after his talk with Mr. Holman about the illegal alien situation in New York City, which is horrendous.
It is so horrible, I can't even put it into words.
And it has affected me.
Let me just say, you know, I'm African American, and I can tell you that we have been so ill-affected in New York State.
It's really not discussed like, and I can't, you know, understand, you know, why it's not being talked about in New York like it is in Chicago.
And out there, they're making a bigger deal about it.
But going back to Eric Adams and that meeting that they had yesterday, I'm thinking that Mr. Holman, I'm praying, he seems to be pretty savvy, as is Mr. President Trump.
And I voted for him.
Mind you, I'm a Democrat, but after seeing what's going on in the state, how I'm being affected, I'm homeless or technically I'm homeless or not homeless, I should say.
And you couldn't imagine what I'm going through right now with trying to get help from my situation.
And I was born here.
I'm a citizen of this country, and I can't get help while I'm watching the illegal aliens not just come here and get all of the benefits, things that I paid into when I was working, and they're just coming here and they're getting it all.
And I'm praying, because when I heard Eric Adams, you know, I have to say I am not, and I did not vote for him, by the way.
I'm not confident that he is going to really, from listening to his response yesterday, I am not at all confident that he is going to change a thing.
Now, I'm not talking about Mr. Holman.
And I, you know, I did hear that, you know, he did say that he was, you know, encouraged behind that meeting.
I can say from watching Mr. Adams' response, I am not.
Okay.
All right, Dahl.
Ashley Hayek.
Well, I think she just perfectly summed up what we were hearing at the doors from the American people and answers a lot of the questions from your previous callers about the crisis that's happening in our country.
And I think a lot of New Yorkers won't forget the fact that New York, you know, not only didn't stop illegal aliens from entering the state to gobble up the resources that were taxpayer funded, but they opened the doors and welcomed it.
A lot of these sanctuary states and sanctuary cities did that.
We saw it in New York where they provided housing and PlayStations and card games and warm food and hotels.
And then they didn't like the food, so they threw all the food away because they wanted different food.
I don't see any New Yorkers getting that level of service from their government the way that the government has rolled out the red carpet for the illegal aliens coming into the communities.
And what that caller just stated is exactly what we were hearing across the country and why this has become a top issue for the American people as well as this administration, this new administration.
Brett, a Republican in Texas, your turn.
Yes.
Ashley, God bless you.
You remind me of my granddaughter.
And I mean, you look just almost exactly like her.
I just really think you're a wonderful person.
All these people that want these illegals to come over and these criminals and child molesters and killers, we'll just send them over to their house.
Biden, he's real quick to let them in.
We'll just let he's open up his door and just let them live with him.
I mean, that's what he wants.
And not to mention, he's a traitor anyway.
And you're going to see this unfold even more the more they find out about these drones and stuff.
He's, you know, just like he did on the Chinese spy balloons.
He doesn't ever say nothing against China ever.
Not against the drugs that they're letting pour in this country.
He don't ever say nothing against China.
Have you ever noticed that?
All right, Brett.
Ashley Hayek, do you have any response to Brett?
I think Brett is correct when talking about our national security.
Our national security is very much at risk because of this current administration.
There was a Chinese spy balloon that floated all the way across the country, and this administration did nothing.
There have been terrorists that have literally been caught in the United States because we have an open border and nothing was stopped to secure the border.
And let's be very clear.
President Biden, at any point, could restore the previous executive orders that he undid during his administration to make our country secure.
And he chose to not do that.
In fact, he's currently rapidly selling parts of the border wall before President Trump takes office, the materials that were used to put up the border wall.
He stopped construction of the border wall.
There are so many things that could have been done to make America secure, to stop the drug cartels, to stop the human trafficking.
One thing that we haven't had the opportunity to talk about are the tens of thousands of children who are lost in this country that the Biden administration has admitted to losing in this country, or the fact that these children that are being literally used by the cartels, it is horrific.
One in three of those young children, one in three women who are making that trip across the southern border, being trafficked by the cartels, are being sexually assaulted.
And so where's the humanitarian help there?
You don't see it from this administration.
They have to secure the border day one of the new administration.
I think that's exactly, I know that's exactly what President Trump will do.
