Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
On C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
We'll take your calls and comments live.
And then Rand Corporation senior policy researcher Daniel Gerstein talks about security threats posed by unmanned aerial systems, also known as drones.
And Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, discusses calls for President Biden to commute federal death sentences before President-elect Donald Trump assumes office.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal starts now.
Join the conversation.
Good morning.
It's Saturday, December 14th.
Poll showed that the biggest issue for voters this past election was the economy and especially inflation.
During the campaign, Donald Trump promised that once in office, he would bring down prices quickly and make America more affordable.
This morning, we're asking, what is your confidence level in President-elect Trump to tackle inflation?
Give us a call and share your thoughts.
Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can send us a text to 202-748-8003.
Include your first name in your city-state.
And we're on social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
We're glad you're with us.
We'll start with a headline from the Wall Street Journal that says this.
Inflation is stuck.
Can Trump unstick it?
Trump has promised to tame prices, but even a president can only do so much.
Here's a portion of that article.
It says, On Wednesday, new inflation numbers suggested that progress on driving down rising costs had stalled.
Prices for groceries, for example, were up 1.6% from a year earlier in November, but they were up 27% from February of 2020.
Overall, consumer prices were up 2.7% in November from a year earlier, a far cry from the 9.1% notched in 2022, but still a tad higher than the month before.
New data Thursday showed that a month-over-month change in producer prices was more than economists had expected.
Well, in his interview on Sunday on Meet the Press, President-elect Trump spoke about his economic goals, including grocery prices.
I'm looking to make our country great.
I'm looking to bring prices down because, you know, I want on two things.
The border and more than immigration.
You know, they like to say immigration.
I break it down more to the border, but I want on the border and I want on groceries.
It's a very simple word, groceries.
Like almost, you know, who uses the word?
I started using the word the groceries.
When you buy apples, when you buy bacon, when you buy eggs, they would double and triple the price over a short period of time.
And I won an election based on that.
We're going to bring those prices way down.
That was on Sunday, and we got this on Facebook.
Williams says, got to be better than the current administration because they didn't bother with it at all.
And Elvin says, the president-elect said he will place tariffs on all imported products if he doesn't get his way, and that alone will escalate inflation.
And Dan said, I don't have any confidence in the president's ability to lower the deficit or get grocery prices down.
Tax cuts and tariffs are not going to help.
Let's start with calls and go to Melvin in Richmond, Virginia.
Democrat, hi, Melvin.
Good morning, Mimi.
How are you today?
Good.
Thank you for taking my call.
Mimi, the columnist Jennifer Rubin stated recently that America suffers from an epidemic of ignorance.
America has never educated its people in economics.
So therefore, no one understands what causes inflation and how tariffs work.
Now, my understanding is if you print $8 trillion extra dollars to pay for the pandemic, you're going to have inflation.
That's just natural.
You can't print extra money without causing the price of goods to go down, or go up, I'm sorry.
And of course, a tariff is just a tax on items that we're going to import, which means that, yes, the government will get the money from the tax, but that tax will be passed on to the consumer.
So he's going to raise some money, but he's going to raise it on the backs of the people who buy everyday products.
And sadly, as a country, because we were never taught economics, we have no idea what causes inflation.
Now, what my understanding is, is that that extra money that was pumped into the economy has to be drained out slowly, and that's what the Federal Reserve was doing.
That's why inflation was coming under control.
So, Melvin, what do you think is going to happen in the next administration with prices?
Well, if he institutes these tariffs, like he says, we're going to have more inflation.
Prices are going to go up because they're going to be passing on those increases to the current.
Now, if he had just stuck with the plan that we have, we would eventually, as you can see, interest rates were obviously because that was the process that was needed in order to get inflation down, and inflation was coming down.
But because the American people don't have any patience, you know, they see the price of eggs or they see the price of gas, and they think that Biden wasn't doing a good job.
He was actually doing the proper thing.
All right, Melvin.
This is Roy in California, Republican.
Good morning.
Hi, good morning.
My name is Roy Dean.
I'm calling here from Chino, California.
I was born and raised in Nashville, recently moved to Southern California here.
My two sisters and their families live in Riverside.
My wife, Peggy, and I have been divorced, remarried three times.
But anyway, I won't get into my personal life.
I was just setting that up, the fact that I am broke is a joke.
I'm living on about $2,000 a month in Southern California.
So trust me when I tell you, this inflation pain, it is real.
So to quote President Trump, very simple terms, he won on the word groceries.
Here's how it is.
And for some reason, a lot of the people don't seem to understand this.
If the price of diesel fuel is $6 a gallon, who pays for that ultimately?
You think that Walmart and Target are going to pay for that?
No, it gets passed on to the consumer, and that is how.
Now, he's not going to wave a magic wand and get inflation.
He's not going to create deflation, which is actually a bad thing.
A lot of people don't know that.
But the fact that he's going to drill, baby, drill, and get the price of oil down to record lows we've never seen.
That is how the price of groceries are going to go down.
All right, Roy.
Let's talk to Anna in South Windsor, Connecticut, Democrat.
Hi, Anna.
Hi.
Good morning.
Morning.
Yes, I live from day to day and I try to budget and buy what I need, not what I want.
But Mimi, I'm calling in today to ask us the President's wife, Jill, if she could please take care of the President health-wise.
He needs to put a hat on now.
It's cold.
He goes to Africa.
He didn't wear a mask.
Just the ordinary protections here.
And I also would like to say that I believe, or I think it's possible, that Musk could have rigged those numbers for election, and he may be behind those drones, but he's quiet.
My main thing today, and I'll be quiet, is on our President, our Secretary Blanken.
Please, somebody do something for him.
He's the hardest working person.
Give him New York Times, President Biden, give him some kind of award, even if Trump comes in and do it.
He needs to be recognized.
All right, Anna.
He's alive.
Julio, Auburn, Washington, Republican.
Yeah, I think we ought to give Donald Trump a chance and let all you guys that are experts about financing and everything, just let him give him a chance, bring down the cost of gas, natural gas, health care.
We got a governor in the state of Washington that's a fool.
He's stepping down or he's lost his election.
He's not even going to live in the state of Washington.
He's moving to Idaho.
So you guys in the media, give him a chance.
Thank you.
Andrew, Sterling, Virginia, a Democrat.
Hi, Andrew.
Good morning, Mimi.
Happy holidays.
You too.
I just want to say right off the bat that I have never been more ashamed of this country for re-electing this traitorous sexual predator moron for a president once again.
Do the American people, especially those like your previous caller who said drill, baby, drill is the solution to all these high prices.
We have basically sold out our country over the price of bacon and eggs and gas.
How ridiculous is that?
All these Americans who have died over the years, these generations that fought in World War II and fought in all these wars, they have to be rolling over in their graves over what these Americans, these so-called American patriots have done, giving President Trump the office once again.
Trump will do nothing to lower the inflation.
All he and his billionaire buddies are going to do is continue to suck out the money out of this country and enrich themselves.
They will do nothing to help the working man.
These people who voted for Trump.
But people voted to lower prices.
So don't you think that that's going to be a major priority for him, Andrew?
No, it will not be a priority for him.
Why not?
His priority will be just simply to enrich himself, his family, and his billionaire buddies.
I guarantee you.
I guarantee you.
The first thing they're going to do is go after Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, because that's where the money's at.
All this talk about removing $2 trillion worth out of the budget is a joke.
Those entitlements is where the money's at.
And they will take that money out to further give tax cuts to the corporations and the billionaires.
That's their only concern.
And Americans, mark my words, in four years they will be worse off than they ever have again.
So this stupid talk about drill, baby, drill is the solution to everything.
It's so ridiculous and so ignorant.
All right, Andrew.
And earlier this week, President Biden gave a speech about his economic policy achievements, and he acknowledged that prices are still too high for Americans.
Of course, this economic growth is not without pain.
The entire world faced a spike in inflation due to disruptions from the pandemic.
and Putin's war in Ukraine.
We acted quickly to get inflation down with the help of Republicans and Democrats.
Inflation came down to pre-pandemic levels.
Wages have increased, but still too many working and middle-class families struggle with high prices for housing and groceries and the daily needs of life.
At the same time, as inflation and interest rates continue to fall, we're entering a new phase of our economic resurgence.
With the outcome of this election, we also face an inflection point.
Do we continue to grow the economy from the middle out and the bottom up?
Investing in all of America and Americans?
Supporting unions and working families?
As we have the past four years, do we move backward, in my view, backslide, to an economy that benefited those at the top while working people and middle class struggle?
We're taking your calls on your confidence level in President-elect Trump to tackle inflation.
And this is the USA Today with this inflation ticked up again in November.
Will the Fed cut rates next week?
It says that inflation is moving in the wrong direction.
U.S. inflation picked up for a second straight month in November on a rise in food and gas prices, underscoring the final stretch of the Federal Reserve's two-year battle against sharply rising prices has become more challenging.