Bernard in New York, Republican.
Good morning.
Good to talk to you guys.
I used to talk to Brian Lamb some years ago.
This is the greatest time I've seen in America.
For the last 70 years, the fight has been between the left and the right.
It's that simple.
It started in Russia under Lenin in 1918 when he swore to take over the world.
Stalin then came along and said, we won't have to fire a shot.
We'll use useful idiots.
Well, the useful idiots, you could name, I used to call them Twinkle Toes, the Venturian candidate that was the tutor grant for president.
So one funny thing, it's not funny, it's part of the problem, but it's going to go away.
Twinkle Toes is shown now I saw on TV yesterday, he's got a Christmas tree, and instead of putting an angel on the top, he put a roll of toilet paper.
This is the kind of mentality that we're losing.
This is a great time.
All right, I'm going to move on to John, who's in Pennsylvania, independent caller.
Hi, John.
Yes, you talked about crime.
The people that are the guy that shot at Trump was a white guy, you know, from a Republican family.
And also the guy that shot the CEO in New York City was not an immigrant.
He was from a Republican family.
So, you know, this thing about crime, you know, all these people coming in here are not, you know, gypsies, tramps, and thieves that Trump makes them out to be.
In fact, he had undocumented workers working in his properties.
So, you know, this guy is a real hypocrite.
And as far as I'm concerned, you know, he's not going to lower the prices of food.
First of all, he even said the other day, he says, once prices of food go up, it's hard to bring them down.
So, you know, he's already getting us prepared for all his lies that he told us.
This guy is something else.
I mean, it's really a shame.
All right, John, we'll take your points.
Ashley Hayek.
Well, a couple of things.
First of all, I'm not sure where all that information came from, but it's factually incorrect.
So I'm not even going to address most of that because until the facts are right, then we can have an honest conversation.
There is a crime crisis in our country.
It's a major crisis.
And it really started when you have the radical left starting to defund our law enforcement.
And that was a huge issue.
We saw Kamala Harris bailing out rioters who were destroying even minority-owned businesses in places like Milwaukee.
And that's just unacceptable.
One of them went on to commit murder.
So yes, there is a crime crisis, and it's because we have not adequately funded our law enforcement.
Again, that's a local and state issue.
And it really became a massive issue because when you have national leadership who is just calling for the defunding of our police force, it's not helpful.
And all communities are affected by bad policies like that.
This is a new day.
I'm very hopeful.
I'm very optimistic about the future of our country.
And I think that we have an incredible opportunity to put the American people first to bring prosperity, opportunity, freedom, and even safety into our country again.
Ashley Hayek is the executive director of America First Works, talking about the incoming Trump administration.
Steve, let's go to you in Clifton, New Jersey, Independent.
Good morning.
First of all, to the person who just called, I mean, it took 19 bad guys to cause immense damage during 9-11.
And to say, I'll let them all in is just absurd.
All we need is 19 people to cause another 9-11.
But that's not what I want to talk about.
I travel to Israel a lot and I go through customs.
And I am not exaggerating when I say the last time I went through customs, they had a dog smelling everyone's luggage.
And they stopped a woman and they literally took apart her whole luggage because the dog was able to smell, get this, one apple, an apple.
And she was surrounded with guards and, you know, they took the apple away.
And all I could think about here we have at customs like people, citizens can't come back into the country with an apple, but non-citizens can come into our country with fentanyl or with kids that aren't documented.
I mean, it's just absurd.
The absurdity is just like, how did we get here?
Or how about the people who force vaccinations against their will, but yet have allowed people to come into the country that are not vaccinated at all?
This is the hypocrisy and this is the frustration of so many people who see that there are rules for the not for me double standards that have just really frustrated people.
And we have to get back to putting the American people first and our safety, security, prosperity, and opportunity first.
I think you make that point in a lot of ways.
But yes, there is a double standard.
I remember our family took a trip abroad.
We had to come back.
That was in 2021.
We had to come back with a clean COVID test.
And yet you see at the southern border, tons of people coming in and they're not turning people away.
They're not testing them for COVID.
That was a big hypocrisy.
We had people that were forced out of our military because they had a religious exemption for a COVID vaccine.
Yet you don't see forced vaccines of anyone else coming into the country.
That's not here legally.
It's just, it's such a gross, awful hypocrisy and double standard by this current government and administration.
One last call here, Nick in Kingsport, Tennessee, Independent.
Yes, thank you.
She said a while ago that all the countries of the world had emptied their prisons and insane asylum.
Oh, I didn't say that.
Yes, you did.
I said there has been a country in Latin America that did that.
Yes.
Okay.
I want you to prove that.
Where can I see that?
Where can I prove that that that happened?
Thank you.
Google it.
It's there.
It's been covered by the mainstream media.
It has absolutely happened.
And it's very unfortunate that it has happened.
But CNN has covered it.
New York Times has covered it.
New York Post has covered it.
You can Google it.
AmericaFirstWorks.com is the website.
Ashley Hayek is the executive director of that group.
Thank you for the conversation this morning.
Thank you.
We'll take a break when we come back.
We'll be an open forum.
Any public policy or politics that is on your mind, you can start dialing in and share your thoughts with us.
We'll be right back.
American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend, at 2.30 p.m. Eastern, the St. Charles County Historical Society in Missouri hosts a conference of the American Revolution in the West.
Historians discuss the weapons of the American Revolution, the role of Spain and Native Americans, and the 1779 Mississippi River campaign.
Then at 8 p.m. Eastern on Lectures in History, the second of a two-part lecture by University of Maryland history professor Michael Ross on the 1893 trial of Lizzie Borden, who was accused of murdering her father and stepmother with an axe.
The murders and trial received widespread publicity at the time, and Lizzie Borden became a lasting figure in American popular culture.
And at 9.30 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, we'll revisit the Ford presidency with scholars reflecting on events from a half century ago, including secret White House tapes and oral history interviews with Ford administration officials.
Exploring the American story.
Watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
For more than 45 years, C-SPAN has been your window into the workings of our democracy, offering live coverage of Congress, open forum call-in programs, and unfiltered access to the decision-makers that shape our nation.
And we've done it all without a cent of government funding.
C-SPAN exists for you, viewers who value transparent, no-spin political coverage.
And your support helps keep our mission alive.
As we close out the year, we're asking you to stand with us.
Your gift, no matter the size, goes 100% toward supporting C-SPAN's vital work, helping ensure that long-form, in-depth, and independent coverage continues to thrive in an era when it's needed more than ever.
Visit c-span.org slash donate or scan the code on your screen to make your tax-deductible contribution today.
Together, we can ensure that C-SPAN remains a trusted resource for you and future generations.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back to the Washington Journal.
In our final 30 minutes here, we are an open forum.
Any public policy that is on your mind or politics, you can call in now and tell us and share those thoughts with us.
Open forum, there are the lines on your screen.
We'll start with the topic that we discussed earlier this morning in our first hour of the Washington Journal, term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Senators Joe Manchin, Democrat turned independent from West Virginia, and Peter Welch, a Democrat from Vermont, this week, proposed changing the Constitution to give Supreme Court justices 18 years on the bench.
Senator Manchin sat down with C-SPAN this week to talk about his career and legacy in the chamber, and we talked to him about this term limit proposal.
Here's what he had to say.
I believe in term limits across the board, okay?
That's the one that Peter Welch and I have done, but I'm on other ones too.
And I believe that simply, we picked the 18 years, makes sense.
It's a long period of time, okay?
And we thought that that gives everyone a chance whenever it would get implemented, but it doesn't do anything.
Right now, it doesn't do anything with its, the Supreme Court is setting now.
But whenever they would retire, whatever, then that new person coming in would have an 18-year.
Requires a constitutional amendment, doesn't it?
I think, yeah, I think it does, absolutely.
Because right now the Constitution says for life.
So, but then if I think the people would, right now, I think the people would support all term limits on all of us.
So I'm for one six-year for the president.
I think the president should be commander-in-chief from the first day to the last day, never have to worry about running for re-election.
Do your job.
We need you every day.
Mind-focused.
Senate, I've been here 14 years.
12 years is enough, two terms.
I served two years, two years of the extended end of Bob Burst, and then two full terms.
And then maybe five or six terms, which would be 10 or 12 years, for the House.