And it says that it describes what's meant by core inflation and interest rates.
So we will be watching that when they meet again.
And oops, sorry.
Bill in Florida, Republican line, what do you think about President-elect Trump's ability to bring down inflation?
Thank you.
I think that he's going to do a great job.
The caller from Virginia and a lot of these Democrats are hallucinating.
How can they even say the last four years have been good when everything's tripled in price?
I think also he'll secure the border and will get these prices down on food.
It's ridiculous.
I'm living on a Social Security check and I'm barely getting by and I own my home and I can barely get by.
Trump did it before.
He'll do it again.
So Bill, before you go, I want to ask you about tariffs because there's a Reuters article here with the headline, Americans are sour on tariffs if they spark inflation.
What do you think about the tariffs that President-elect Trump has promised to impose?
And do you think that those will raise prices or will they help the economy?
I really don't think he's going to raise tariffs.
I think that's just the ploy to get everybody to wake up and work with America instead of fighting America.
Mexico is not our friend.
They're letting these people through.
Why don't they drill some wells down in Mexico and start new towns down there when these people come from all these other countries that are dictatorships?
Also, why can't we send troops in there and take out those dictatorships that are killing those people?
There's a lot of things that can be done.
I don't think he's going to do the tariffs.
I think that's just something to get everybody to go along with what he wants to do.
Got it.
And this is Nina in McAlpin, Florida.
Democrat?
Good morning.
Morning.
Yes, I am a proud Democrat and I feel like the inflation will go down and we've got a new regime coming of very smart people.
The people calling in, if they were so good at economics, they would be running for president or trying to change their states.
And if you look at the state of Washington and California and Oregon, and there is no hope for those people over there, but they think they're experts on it.
So Nina, let me ask you, you said the people coming in.
Are there cabinet nominees or people coming into the new administration that you especially admire when it comes to the economy?
People that are coming in from the outside of the government.
The government, these are new people with new ideas and common sense.
And we have got to change the attitude of our government employees and the people up there.
I don't want to lay everybody off, but we have got to start looking at things in a different way than we have the last four years.
And the tariffs he did with China last time he was president, nobody was screaming that prices were high.
Prices didn't go up until the Democrats took office for four years.
So anyway, I just hope everybody calms down and we need to look ahead to the future and all be proud of our country.
Thank you.
All right, Nina, and this is USA Today.
Some of Trump's nominees have drawn fierce criticism why his Treasury pick has a smoother path.
And this is on USA Today if you want to read it.
And it talks about Treasury nominee Scott Besant and his background.
And Rob in Port Crane, New York, Independent.
Hi, Rob.
Good morning, Nina.
You know, I'd like to know who picks your stories that you guys talk about.
Yesterday it was, you know, do you support term limits for the Supreme Court for like the fifth time?
You know?
So anyway, to today's question, Donald Trump is going to, he's got to help because everything Joe Biden and Democrats have done for the last four years has been negative.
Our borders are still open.
People still dying from fentanyl.
You know, we still got a media that we can't trust that lies to us every single day.
So, you know, are they going to change?
Because I really don't think that America's going to put up with this crap any longer, having the media lie to us every single day.
Rob, who do you trust in the media?
Where do you get your news?
Who do I trust?
Well, I trust people you probably never heard of.
People like, oh, let's see, Jimmy Dore, Tucker Carlson, you know, anybody who's not mainstream, lamestream, because every if I see CNN, MSNBC, any of the networks, or even, you know, people on your channel, I assume that every word coming out of their mouth is a lie because we have years and years of experience to prove that.
So as far as the media goes, you really have to look elsewhere because if you're turning on to TV hoping to get some kind of news that matters, you're not getting anything at all.
And this thing with the drones that's going on right now, is our government that inept they really don't know where they're coming from?
So Rob, I do want to let you know that we are going to have an entire segment on drones and drone security at 8 a.m.
So I hope you stay with us on that and we'll get a lot more detail.
Kenny in Kentucky, Republican.
Hi, Kenny.
Hey.
How's it going?
It's going great.
That's great.
I just wanted to comment on the guy a while ago, the Democrats, talking about Donald Trump and all these taxes and stuff.
He's been threatening to do that.
You know, that works from both sides.
They're going to come in and have their little meetings and stuff.
They ain't going to be taxed to death over all these other countries.
You know, that's the way I see it.
And he's going to make the country good again.
Hopefully, you know, everyone gives him a chance instead of bringing him up on charges again.
All right, Kenny.
And President-elect Trump defended his approach to tariffs at that interview on Meet the Press on Sunday.
Here's a portion: Economists of all stripes say that ultimately consumers pay the price of tariffs.
I don't believe that.
Can you guarantee American families won't pay more?
I can't guarantee anything.
I can't guarantee tomorrow.
But I can say that if you look at my just pre-COVID, we had the greatest economy in the history of our country.
And I had a lot of tariffs on a lot of different countries, but in particular, China, we took in hundreds of billions of dollars, and we had no inflation.
In fact, when I handed it over, they didn't have inflation for a year and a half.
They went almost two years just based on what I had created.
And then they created inflation with energy and with spending too much.
So I think we will.
I'm a big believer in tariffs.
I think tariffs are the most beautiful word.
I think they're beautiful.
It's going to make us rich.
And Steve sent us this on X.
He says, considering his quote solution, which is tariffs, is inflationary, I have zero confidence.
Wonder what you think about that.
We're talking about the, we're on the topic of inflation and your confidence level in President-elect Trump to tackle that issue.
And we'll hear from Paul, a Democrat, in Bulligy, Alabama.
Yes.
About Trump being able to do anything with the economy.
I like to remind some people that when COVID was here, you showed a little clip on Biden talking about COVID.
When Trump was in office and we had COVID, you had people lined up in cars for miles waiting in line to get boxes of food and boxes of water.
That was part of what created the inflation, and it was worldwide.
Biden did an excellent job.
He created more jobs for Americans than had been in the past.
The other thing, and so we know prices went up because of that COVID incident.
Another thing, Trump put tariffs on the farmers, on not the farmers, on China.
And the farmers had to pay for it.
So what did Trump do?
He had to offer the farmers a bailout.
He had to give them billions of dollars because the seeds were rotting in the ground and in silos.
So now what is Trump planning on doing?
He got Robert F. Kennedy, who don't believe in vaccines.
If we didn't have a vaccine, what would have happened to us during the COVID in 2019 if we didn't have vaccines?
So he's cutting back on vaccines, which and I don't know, that's crazy.
But the other thing is now, too, they're going to cut the health care.
So you're not going to have vaccines.
You're not going to have the health care that's going into Medicaid, Medicare.
He's going into Social Security.
He's going to cut all of the medical benefits that one could have if a vaccine do come.
And he's creating a vaccine when you cut back, he's creating a pandemic, another pandemic, when you cut back on the vaccines.
All right, Paul, we're getting a little bit off the subject here, but let me move on to Jim in Highland, Indiana, Republican.
Good morning, Jim.
Quick, yeah.
I'd like to make a correction to that last guy's comment.
Yes, Biden did create extra jobs.
However, they were mostly on a percentage, they were government jobs.
Now, as to these things in space, very one of two things: A, they're a bunch of people that are having their fun pretending they're space invaders, or B, a possibility it's China testing to see what we're going to do.
See, here's the problem in all reality.
So, Jim, I hear your point.
We're going to talk about drones starting at 8 a.m., but I want to stick with the concept of inflation now and the economy in general.
What are your thoughts on what President-elect Trump will be able to do once in office?
Okay, Trump, once he has to do it, his objective is naturally to get jobs in, and to do that, he has to create more jobs inward.
He has to get some of these companies like John Deere and Whirlpool that are now new factories or building new factories and Ford in Mexico back here.
Now, how is he going to do it?
He's going to put a high tariff on, and who's that going to affect?
It's going to affect China.
China's going to have a backlog.
How's China going to get us?
Well, they do some of the chemicals for farmers and other situations.
Now, there's one plus we've got about Trump right now.
This is his time.
He wants to be practically have his head on that mountain rush more.
So, to do that, he's got to make everybody happy.
Now, how can you make one person happy and another person sad?
That's where the dilemma is.
When I was overseas, the person in Taiwan told me one thing I never forget: when we make a product, we make it so that it sells in the U.S.
So, we have one big card we can play with China, and it's a bad card because it could lead to World War III like we did with Japan.
We have to step down and either go the way of having everything come in cheap, coming in from China cheap, and we're buying it, and everybody's happy.
However, the factories are going to start moving there, and all the jobs are going to move there.
So, what does that leave the U.S.?
That means, like Obama once said, we're going to be a service country.
I mean, I go overseas.
All right, Jim, we're going to move on to Leon in Laurel, Maryland, Independent Line.
Hey, how are you doing this morning?