That's more than enough.
You need a turnover.
And he says, oh, you're losing too many experienced people.
The staff is worth it.
Knowledge is.
I mean, they're always, we have good people, solid people here can help.
So I just think that that would give us a little bit of a turnover.
Senator Joe Manchin talking with C-SPAN this week about his career and legacy, and he would like to see term limits, not just for Supreme Court justices, but all politicians.
Do you agree with him?
You can discuss that here in Open Forum on the Washington Journal.
Here's a couple of comments from our viewers on social media and a text message here from Robert in Utah.
I agree with the Mansion proposal.
I would also suggest limiting the term for president to one term of six years, along with two terms for senators and three for House of Representatives.
And then you also have Linda on Facebook.
There should be term limits for every position of government.
Here is Winston on Facebook.
Yes, each justice gets one term of 18 years.
We stagger the end dates such that each president gets two appointees.
And then John also on Facebook, yes, and much, much, much more objective vetting process.
There also should be 30 or more of them to dilute their partisan bias.
Term limits, you can talk about here in open forum or any other public policy political issue.
John, we'll turn to you in Mountain Home, Arkansas, Republican.
Hi, John.
Hi.
Morning.
What's on your mind?
You bet.
Well, I wanted to talk about the issue of all these people wondering how we're going to get rid of these illegal aliens and how we're going to pay for it.
Mass deportation?
And yes, and it's a simple solution.
What you do is you get these people a job and they pay for their own way to get out of the country.
They paid the cartels to get in the country, so put them to work.
Let them work until they earn enough money to put them on a plane and get them back where they came from.
John's thoughts there.
All right, John's thoughts there in Arkansas.
This week on Capitol Hill, Senate Judiciary Committee debated the issue of mass deportation.
C-SPAN cameras were there.
We covered it in its entirety, and you can hear Democratic and Republican senators questioning their witnesses there about mass deportation.
What would be the impact of this on the military and the economy, etc.
Democracy unfiltered here at C-SPAN, Senate Judiciary Committee, and find it on our website at c-span.org.
Ray in New York, Democratic caller.
Hi, Ray.
Yes.
When y'all's friend, new dear leader, gets in office, who y'all keep calling president because there's only one president, and that's President Biden.
And y'all seem to understand that he's going to cause a nuclear war to start near the end of his term and try to stay in power.
Have an unblessed day, all you horrible people.
God's coming to get y'all.
Goodbye.
All right.
That's Ray in New York.
There is a story in the World News section of Wall Street Journal this morning.
President-elect Trump weighs Iran options as their headline in the Wall Street Journal.
President-elect Donald Trump is weighing options for stopping Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon, including the possibility of preventive airstrikes, a move that would break with the long-standing policy of containing Tehran with diplomacy and sanctions.
The military strike option against nuclear facilities is under more serious review by some members of his transition team who are weighing the fall of President Bashar al-Assad regime, Tehran's ally in Syria, the future of U.S. troops in the region, and Israel's decimation of regime proxy militias, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Wall Street Journal, if you'd like to read more.
Coffee in Philadelphia, Independent, we're an open forum.
Good morning.
Yeah, first of all, I'd like to say I agree with the mansion proposal.
I think not limiting Supreme Court justice terms means that democracy can't work.
If the people of this country decide they want to do radical change through democratic means, it's going to be harder if you have Supreme Court justices to resist that change.
The second thing I want to say is this, I think that this Trump era is going to be remembered as one of the darkest times in American history.
I've already decided to leave the country, and I know that a lot of people are on their way out as well.
Kofi, where will you go?
Mexico.
I've been in Mexico back and forth for the past year and a half.
So Mexico first, and then maybe South America.
There's so many wonderful countries on this planet that welcome Americans.
And I would highly recommend that those who are uncertain about the future of this country look into exit options because things are going to get dark here, I believe.
That's Kofi's thoughts there in Philadelphia.
Another headline to share with you and to discuss here in open forum is the drone sightings that have taken place in New Jersey and New York.
John Kirby, who is the spokesperson on national security for the Biden administration in the briefing room yesterday at the podium took questions on these drones.
Here's what he had to say.
No evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or a public safety threat or have a foreign nexus.
The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI are investigating these sightings and they're working closely with state and local law enforcement to provide resources using numerous detection methods to better understand their origin.
Using very sophisticated electronic detection technologies provided by federal authorities, we have not been able to, and neither have state or local law enforcement authorities, corroborate any of the reported visual sightings.
To the contrary, upon review of available imagery, it appears that many of the reported sightings are actually manned aircraft that are being operated lawfully.
The United States Coast Guard is providing support to the state of New Jersey and has confirmed that there is no evidence of any foreign-based involvement from coastal vessels.
And importantly, there are no reported or confirmed drone sightings in any restricted airspace.
That said, we certainly take seriously the threat that can be posed by unmanned aircraft systems, which is why law enforcement and other agencies continue to support New Jersey and investigate the reports, even though they have uncovered no malicious activity or intent at this particular stage.
John Kirby, spokesperson on national security, at the White House yesterday on those drone sightings.
More headlines to share with you.
Front page of the Washington Times.
Informants stormed U.S. Capitol on January 6th, but no evidence of undercover agents.
This comes from an Inspector General report looking into this claim.
The FBI had more than two dozen informants in Washington surrounding the chaos of the January 6th, 2021 attack on the Capitol, and four of them entered the building as part of the protest.
13 other informants were part of the mob that broke onto the Capitol grounds and breached restricted space, but they didn't enter the building, investigators said.
That's the Washington Times reporting.
Let's take a look at USA Today's.
Four FBI informants were in the Capitol on January 6th.
Only one of those four individuals was actually tasked by the FBI field offices to report on any potential terrorism that day.
The other three were in Washington, D.C. and at January 6th events on their own initiative, according to the DOJ Inspector General's report.
The report sheds light on what the FBI did and what it knew ahead of the January 6th attack on the Capitol.
Trump supporters stormed the building that day to disrupt the process for counting the 2020 presidential electoral votes and certifying Joe Biden won the election.
The report comes as some Republicans have tried to shift blame for the January 6th attack away from the Trump supporters who participated in it, suggesting that FBI informants in the crowd were behind it.
Representative Clay Higgins, Republican of Louisiana, claimed at a 2023 House Committee on Homeland Security hearing that there were ghost buses that were filled with FBI informants dressed as Trump supporters deployed onto our Capitol on January 6th.
In rating Higgins' claim false, nonpartisan fact-checker PolitiFax stated that numerous investigations, including a congressional review and court cases, show the attack was led by and executed by people who believed or perpetrated false claims that the 2020 president election were stolen.
More than 1,500 identified individuals have been criminally charged for their alleged roles in the attack, and more than 1,000 have been sentenced, according to the Justice Department.
And you heard from President-elect Donald Trump yesterday that he plans to pardon those who have been convicted on that day of January 6th, 2021.
We're an open forum.
Matt in New York, Republican.
Hi, Matt.
Good morning.
First, I want to commend you.
I was listening to you yesterday, and you were saying about if anybody glorifies the killer of the health care guy, that you would immediately cut him off.
I would actually extend that to anybody on either side that decides to call either side names like morons, all that, that they should be immediately cut off.
This country is at each other's throats, and you guys could help with cutting down some of that stuff that's going on.
As far as the guy from Pennsylvania that wants to leave, don't let the door hit you on the way out, buddy.
That's as far as that goes.
The Supreme Court stuff, the left had no problem with the Supreme Court when they controlled it for over a half a century.
It's not about, and you heard this guy say about radical change.
Well, that's why they have a constitution so that the country just doesn't do things for the flavor of the weak.
The justice's job is to interpret the Constitution.
And that's what its job is.
I am totally against any kind of term limit whatsoever.
And the other day, you had a guy talk about Biden, how great the economy was, because Syracuse area is getting a Micron plan.
But what he failed to mention was what happened to the big Amazon thing that was going to go on in New York City that would have been a lot more jobs than the Micron thing.
And what happened with that, with AOC and her cronies helping to keep that out of there.
All right, Matt, I'm going to go to some other calls.
Susan in Pennsylvania, Democratic caller.
Hi, Susan.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I'm calling in regard to your last guest.
I just wanted to comment that her whole presentation, I mean, the gaslighting was off the charts, in my opinion.