I'm doing okay.
How are you doing?
I'm 79 years old.
My family's been here on my mother's side since 1695.
So, I got a history of this country from my grandparents, my parents, all the guys in my neighborhood that I grew up with.
I even talked to Malcolm X when I was 18.
Donald Trump is the personification of every white male that black people and Native people have encountered since 1513 with the Spanish.
He's a pathological liar.
He's a serial sex offender.
So, Leon, what do you think about the inflation specifically?
Okay.
Here's what I'll say about that.
He inherited 75 months of growth, economic growth, from Obama.
Trump did absolutely nothing with the economy.
All that was Obama had cleaned up George Bush's mess.
What had happened was Trump inherited a very strong economy.
He muffed the pandemic to the max.
He should be charged with negligent homicide for 450,000 deaths in the pandemic because he did nothing with that.
If you don't believe me, check out the people who was in his cabinet that talked about him, all his critics.
These are not Democrats.
These are not independents.
These are Republicans.
I mean, the man is, I had to give it to him.
He's a superb kind artist.
He inflated the country $6 trillion in debt.
He did absolutely nothing, and he's not going to do anything now.
Because if you have a person who, I first got encountered with Trump in the 70s, in the 1970s.
I'm originally from Philadelphia.
I used to go to New York all the time, and I just thought he was just a smart aleck white male.
You know, he was just a kind artist.
When he came to Atlantic City with the casinos, everybody in Philadelphia and New Jersey saw who he was.
He stiff contractors.
He's just a kind artist.
Sorry, Leo.
We got to move on to Julie in St. Paul, Minnesota, Democrat.
Good morning, Julie.
Oh, sorry.
Oh, can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yeah, I'm probably going to be saying some of the same things that I've heard from others on the inflation.
The inflation came down with Biden.
I think he did a lot of things to make that happen.
And yeah, it did tick up here in November.
But this isn't all the president's responsibility either.
And a lot of it is what he called greedflation.
Once the prices get up there, these companies are taking advantage of that.
And that was what he was working with.
That is not easy to come back down again.
And I heard somebody talking about the tariffs with how you put tariffs on one thing, and then it affects another sector, like with the steel with China.
And then another thing, too, China quit taking a lot of our garbage, our plastic waste, because of that deal.
So there's all kinds of consequences for these tariffs that people don't realize.
And I don't think it's just a threat, like another caller said.
He's going to do it, and he's going to cause more and more hard relations.
He's already done that with Mexico and Canada after he, you know, made it, he made, he updated the last deal with them, and now he's going after him, calling Canada the 51st state or, you know, suggesting very insulting, very, very insulting.
And what I don't understand is all the people cowing down to him.
People need to stand up to this.
And one more thing about this topic is that I haven't heard yet this morning is on the great deportation.
And all these people that are working and have been here for years and working, and they are paying taxes.
And they are paying towards our Social Security and everything.
And I agree with another caller.
These billionaires, they're going to go after our Social Security and Medicare system.
And it's just pure nonsense for him to even talk one little bit about cutting taxes for the rich.
But that's who he's in there for.
He is in there for the billionaires.
And anyone that thinks different, I don't know what they're watching.
Fox and all these other people that nobody have heard of, from all that I hear from the Republican, from the Trumpers, you know what?
They don't dig very deep.
I read a lot of articles.
Every time they come up with something, I read and read.
They have the same old line, and guess where it comes from?
Fox News.
Got it, Julie.
And also in Minneapolis on the Republican line.
Richard, you're next.
Yes, good morning.
Morning.
Wow, I can't believe all of the lies.
And if you're white, you're a racist, and you're going to take away the Social Security.
That's a bunch of hogwash.
I wish people would get informed.
You have to read one of Trump's books, The Art of the Deal.
You know, a lot of his tax talk or his tariff talks are, you know, bluffs to these other countries.
You can't just come out and say, oh, well, I'm bluffing.
You know, he has to follow through.
And one other thing, yeah, a couple other things.
Let me do two other things.
The tariffs Trump put on China were not revoked by Biden.
And so, and we saved our steel industry.
What if we had a war?
We'd have to have a steel industry.
So he saved the steel industry, which many Republicans and Democrats were bought off and gave the industry to these other countries.
So it's just disgusting how uninformed people are.
They get on there and they call them all kinds of names, racist.
And we've been through all that and people read through it and, you know, took over the House and Senate.
It's terrible.
I just can't believe it.
And, you know, the inflation was started by Biden putting all those restrictions on oil drilling.
He stopped that pipeline and then he stopped all the oil drilling on Anwar and government land.
And that spiked the inflation all over the world.
And people don't understand it.
There was a farmer on the channel, and he said, well, I got to put on 200 pounds of nitrogen for every acre of land in order to get a crop.
And the nitrogen's made out of oil.
And then he's got a big combine, a big truck, and a big tractor.
He's got to buy gas for all that.
Most farmers nowadays, they got to have 1,000 acres or more in order to even get a 3% profit.
So I wish people would get informed.
Got it, Richard.
This was an interview with Time Magazine.
You may know that Time Magazine chose President-elect Donald Trump as their person of the year for the second time this year.
And they asked him this question.
If the prices of groceries don't come down, will your presidency be a failure?
And this is what he said.
I don't think so.
Look, they got them up.
I'd like to bring them down.
It's hard to bring things down once they're up.
You know, it's very hard.
But I think they will.
I think that energy is going to bring them down.
I think a better supply chain is going to bring them down.
You know, the supply chain is still broken.
It's broken.
You see it.
You could read that at Time magazine if you'd like to read the full article.
And this is a Democrat in Berea, Ohio.
Greg, good morning.
Congratulations, President-elect Trump.
You convince your voters in America the sky's fallen.
But I got news for you.
It's not.
No president, no president has the jurisdiction and authority over the free market.
No one.
But people correlate gas prices with the prices of goods.
Prices of gas has been decreasing for the past two years.
So why hasn't a Whopper or a Bitmap the price gone backwards?
I got you.
I don't trust a convicted felon and a person convicted of fraud.
I don't trust anything he says, but the voters spoke, and they do.
Six months from now, 12 months from now, the prices of goods are still going to increase.
He's bamboozling you and all you African Americans who voted for him.
Look at his cabinet.
Not a one black person on his cabinet, but he's a president for everyone.
Have a nice day.
This is what J.D. Redding sent us on X.
I have little confidence in Trump to tackle inflation.
Trump's proposals beyond energy production and reducing government spending aim at addressing inflation through various economic levers.
These measures will instead contribute to higher inflation due to increased costs.
And Duke in Stonington, Maine, Independent.
What do you think, Duke?
Yes, good morning, C-SPAN.
I have zero confidence in Donald Trump doing anything about the economy that both inflation.
I don't know who can.
I think this, you know, this whole inflation and economy thing has gotten so out of hand.
I don't think any one person is going to be able to do anything.
And I hate to sound like doom and gloom, but I have said for a while that in my opinion, all I can see is the only way to maybe get out of this mess is to, and I'd hate to see it, is to go belly up.
This country go belly up, wipe that slate clean, and start all over new.
What does that mean, Duke?
What does it mean to go belly up?
I would say like what happened in 1929.
I mean, you've got to wipe the slate clean and like a depression.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, yes, and I hate to think it because I tell you, if it happens this time, you think 29 was bad, it's going to look like a cakewalk to what it's going to be today.
Why do you think we would go into a depression?
Well, I don't, well, I don't want to say that we're going to, but I mean, how else are you going to, but there, if you've gone so far in the hole and stuff, I mean, and it looks like that there's no way that you're going to be able to, you know, bring your finances and stuff under control.
You know, people file bankruptcy.
I mean, what else can you do?
I'm just thinking that there's just so much, you know, that we are in the hole so far and stuff.
And it makes me laugh when Donald Trump says about buying groceries.
This guy ain't bought a dozen eggs or a gallon of milk in his life.
Somebody else does a buy-in for him.
And they just, you know, he's put on his account, and they send, you know, the bill each month or whatever they do there to his businesses.
And they pay the bills as far as him knowing what it is.
The only way he knows this is because he's heard people tell about it.
But it's for his own experience doing it?
No.
Okay, sorry.
Were you going to say something else?
No.
Okay.
No, that's it.
Norman in Morristown, Pennsylvania, Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I'm a first-year listener and a first-time caller.
Regarding food prices and the whiny Americans on the left and the right, are you aware there was a bird flu epidemic that caused the death of hundreds of millions of chickens and therefore raised the price of eggs and chicken?
Out of the 130 nations that are part of the U.N., which country would you want to move to that has lower food, oil, and gas prices than the United States?
Name the country.
Are you already packing up, or are you staying home and continuing your uninformed whining?
With the large number of slaughterhouse workers now scheduled to be deported by Trump's new immigration policy, what are the names and addresses of your family members and friends who will now be stepping into those jobs under the same working conditions and wages to keep food prices low as possible?
The same question applies to the field workers in the 90-degree heat and humidity who will now be deported.
The same question applies to workers repairing, replacing, and building new roofs in 90-degree plus heat and humidity who will now be deported.
The same question applies to the workers doing landscaping and snow removal while everyone else is sleeping who will now be deported.
Same question applies to the workers making the beds and doing other hotel motel work for tips who will now be deported.
And you think food prices are not going to immediately and dramatically go up.
It's estimated it will cost nearly $1 trillion to deport these people who are planned for deportation.
What else could be done with that nearly $1 trillion if not to add it to the national debt?
I need the names and addresses of your point.
Robert, Greenville, Texas, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'm going to try and make this as simple as I can.
Anytime you put a tariff on imported goods, it rises the cost of those goods substantially.
And anytime you rise the price, obviously the price that the consumer pays goes up.
Robert, let me ask you a question because a caller brought this up.
Mr. Trump did put tariffs on in his first term, and Mr. Biden kept those tariffs.
So what do you think of that?
Well, that's past history.
I mean, what Trump's talking about now is going to be putting additional tariffs in.
It's only going to raise the prices.
Do you think that those tariffs were responsible for raising prices before the previous tariffs?
I'm just asking.
No, I think we came off of catastrophe across the world with the COVID.
And, you know, businesses were shut down and everything.
And when everybody left their jobs and went home, it had to have massive outlays from the government to support these people.
And, I mean, Trump ran up about an $8 trillion deficit.
Biden, of course, he's added another $4 or $5 to it.
But all that deficit, you know, it cuts into the government and government's ability to keep these programs going.
But tariffs are not.
I mean, it's, like I said, it's just that simple.
You know, if you take the product that consumers buy in this country and add an additional, let's just say, 25% like Canada and Mexico on, well, who's going to pay that 25%?
Trump makes a claim that somehow those countries are going to be like sending us a check for each container ship that comes into port.
Well, there are some port duties, but that's not where the tariffs get paid.
The tariffs get paid when those products are consumed, when they're bought at the store.
So will his tariffs have any influence on inflation?
Yeah, absolutely.
It's going to raise the cost of those goods.
It's really that simple.
All right, Robert.
And Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida was on CNBC, and he talked about efforts the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress will work on together to reduce inflation.
The American public knows that inflation is tied to wasteful government spending.
There's so many people engaged in this now around the country that say $36 trillion of debt is too much.
$2 trillion deficits is too much.
53% increase in spending when we've only had a 2% increase in our population is too much.
So there's going to be a lot of ideas.
So I think I'm very excited that we're going to be able to figure a lot of things out.
I've been having a lot of meetings with House members, friends of the House, and in the Senate, come up with ways to reduce the waste in government spending.
Another 15 minutes left in this segment to talk about inflation, your confidence level in President-elect Trump once he assumes office in bringing that down.
And this is James in Coopersburg, Pennsylvania, Republican.
Yes, good morning.
All right.
Thank you for taking my call.
I have a quick comment and a question.
The comment is, I have complete confidence in President-elect Trump's cabinet team that he's picked.
I think he's going to take his time with this and not make the same mistakes that were possibly made in the first administration.
My comment or question is alluding to the previous caller about not trusting the media.
Last week, I tuned in to C-SPAN for the Secret Service hearing with Acting Director Ronald Rowe watching it live.
All of a sudden, there's a technical blip, and you guys cut to the end of the hearing and censored out something.
Wait, wait, if it was live, how did we cut to the end?
That's what I'm trying to find out.
Texas rep Pat Fallon pressed Acting Director Ronald Rowe.
It got very heated, and that was cut out.
You went from the beginning of the hearing to the end of the hearing.
And I was wondering about that.
But that's not possible when it's live.
I was watching it live 11.30 a.m. December 5th.
Okay.
I don't know how that happened.
You know what?
We'll look into that for you.
It's on our website, c-span.org.
And James, you can watch the full hearing on c-span.org in our archives.
But thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Oliver, Falls Church, Virginia, Democrat, good morning.
Good morning, New Nico.
Can you hear me?
Yes, I sure can.
Okay.
Okay, sweetheart.
Listen, I want to thank C-SPAN for all that you all have tried to do by mentioning to the American people what is going on with this government.
I have absolutely no confidence in a convicted felon for fraud, like the other gentleman said a few minutes ago.
And I'm amazed that as many Americans would call and give confidence to somebody who is charged with sexual assault.
We heard his phone call when he said he liked to grab women in their private parts.
And we heard him on the phone with the attorney with the person in Georgia asking them to cheat for him.
No confidence at all in a man like that.
He's got no morals.
He's a disgrace to his country.
And the people in Europe and around the world are saying, what is going on?
My sister is in England.
And she says the people in England are amazed that the American people would put that gentleman back in, I called him a gentleman out of just respect, to put him back in the White House when he was a disaster and a million Americans died while he was there.
And nobody says anything about it.
It's crazy.
Mimi, I stopped listening to C-SPAN because I couldn't take it anymore.
But I'm glad that you guys are there.
And I'm glad I'm back on listening to you again.
I appreciate C-SPAN.
All right, Oliver.
And this is Craig in Cleveland, Ohio, Republican.
Hi, Craig.
How are you doing?
Good.
I love listening to all the liberal Democrats crying about their little president got ousted by Trump.
Make America great again.
Americans first.
Start deported.
Bye-bye.
And here's Gene in Virginia, Independent Line.
Hello, America.
How's my audio?
Am I good?
You're good.
Go ahead, Jean.
Thank you.
All right.
Good morning, America.
I just want everyone to just pause, you know, the little tactic the gentleman just used when he came on.
You know, we really have to get past that.
Okay, the election is over.
He got elected.
All right.
Some things, I voted Democrat.
I did vote for Kamala.
Even though I'm, you know, I'm an American, retired Army, retired military.
I did 20 years.
I'm an American.
I'm a what's best for the American people for America.
I say, keep all those promises that you said you were going to do, which is why he got elected.
Do not start backpedaling.
Oh, you know what?
Maybe DACA.
No, Everything you said you were going to do, do.
So the American people are going to have, those that voted and supported him are going to have to see for themselves.
That's the only way.
I want to thank C-SPAN for allowing us an opportunity to talk.
Free speech, we still have that in America.
But everything that you said you're going to do, deportation, getting the military, getting the military to deport these people, hold up to everything you said.
Don't backpedal.
Do not backpedal.
Because the only way people are going to see, if you wanted to see, I used to watch The Apprentice.
Okay, well, you know, yeah, you're fired.
But when you're talking about six times bankruptcy and you're talking about running this country, look at Atlantic City.
I always defer to Atlantic City.
The last thing I have to say is our judicial system.
If you can have 34 felonies and run and hold the highest office in the land in our free country, then I think we need to really look at our judicial system now with how we prosecute people and punish people, particularly in the military.
If you're going to be the commander in chief, how can you discharge and court-martial and demote military members that are charged with sexual harassment?
All right.
Got it, Gene.
And let's talk to Roy in Woodstock, Georgia, Republican.
You know, we're talking about tariffs.
And I was telling people before when I was in Germany, to buy an American-made car made in the United States, you had to pay three times the amount what we paid.
I remember one American-made car chevron with 90,000 DMARs, and I could buy three Italian-made sports cars for the price of that one American car.
And we're talking about price increase because of tariff.
The price increase of goods started when Biden went to war on the energy sector.
Truckers have to buy fuel.
Farm people have to buy fuel.
And the price went up.
And so these tariffs would just equalize the playing field.
Because right now, we're at a disadvantage.
And the goods that are supposed to be made in the United States, people are buying it from China, going to Walmart.
Everything is made in China.
We need to start making goods back here in this country.
And tariff is one way to do that.
We need to level the playing field with the rest of the world.
All right.
But some callers were saying he's not going to do the tariffs.
That's just a bargaining chip.
You would welcome those tariffs.
Because I trust him.
I trust him to make the right decision on the right.
Let's say for aluminum and steel.
Our industry was going under until he raised a tariff to give American industry in aluminum and steel an opportunity to come back.
Right now, Japan is trying to buy our steel mill.
You know, he needs to, we need to be able to protect to produce certain goods for our survival.
And I think he will do that.
He's a great boy.
Here's Scott in New York, Democrat.
Hey, Scott.
Good morning, yes.
Good morning.
Go right ahead.
Scott, you talking into the phone?
Don't talk.
Don't look at the TV.
Thank you for taking my call.
I just have one quick comment.
MAGA has put Chauncey Gardner in the driver's seat.
Everybody better buckle up.
Tony in Alabama, Independent Line.
You're next.
Hello.
Hey, I'm Tony from Alabama.
Thank you for allowing me to speak on your show.
I can't vote, but I have friends and families that are affected by tariffs.