And I would also, I would like to point out and hope that C-SPEN maybe implements some standard.
I think what's happening, she called illegal immigrants illegal aliens.
And I noticed that in congressional hearings, a lot of Republicans do the same thing.
And I urge the public to be careful because that's where it starts, where we dehumanize people.
And So I'm just hoping that maybe there could be some standards that your guests don't refer to people as aliens.
I think that would be a good start.
Really, thank you for taking my call.
I appreciate it.
All right, Susan, that is why we engage with all of our audience and have you call in so that you are part of the debate.
You can respond to our guests civilly, no name calling, as the other caller was talking about, and have a conversation with the guests that are at our table.
And also let lawmakers and other decision makers here in Washington let them know what you think about the issues that they're debating, whether it's term limits for the Supreme Court, mass deportation, or other issues that are brought up.
Another headline to share: Glenn Thrush with the New York Times reporting plea deal for an informant who lied about the Bidens.
A former FBI informant accused of fabricating a claim that President Biden and his son Hunter were each paid a $5 million bribe by a Ukrainian oligarch has agreed to plead guilty to a range of federal charges.
Alexander Smirnoff, a profiteer, fixer, and gossip based in Las Vegas, reached a deal with the special counsel overseeing the investigation into Hunter Biden that could lead to 48 to 72 months in prison.
That's the reporting from the New York Times by Glenn Thrush this morning.
Cindy in Syracuse, New York, and Independent.
Cindy, we're at Open Forum.
What's on your mind?
Morning, Greta.
Morning.
Hey, I just want to respond to the gentleman called about President-elect Trump speaking about how food prices were, once they went high, it's going to be hard to get them down low.
And I heard that too.
So shame on her for lying about that statement.
And if I could say one more thing, I'd like everybody to look up and see how President-elect Trump invited President China to his inauguration.
I'm sorry, it's morning, and I'm upset about this.
So I don't understand why people watch Bloomberg on all the stations.
That was news this week as well, that invitation.
This is, and the White House was asked about that yesterday as well.
Speaking of the inauguration, here's a headline in the Wall Street Journal: Amazon is planning a $1 million donation to Donald Trump's inaugural fund as founder Jeff Bezos and other tech leaders shore up ties with the incoming administration.
The donation is being prepared as Bezos, Amazon executive chairman, is slated to visit the president-elect next week as Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach.
Tech companies have been the target of intense criticism by Trump and his allies, and other tech leaders have hastened to smooth ties with him.
Mark Zuckerberg directed Meta Platforms to also make a $1 million contribution to Trump's inaugural front fund.
This from the Wall Street Journal.
John in McLean, Virginia, Republican.
Hi, John.
Hi.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning.
I'm calling to disagree with the Senator.
I think that there should be no term limits for our Supreme Court justices.
We live in a republic.
James Madison and our founders decided that we're going to use character and wisdom to make our decisions.
And our Constitution was set up to create our constitutional republic.
And that constitution informs us about what's really important, Individual rights and limited government.
We are not a democracy, and those Supreme Court justices should be enforcing our Constitution and Republican forms.
Finally, I want to advise or I want to give a suggestion to the new Trump administration.
I think that they should investigate conspiracy to deny individual rights.
And I think they should investigate possible treason, but be very careful not to go too far.
John's thoughts there in McLean, Virginia.
He's talking about the proposal by Senators Joe Manchin and Peter Welch, Independent West Virginia, Democrat of Vermont.
This week they proposed a constitutional amendment to give Supreme Court justices term limits.
And they want 18 years for them to serve on the bench, non-renewable, a new term starting about every two years, and no change to the overall number of justices.
We discussed that in our first hour of the Washington Journal.
You can discuss it now here in open forum as well.
Take a look at a poll done by USA today on this question, and 63% of those polled overall support an 18-year Supreme Court term limit.
When they break it down by party, 51% of Republicans are in favor, 83% of Democrats, 61% of Independents.
Lawrence, Summit Hill, Pennsylvania, Democratic caller.
Hi, Lawrence.
Thank you for taking my call.
I just want to have a comment on drones that was reported a few days or in the last week in the news media.