In 1955, the same thing, this playbook was played out, and it was a part of the Great Depression.
So what I don't understand is no one's asking the real questions.
What is he going to do about the people that he's cutting off Social Security that are in nursing homes that will lose their place to live?
I really want to know.
All right, Tony.
And this is Tommy in Arkansas, Republican.
Hi, Tommy.
Yes.
You're talking about inflation here.
I've listened to 15 or 20 of the people that's called.
They've added nothing to inflation to help it.
And the thing is, they're causing more problems with the country getting along with each other than anything that I've ever heard.
Those people don't even need to be allowed to talk.
And the inflation, I don't know what we're going to do exactly to help it, but I do know that it needs help.
And I'm for Trump making a good try at it if that's possible.
Thank you.
And Robert, Lynchburg, Virginia, Independent Line.
Hi, Robert.
Good morning, Nami.
How are you doing?
I'm a 81-year-old African-American, and I'll look at what is happening to our country right now.
I think we got the best government that money can buy with the billionaire that Trump is putting in his cabinet.
And I have never seen anything like this in my life.
And if you believe what Trump is saying, I got an ocean I can tell you in Alaska.
Thank you.
Let's talk to Stephen in Concord, California, Democrat.
Yes, thank you for taking my call.
I believe Trump is a danger to the whole country because he's putting billionaires in his office of cabinet.
And the people he chose for the FBI and the Defense Department and for national security are not qualified.
And if the Republicans don't do their job of kicking them out and not confirming them, they will have ruined the country.
It's a matter of national security.
Trump's trying to make our country not work.
And it's absolutely terrible.
There's so many problems in this country involving burning of fossil fuels.
All the different.
I can't hear you.
Are you talking to me, ma'am?
No, I'm not.
Keep going, Stephen.
And Biden did all the good things he could.
He increased the chip plants in this country from Taiwan.
He brought them all back here, this country.
And we have to defend Ukrainians.
I have a brother.
I'm an uncle to a man who married a Ukrainian woman.
And we have to defend Ukraine because they're fighting for their freedom.
And like everything in the Middle East is happening because Syria has finally fallen because the Russians couldn't help the Syrians.
These things are all happening simultaneously because people of freedom are still fighting for their rights around the world.
And I believe I'm looking on the TV and it's not on, so I'm listening to what I'm saying.
And I hope they realize that we have a pandemic that just happened and the lines of communications, transportation are all shut down.
And that affected the whole transportation cost of food.
Eventually, that's going to be solved.
We have big problems in this country where the people come here because we have so much freedom.
But the freedom is responsibility.
And we have to believe in this country and vote.
10 million people who voted last time didn't vote because we had a Democratic candidate, a woman, chosen, and people just don't believe in a woman should be president.
And that's the sad truth.
And I don't know what to say except people have to believe our country has strong leaders on the Democratic Party.
And we have to believe in the process the Republicans coming to their senses and realize that Donald Trump is a man cannot be trusted, cannot be trusted at all to put us in the right place.
All right, Stephen.
I wanted to update you.
The caller had asked about that Secret Service hearing and things on December 5th.
So it is here in its entirety on our website, final meeting of task force on Trump assassination attempts.
And you can see it there.
The part that the caller was talking about where things got heated between both two sides is labeled as a point of interest.
So it's right here.
If you look on this side, it says heated exchange between Representative Fallon and USS Acting Director Rowe.
It starred, so you can go straight to that point if you would like to see that.
So I hope the caller's still with us so that he can take a look at that.
Walter, Penrose, Colorado, Republican.
Hi, Walter.
Hi.
Hey, you had a caller earlier from Minneapolis.
And, you know, a lot of the Dems just definitely need some education on that.
See, I'm not rich, but I go to the ballot box.
I go to the ballot box to vote to keep the rich in power.
See, she hopes she understands that.
And I guess she thinks it's okay for Americans to not be able to sell things abroad because of tariffs.
But everything, you know, everything that we try to sell over there has a 20-30% tariff markup.
That's okay, I guess, to a lot of people in this country.
So just wanted to reinform.
And then once the gas prices go low and stay low, slowly but surely, the profit that these companies derive from that, the prices will go down.
That's all I've got to say.
All right.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Independent Line.
David, good morning.
Good morning.
How are you?
Good.
Let's go back to inflation specifically.
The only way to tackle inflation, in my opinion, is to reduce government spending, which created it, and actually give more money back to the taxpayers.
In addition, also reducing the cost for most of the cities by funding all the illegal aliens that are taking up hundreds, literally hundreds of billions of dollars of tax money.
So those are the only things that would be effective, in my opinion.
All right, David.
And up next on Washington Journal, Rand Corporation senior policy researcher Daniel Gerstein discusses the mysterious drone sightings in New Jersey and New York and the security threats posed by unmanned aerial systems.
Later, Robert, sorry, Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, discusses calls for President Biden to commute federal death sentences before President-elect Donald Trump assumes office.
We'll be right back.
American History TV, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend, 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.
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.
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 every weekend 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 Washington Journal.
We are joined now by Daniel Gerstein.
He's senior policy researcher at the RAN Corporation.
He was former acting DHS Undersecretary and Deputy Undersecretary of Science and Technology between 2011 and 2014.
Dan, welcome to the program.
Thanks.
In talking about these drones, I just want to do a quick update and then ask you about it.
But first, if you could tell us about your background in national security and your experience with drones specifically.
Okay, great.
Yeah, so I started out my professional career in the Army after graduating from the United States Military Academy.
I spent 30 years in uniform, deployed all around the world, commanded large units, including a brigade, and have done a number of high-level jobs, speechwriter for the head strategist to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
You know, I've also had an opportunity to work as a senior civilian where I did counter weapons of mass destruction.
And I thought a lot about drones in countering weapons of mass destruction based on the potential for biological and chemical attacks and such.
And I was then asked to go to Homeland Security, where I was the acting undersecretary and deputy undersecretary.
Since being at RAND, I've actually had a number of opportunities to look at drone technologies.
My most recent report, which is, I think, interesting to those who read it, is on swarm technologies.
I was asked to look at what would happen if we had swarm technologies associated with homeland security.
So that would be bad actors trying to attack the homeland and not using a single drone, but using multiple drones coordinated using artificial intelligence capabilities.
And Dan, sorry, explain the swarm technology.
You said that it would be multiple drones.
How many drones?
How large are the drones are we talking about?
And what kind of, why is that specifically more challenging than the one drone?
Well, it's interesting because you're asking the right questions, but we're actually studying a lot of this.
For example, the DARPA, which I know everybody's heard of, and then the Navy and the Army have looked or are looking at swarm technologies.
Some of them are as large as 600, 1,000 members of the drone swarm.
Those would obviously be much smaller.
Think of them almost as expendable.
And what makes them intelligent swarms is that they are given a command and then they execute that command and they follow, they have artificial intelligence within them.
So they're able to change their flight path in mid-flight to avoid being shot down.
They communicate with each other.
They plan their flight paths as they're flying to targets.
So it's a whole new dynamic.
It's not just a single drone by a single operator.
And those have proven pretty easy to shoot down, quite frankly.
We just had an attack in Ukraine by the Russian forces in which they used about 100 missiles and about 200 unmanned aerial systems, UASs or drones, and most of the drones were shot down effectively.
So We're seeing that the nature of the use of drones in warfare is changing as well.
I want to go back to the situation happening in Over the Skies of New Jersey and New York.
This is the USA Today.
It says, White House says New Jersey drones not from foreign countries as lawmakers demand answers.
And Dan, I'm going to read you the joint statement between Homeland Security and the FBI about that specifically and then have you comment on it.
They said this, we have no evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or public safety threat or have a foreign nexus.
The FBI, DHS, and our federal partners, in close coordination with the New Jersey State Police, continue to deploy personnel and technology to investigate this situation and confirm whether the reported drone flights are actually drones or are instead manned aircraft or otherwise inaccurate sightings.
Upon review of available imagery, it appears that many of the reported sightings are actually manned aircraft operating lawfully.
There are no reported or confirmed drone sightings in any restricted airspace.
A few things there.
They said that they are deploying personnel and technology.
Can you first talk about what kind of technology is there to understand what these drones are, if they are drones in fact, and where they're coming from and who's operating them?
Yeah, another great question.
So, you know, the drone technology is emerging very rapidly.
We've been worried about this threat.
I was in government a decade ago when we were starting to really think about this drone threat because it was becoming more real.
The drones were becoming more effective.
And so when we talk about these countermeasures, you know, there are a number of different approaches that one has to take with drones.
The first is you have to be able to detect them.
And, you know, if you're flying a drone here in the United States, you're supposed to have it with a transponder so it is squawking a frequency and you're able to get the identification of that drone.
That would help to do the second thing, which is to identify.
And then the third is to mitigate the threat.
And then all that requires good equipment as well as rules of engagement that allow you to do so in a safe and effective manner.
And so there's a lot that goes into it.
So you can just imagine how much training you would need to have.
Now, you know, in the Department of Defense, they hold an annual conference.
And at this last one in October, it's the AUSA Conference, Association of the United States Army.
When I went to that conference, I couldn't believe every single platform, tank, an artillery piece, armored fighting vehicles, every one of them had a counter-drone system now.
That's how much this has become a fixture in the thinking of the military forces.
And, you know, we have a real problem when we think about here in homeland because there are so many lucrative targets.
All this critical infrastructure we have, pipelines and electrical grids and transportation networks and hospitals and chemical facilities, and all of those, we have to figure out what's the priority and how are we going to protect them.
You can imagine how expensive that is going to be.
And so, you know, Dan, sorry to interrupt, but I do want to ask about counter-drone and how to take one down because thehill.com has this headline, Trump calls for mystery drones to be shot down.
So the question a lot of members of the public are saying, why can't the DOD just shoot them down?
Okay, well, interesting.
But here in the homeland, we're not at war and we have civilian people walking the streets and they have an expectation of safety and privacy.
And so there are different kind of rules that govern this.
So how do we take down a drone?
Well, if you have the electronic countermeasures, you can actually take control of the drone when it's in flight and you can cause it to land harmlessly.
And that way it's not going to fall out of the sky.
You know, there are opportunities or times when, you know, if let's say we thought that there was a drone over a stadium and we were concerned that it was, we could see that it was loaded with a very large payload and we thought that was explosives.
You know, you might actually then say, you know, we have to bring it down another way.
You know, and we're looking at things like lasers.
We're looking at do you use, say, kinetic shooting it out of the sky.
But I would say that is kind of your kind of approach of last resort because of the damage it could do.
If it hit people, you'd almost certainly have casualties and likely deaths if it was a larger type of drone.
So, you know, there are ways, there are approaches, but we have to be very measured in doing this so as not to cause more casualties.
And if you've got a question for Daniel Gerstein of the Rand Corporation about drones and the security threats that they may pose, you can start calling us now.
The lines are regional.
So if you're in the eastern or central time zones, it's 202748-8000.
If you're in the mountain or Pacific time zones, you can call us on 202748-8001.
You can also send a text at 202-748-8003.
Dan, the drones obviously are remote controlled by drone pilots.
What are the licensing or certification requirements for somebody to operate a drone?
Yeah, so here in our country, you know, the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, has the responsibility for putting out the regulations.
And what gets very complex about this is that depending on what type of user you are, you have different requirements.
So, you know, you might have small drones.
You know, some are less than half a pound and, you know, they're just very much hobbyists.
They don't have great distance and such.
And so all of them are supposed to have some degree of licensing associated with them.
There are also, though, are those that may not have been licensed when they were bought early on because the FAA rules have changed.
But you get all the way up into if you're flying this in a commercial approach, you know, you're using it for, you know, delivering packages or whatever it is, then there would be different requirements for those types of drone operators.
When you talk about, you know, military use of drones, you know, those drone operators often are flying much larger systems and they have very stringent requirements because of the nature of the work they're doing.
So it's not a one-size-fits-all approach to requiring licenses.
You know, even someone as young as 16, according to the FAA regulations, can get a drone license to be able to fly.
And most, those are not commercial at that point.
That would really be just the hobbyist type.
But, you know, they would be able to do that, but they'd also have to pass a test.
They'd have to ensure that they followed the safety rules.
So, again, no free lunch here.
There are requirements that they would have to meet.
And back to the threat to military installations, the compromised version of the fiscal 2025 NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, includes a provision that says that the Department of Defense has to create a counter-drone strategy.
Dan, is there no counter-drone strategy currently for the Defense Department that one needs to be created?
Yeah, I have not seen a counter drone strategy, so I think.
But we've been dealing with drones for a long time, Dan.
I mean, how is this not already strategy?
Well, I mean, I think we have policies, but they're not as comprehensive as a strategy.
I mean, for example, the Department of Defense over the last two or three years has been working on something called the Replicator Program.
And its core, the Replicator program, is trying to bring smaller, but also kind of medium-sized drones that can be used very effectively on the battlefield.
And think of them as one-way trips.
They're not intended to come back.
They're intended to be used as munitions and to attack and things like that.
But it's trying to get more drones into the force, recognizing that, you know, even though they seem like tactical weapons, they actually have had strategic effects when you look at what's happened in Ukraine.
Well, tell us a little bit more about what's happening in Ukraine and what we've learned about how drones are deployed in war as a result of that war in Ukraine.
Yeah, so a couple things.
I would start out by saying we may have seen the death of large drones.
And I say that because it turns out large drones that fly at relatively slow speeds, certainly under 100 miles an hour, are very vulnerable to air defenses.
And so what you're seeing is more about using smaller drones with very capable mission packages going after targets very effectively.
You know, we've also seen how, for example, Ukraine, which doesn't even have a real Navy, was able to essentially destroy about 50% of the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol and also cause the other 50% to have to leave that region because otherwise they would have been destroyed as well.
So here you have a country with no Navy that has destroyed a, you know, obviously a country with a very, very large Navy.
So that's, I think, very interesting.
You know, the idea of not just aerial drones, but in Ukraine, they've used naval drones very effectively.
So I think that's something else we're seeing that there's a reason why these kinds of autonomous systems or unmanned systems can be very useful.
All right.
There's a lot of people who want to talk to you.
So let me start with Phil in Brooklyn, New York.
Phil, go ahead.
You're on with Dan Gerstein.
Good morning.
I understand what you're saying about shooting those drones down and debris falling down, hurting cadets.
But these drones could be spreading some type of chemical germ warfare into the air and into the water.
So, I mean, maybe a few casualties from fallen debris might be an answer, but within two or three weeks, you start seeing people getting sick, dying from some type of spray chemicals from these drones.
Thank you.
Yeah, look, I agree.
This is all based on a risk assessment.
And you have to think about what are the options and come up with the least risky option.
So, if we had reason to believe that, for example, a stadium was about to be attacked with a chemical weapon from deployed from a drone, then I think we would have to look at whether or not it was worth taking that risk.
And we would, you know, I won't want to speak for operational commanders and law enforcement, but I could see them saying we have to get that out of the sky.
And that would, you know, cause that sort of engagement.
Jeremy is in Madison, Wisconsin.
Hi, Jeremy.
Hi.
Thank you for CSPAN.
Sir, thank you very much.
Thank you for your clarity and your clear use of language here.
Just a couple of things.
I'm never going to forget when I was talking to my logic professor, my probabilistic causation professor more than two decades ago about him counting cards in Vegas, Area 51.
How if you identify an unidentified flying object, unidentified flying object has been identified as an unidentified flying object.
But here in Madison, like you're, you're, I'm so appreciative of how you're talking about how you could use technology to land such a thing very harmlessly safely.
And sometimes here in Madison, like just above the Capitol, we see the weirdest things just above that airspace, just right above.
And simple things like that.
I mean, I wouldn't take that necessarily as a form of a threat.
If I see countless planes or like small little drones right above our capital, you know, maybe if I see it, I'm looking and I'm looking at pedestrians or looking at people around the capital and I'm looking right above me.
And at some points, I mean, if technology can just land such a thing harmlessly, why would we rate hyperbole here?
And I appreciate your clarity here.
Okay, Jeremy.
Well, again, I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all.
I think it's a risk assessment.
You have to look at what's happening.
I'll just say that after, you know, the amount of time I've got in government in a range of military operations from combat to counterterrorism to peace operations to Homeland Security, you know, I think about all the risks.
And when I see things flying above places where I have a question about, you know, shouldn't there be a no-fly zone, I get very concerned.
And you'll, you know, it may not, to the average person, it may not seem this way, but, you know, there is a whole group of organizations and people that respond when there say something like the Super Bowl, there are specialized rules put in place and specialized ways in which we protect those kinds of events.
And so it's all based on risk.
You cannot defend everything.
We know that.
And so what we're trying to do is identify those things that are most at risk.
And if there is a warning, if we have some intelligence that says a particular facility is at risk, we'll certainly turn toward that.
I will say just as an aside on these drones, I mean, what we used to say in the military was first reports are always wrong.
And so now, you know, we've heard a lot about drones.
And then all of a sudden, we're finding that a lot of these may actually be just small manned aircraft.
And so I don't think that we've done a very good job in talking to the American people, to the state and local representatives about what we know about this, what is known about this.
So I think clarity for that group is also very important.
So, Dan, aside from lack of communication, how do you think the federal and state and local officials have been handling the situation over New York and New Jersey?
I think there's a lot of room for improvement.
And what I would say is, I attended a hearing that occurred.
It was a House hearing on drones.
And the state representatives, of course, were grilling the federal authorities.