And it's supposedly no one knew or the government knew exactly who or what they were doing or if they posed some kind of threat.
But I believe that it could only take one drone, maybe from another country, an adversary, and maybe cause maybe some chaos in our country.
That's all I wanted to comment about.
And maybe there'll be some update on these drones.
Basically, I would say that I have a little humor here.
I would say that you never know from Roswell, could there be some extraterrestrial involvement?
I don't know.
The lawmakers are calling for, they want some answers as well, Lawrence.
So this issue isn't going away.
CNN reporting that this morning.
Lawmakers want some answers on these drone sightings as well.
Frenzel in Palmdale, California, Independent.
Hey, thank you for having me on the line, C-SPAN.
I just want to say many blessings to everyone who's listening for the holidays that are coming up here.
I'm just trying to take this on a different note because of the last guest that you had.
It seems to me that Republicans have won, as we all know, and as we can all tell.
But now it just seems that the rhetoric is just continuing to go on and on and further, especially with the demonization of people.
And I'll give a perfect example regarding this immigration issue.
It gives a real tear to my eye because no one really wants to sit down at the table and solve this issue.
And it's very solvable because we all speak of the Constitution and that we believe in the Constitution, yet we don't want to allow people to utilize the Constitution when they're trying to come here to seek asylum or to enter the country to get away from different types of things that are going on where they're at.
So we want to broadbush everyone and sweep everyone under the rug and forget that yes, Donald Trump did close the border per se because of COVID, as everyone remembers, forcing everyone to remain in Mexico, as we do remember.
Please look back in your history.
What happened is that Biden was forced to open up the border because of the Supreme Court decision that COVID was over.
So we had to let the people in.
All right, caller.
I'll leave it at that and let you know what we're covering in Washington ahead of this weekend's Army and Navy football game.
Watch today on C-SPAN as West Point and Naval Academy cadets debate who should receive an additional half billion dollars in funding.
The debate is being judged by former Joint Chiefs of Chair Mike Mullen, Senator Joe Manchin, Representative Darrell Issa and Pat Ryan.
That's live at noon Eastern.
At the same time, Pennsylvania Senator-elect Dave McCormick, former NFL head coach Bill Belichick, and others will discuss leadership, camaraderie, and the historic rivalry between the two military branches.
And that is live on C-SPAN 2.
It's also available on our free video mobile app, C-SPANNOW or online at c-span.org.
Donald in Omaha, Nebraska, Republican.
Donald, what's on your mind?
Well, I called on the independent line and I verified it with that kid.
So I'm an independent.
Okay.
One of these other callers called in about 9-11.
That was brought on by the Saudis.
Now, Trump's son-in-law is over there getting $2 billion for nobody can figure out for what.
Trump's over there brown-nosing them up.
And that guest you had on, that young lady, you weren't going to change her mind.
She's an elitist and she thinks everybody else is just stupid.
Thank you.
Henry in Alabama, Democratic caller.
Hi, Henry.
Hello.
Morning.
I just want to say I can't believe that we elected a president who's going to be the first to have the title of president that should never have been elected.
And we're going to have a turncoat for vice president and an alcoholic for hitting the FBI.
That's all I have to say.
All right.
We will leave it there then.
The conversation continues tomorrow on the Washington Journal, 7 a.m. Eastern Time.
Thanks for watching, and enjoy your weekend.
Judges include the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, Senator Joe Manchin, and Representatives Darrell Issa and Pat Ryan.
Watch live at noon Eastern on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org.
Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 8 p.m. Eastern, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Peggy Noonan shares her book, A Certain Idea of America, which is a collection of her columns from over the past quarter century.
And then at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwards, economist and investment advisor James Rickards talks about the potential threats that AI poses to the global economy and national security in his book, Money GPT.
He's interviewed by George Mason University Distinguished University Professor J.P. Singh.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
Are you a nonfiction book lover looking for a new podcast?
This holiday season, try listening to one of the many podcasts C-SPAN has to offer.
On QA, you'll listen to interesting interviews with people and authors writing books on history and subjects that matter.
Learn something new on Book Notes Plus through conversations with nonfiction authors and historians.
Afterwards brings together best-selling nonfiction authors with influential interviewers for wide-ranging hour-long conversations.