There was one from the Department of Justice, one from the FBI, and one from Customs and Border Protection.
And I think there was pretty clear recognition that the state and local really need help.
They need help with equipment.
They need help with intelligence and knowledge about these threats.
And they understand that they need training.
And so there's a lot of work to be done in this space.
And I don't think, you know, to take this back to, you know, how did we do in New Jersey and around the country where we've had these potential drone sightings, I don't think we've had the clarity in our discussions that we needed to have.
And that created more ambiguity and fear among the people.
And that hearing that you referenced from the House is on our website in its entirety at c-span.org.
If anybody would like to take a look at that.
Johnny in Dearborn, Michigan, you're on with Dan Gerstein.
Hello.
I've seen online people say maybe it's a government agency or something and looking for like a sensitive item that might be loose out there, like a rogue chemical weapon or something of that nature.
What do you think?
Well, you know, you're asking me to speculate.
Just having served a lot in the government, I would say that at this point, I don't think the government would be very interested in perpetrating such a ruse.
You know, this has become a very emotional subject for many who are watching what they think are drones nightly.
And so I don't necessarily see that.
I don't think the government would keep that going.
Let's talk to Dale in Chardonnay, Ohio.
Yeah, how are you this morning?
Good.
Fine, thank you.
Good.
Hey, as far as the drones being able to fly all over, I know in Ohio, I'm not sure about the whole country, but to fly a remote control plane, helicopter, you actually have to be a license and you have to be a member of a group to fly that aircraft out of an area.
You just can't go fly it in your backyard.
And they need to apply something like that to the drones.
It would be simple, in my opinion.
And the other part about all these drones being spot on the East Coast, they say it's not the government.
They say it's not the police officer.
So, in my opinion, you got two bad.
You either got local people doing it, and they're kind of doing it as a joke now because they're getting so much publicity about it, or it is a bad actor.
And as far as aircraft, they're saying it's aircraft.
Can they not go around to local airports and say, hey, were these flights out up there flying at that time?
It kind of makes you wonder why they can't come up with a conclusion of what it is.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
Well, I mean, I addressed this partially in my opening remarks, but I would say that these operators are required to be licensed.
FAA requires that, even for the smaller ones, you're supposed to register, you're supposed to take courses.
And so I think they would agree with you.
I'm not saying that everybody always does that.
I forgot.
What was the second one again, very quickly?
About if they were manned aircraft, wouldn't the, I guess the FAA or the airports would have a record of that.
And so they would, because all those aircraft must have transponders.
The size of that aircraft would require them.
So that is knowable.
And I think that what you're starting to see is that as they're unpacking this, they're realizing that there are a lot of manned aircraft that are flying in these airspaces, and they're being confused for large drones.
And when I say large, I mean what the reports are saying is the drones are the equivalent of a small car, think about six feet or something like that.
It could easily be a drone, it wouldn't weigh as much as a small car.
Or it could be a small plane that's being misidentified.
And this is Judy in Phoenix, Arizona.
Hi, Judy.
Hey.
I know the thought occurred to me when these drones first start were first put out on the market and stuff.
Private citizens could, oh, this will be kind of fun.
Let's play with this.
The first thought occurred to me is, I don't think that's a good idea for private citizens to have this as a toy to play with.
So I wish the government would put a ban on any private citizens being able to get their hands on those objects so that at some point maybe down the road, once they're pretty much weeded out of private hands, that if this situation comes up again, then it's got to be some kind of government or something nefarious or something.
But I don't think private citizens should be able to operate these.
All right, Judy.
Dan, what do you think about drones being banned for personal use?
So, you know, I think the nature of technology is that all technologies are dual use and at some time or another have been used for purposes other than what they were intended and even in some cases in dangerous manners.
But like if I were to say, Judy, what do you think about commercial applications such as, you know, use of drone technology to do relief operations after disasters?
And, you know, here you would have state and locals, you would have state and local governments, you might have private citizens.
You know, what if we were to say scientific research?
We're looking at putting drones into hurricanes so that as they're coming, we would be able to get a kind of a real-time sensing, not just flying the hurricane hunters in for a period of time and then they leave, but actually being able to track that.
What about when the Ebola occurred in West Africa, they were using drone technology run by civilians to take samples that were taken from people who they suspected of having Ebola and flying it 15 minutes to a local hospital.
If they had driven that, it would have taken 10 hours.
And so, you know, think about the good that comes out of the use of these technologies, the drone technologies, but also, you know, the other technologies where, you know, we have seen misuses.
So I do think there are real reasons why having these technologies can benefit society.
It's how they're used.
It's not the technology itself that is inherently good or bad.
And I think we just have to be cognizant of that, be cautious about that.
I want to show you the proposed drone legislation and get your comments on it, Dan.
This is the Counter-UAS Authority Security Safety and Reauthorization Act coming out of the House.
It would have these provisions.
Expand authority to protect airports, power plants, oil refineries, chemical facilities, and higher risk prisoner transports.
Allow state and local law enforcement to use federally approved counter-drone technologies.
And permit critical infrastructure operators to deploy vetted drone detection capabilities to safeguard their facilities.
What do you think of those?
So a couple things.
I think that legislation is actually not necessarily all new.
It's about a reauthorization.
So it's already in place.
And what they want to do is both reauthorize it, so allow it to continue to operate, and they want to expand it some.
They want to help out the state and local authorities.
And so this isn't sort of this brand new revolution, but rather, you know, just kind of continuing to try to push down understandings and then proliferate it to others.
And so from that standpoint, if you listen to the representatives who were at the testimony, that's what they were calling for.
They asked for help, and they're looking for the federal government to come in and assist and not take over anything, but really to help them with this training, the identification, and everything else in between.
So while at RAN, we're not supposed to comment directly on legislation, you know, from what I've heard and looking at how they reacted, I think that it seems appropriate.
Darlene in Florida, good morning.
Darlene, yes.
Yes, I have a question and comment.
First of all, it appears that these drones are fairly large.
And it's since there's, quote, so many right at the moment, why don't these companies, if they're owned by companies, why don't they just notify the government, whether it be the mayor of the town or the governor or even Washington, let them know, hey, it's us and we're flying around.
This is why we're flying around.
I mean, I don't understand why they just don't notify.
Well, that's all.
Who, Darlene, the owner of the drone, the operator of the drone, like the drone pilot?
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
I mean, because it seems like the drones are really large.
So I'm sure that's, well, I wouldn't, I don't say I'm sure, but probably that might be by a company that has it.
Maybe they're doing experiments or whatever, but just notify, and that way it'd take away a lot of the fear and questions.
All right.
Dan?
So if they are that large, they have to have transponders.
I mean, that would be required by law.
And it appears that, you know, what we're hearing now is that a lot of these are actually manned aircraft that are legitimately flying around and being misidentified as drones.
There may be drones that are also out there.
They haven't really talked.
They haven't, you know, the reports that I've seen have not really talked about whether or not they're getting hits off of transponders.
So that would be the electronic signature.
So it's, this is where I said first reports are always wrong.
It's not really clear what is happening, and we don't have enough information being put out on it that sort of says, you know, these are the numbers of legitimate, you know, manned aircraft.
These are the ones that are drone unmanned systems.
Here's Eddie in Peoria, Illinois.
Good morning, Eddie.
Good morning.
My question is: technology is amazing.
And my question is: these unmanned planes and these drones, are they the same or are they different avenues?
But my real question is to Mr. Daniel: if this is within his expertise, how did those balloons come over to the United States on the West Coast and get so far into the interior of the United States?
That's my question.
The Chinese spy balloon, Dan.
Yeah, so it's again, you know, we with the Chinese balloon, I mean, they had their story and said it was a weather balloon and such.
And, you know, we had our feeling about what we were seeing.
But, you know, these balloons are difficult to track as they fly across international spaces.
They do, this actually occurs more frequently than one would think, but it doesn't always look like it did when that was occurring.
You know, that looked like it was almost going along a planned route or such, and it hit a number of what I would say interesting areas if you had an intelligence question.
So I mean, some of it is just, you know, again, you don't want to shoot things down.
We were interested in also understanding, I say we, the United States, was interested in understanding, you know, what this balloon was doing.
And we didn't want to shoot it down and then unpredictably have it land somewhere and perhaps hurt people or destroy property.
And so that was the calculus that was made.
And, you know, there was a lot, obviously, a lot of heat about some of the decisions associated with that.
Claude in Portland, Oregon, you're next.
Yeah, I was just wondering, I'm not too familiar with the New Jersey drones, but like when they had the UFOs over Phoenix, I'm just wondering why local TV stations don't send their helicopters to try to track it down, do some investigating.
Well, knowing a little bit about some of these issues associated with these unidentified flying objects, and they've now changed the name.
But what's happened is, you know, a lot of the claims that have been made by a lot of them have been military pilots too, who have said they have seen anomalous behaviors by aircraft and they're unable to identify the aircraft.
Some of them are moving so rapidly.
I mean, they literally are, they look like they're moving from Side of the cockpit to the other side in less than a snap of a finger.
And so, what you're really seeing is that a lot of those have turned out to be explained anomalies.
They've been able to say, yeah, that had to do with some sort of, I'll call it a visual aura that may have occurred within cockpits and such.
Now, I know the pilots believe that or believe that something happened.
We're still sorting through some of that as well, but of the 200 or so that they were working on, there were still some that remained anomalous and they couldn't explain, but others they thought they had explained away.
Jerry in Broadway, Virginia.
Good morning.
Yeah, good morning.
Look, these drones have been flying over military bases.
And the commander of any military base, if an aircraft invades their space and does not have a transponder or does not respond to radio communications, then they not only have the authority, they have a responsibility to send planes up or helicopters up and find out what that is and take it down if necessary.
And as far as our government's saying they do not know what these are, look, we have satellites up there that can read my name on my mailbox.
And they tell us that they do not know what these are.
That's baloney.
What do you say about that?
Well, I mean, to your first point about, you know, they should be able to go up and shoot them down.
Let me just say that, you know, some of this seems counter.
But for example, in the hearing the other day, they talked about 20,000 encounters across the southern border of unmanned aerial systems.
And the congressman asked the question: well, if there were 20,000, why were only 68 brought down?
And the answer was because most of the rest of them were on Mexican territory.
And according to international law, you are not allowed to shoot into another nation's territory or even use frequencies, radio frequencies, to bring it down or to engage it without getting some sort of coordination and approval from the host nation that you would be working with or having to work with.
And so, you know, it sounds like, I mean, what you're saying sounds reasonable, but then there are so many jurisdictional issues.
Even for federal posts that are located in places here in the United States, you know, those federal posts live within communities.
Local authorities have some degree of control.
Then states have states' rights.
And so, you know, you have to work through all those questions.
And that's, I think, what you're seeing.
And there's a lot of uncertainty, and there's still not a lot of what I would like to see is very clear speaking on the issue.
But I think we're coming to terms with, yes, there are some unmanned aerial systems out there, but there are also a lot of these smaller manned aircraft.
And we need to do a better job communicating this because I think it's caused a lot of emotion and a lot of concern and angst within the communities, within the states where this has occurred.
So I definitely am concerned about it.
I'll just say one footnote too.
You know, there have been unexplained drone activities, like in the United Kingdom, flying over four of, I think, three or four of our bases out there, Lake and Heath, Mendenhall, Fairford.
So, you know, there is concern about that, too.
Those have happened November 20th through the 26th of this year.
So, you know, there are certainly concerns about people using drones and using them for surveillance and intelligence purposes.
Jerry Sewell, New Jersey, you're next, Jerry.
Yes, good morning.
Listen, the one concern I have, and I still don't get why we can't ban all drones until we know exactly what's going on here, because I'm going to tell you something.
My concern, I'm a registered Democrat, and my concern is that I think the government is going to be exposed in the next four years, the government, the FBI.
I think they know it, that they're going to be exposed for a lot of what they've been doing.
And I think that I'm worried about them because they're flying these things over Trump's Minster home.
And my concern is that they're pre like pre-whatever they're doing to take our own president out.
He's been an attempted assassination twice.
I don't trust these things.
I don't trust the government.
And because they're not telling us anything, I trust them even less.
So why aren't we banning these things until we really get to the bottom of everything?
And I'm talking about what's going to be exposed with the FBI and all.
And you could see it coming because they're scared to appoint his people, so something's going on.
So, yeah, we need to ban them.
I don't think there's any question about that.
And get this straightened out, and then they'll be allowed to go back up.
And then, of course, with restrictions.
Thank you.
And then drones flying over or near President-elect Trump's properties.
Wouldn't that be a Secret Service concern, Dan?
It would indeed.
And, you know, the Secret Service actually, when I was in government, the Secret Service actually had a counter-drone program.
So I won't say any more about that for obvious reasons, but they're very concerned about that threat.
They think about it a lot.
And, you know, they have to protect every president and all, you know, high-value, if you will, potential targets.
So I expect that they will continue to do that.
They're a very professional organization.
We take one more call.
This is Ty in South Carolina.
Good morning, Ty.
Good morning.
This is, I think, the military-industrial complex.
And I want to explain it to you this way, and it's very simple.
If you look at all the stuff that America ends up creating, then you get other countries to create something to combat it.
For example, we started this missile defense, trillions of dollars into building it.
And then it caused other countries to go with hypersonic missiles to outwit it.
So we wasted all that money.
And with drones, we started with the drones.
Look at Ukraine now.
We use them in Afghanistan.
Now they're everywhere.
Now they are a threat to America itself.
Any citizen, you've got all these people over here from other countries.
It's bad with the U.S. Anybody could put some chemical weapons on a drone, shoot it over, and let it come down.
So we created this problem.
You know, the military-industrial complex making all these dagger weapons that always end up back on us, and we suffer for it.
And it's all because of money.
All right, Ty, let's get an answer.
Go ahead, Dan.
Well, you know, I'll just go back to something I said before, and that is: look, there are a lot of legitimate purposes and a lot of very good outcomes from having drone technology.
And, you know, we need to think about those and how we can put in place the limitations and guardrails to ensure that the scenario the gentleman talked about doesn't occur.
And that's really where our focus needs to be.
So those limits need to be figured out.
The Federal Aviation Administration's FAA needs to have a serious role in this, as do federal, state, local law enforcement need to weigh in and make sure that we're doing things that are appropriate.
But at the end of the day, all technologies are dual use, and every technology has at some point been misused.
So it's really about the use case.
All right, Daniel Gerstein, Rand Corporation Senior Policy Researcher.
You can find his work at rand.org.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you for having me.
Still ahead on the Washington Journal.
Robin Maher, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, discusses calls for President Biden to commute federal death sentences before President-elect Donald Trump assumes office.
But first, it's open forum.
You can start calling in now.
Here are the lines.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
We'll be right back.
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.
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.
BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Next week, on the C-SPAN networks, the House and Senate are in session for their last scheduled week of work for the 118th Congress.
Both chambers are facing a December 20th deadline to pass government funding to avert a shutdown.
The Senate also plans to vote on the House Passed 2025 Defense Programs and Policy Bill, known as the NDAA.
On Tuesday, Charlie Baker, president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating the growth in legalized sports gambling since the Supreme Court's ruling in Murphy versus the NCAA.
Watch next week, live on the C-SPAN networks or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
Also, head over to C-SPAN.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
C-SPAN, your unfiltered view of government.
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.
We're in open forum and look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments on our lines.
Real quick, here's the New York Times that has this article, a very senatorial goodbye, nostalgia, legacy, and gratitude live on C-SPAN.
The farewell address is a Senate ritual that reflects the culture of the chamber, which prizes tradition, individual relationships, lofty debates, and long-winded speeches.
Well, you can see all those, quote, long-winded speeches on our website at c-span.org, along with all of our other archives, hearings, and other debates.
James, you're on Open Forum in Rome, Georgia, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Good morning.
What I like to talk about is, you know, the history of the United States, so we can, you know, we can bring this back to what's going on.
People come here talking about they don't want no socialism and this and all that.
But when those people come from Cuba, Germany, Russia, you know what they bring?
Italy.
They bring their communism, their fascism.
That's what they bring to the United States.
Black people, we've suffered now.
What are these people going to go through?
These Hispanics and talking about deportation to these people, they voted for it.
The Hispanic men voted for this.
Give it to them.
Democrat, black people, leave Robert F. Kennedy alone.
We need to find out what's been going on with the scientists and black people, these experiments that they have been making on them.
He should have got rid of James.
He should have gotten rid of rape and put somebody else in there.
I constantly called and asked them to do that so they could find out what was actually going on.
And now he runs like a coward.
Look, Emma, stop coming over here talking about socialism.
Black people, we've been in slavery.
The Indians have been in genocide.
Jim Crow, racism, discrimination, you talking about over here.
We were citizens, couldn't even go on certain streets, couldn't go in certain businesses over here.
So, Cuba, Rubio, you keep your racism and socialism in Cuba.
And y'all keep all of them.
All right, James, got it.
Kathleen and Satellite Beach, Florida, Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I was calling about the Senate and the process of chasing the secretaries.
Yes, confirmation hearings.
Yes, I heard that Elon Musk was going to pay a million dollars out for every person they're trying to confirm.
And if any of the senators vote against the confirmation, he'll use that million dollars to primary them in their next election.
So what I was hoping that the Senate does is as a group, all 100 of them pledge together to confirm or not confirm these people because a lot of them are just unfit for office.
And then that way, Musk can't go after an individual senator when it's time for reelection.
I just say, I just hope that the Senate really gets strong, works together, because they're our last hope to stop some of these horrible people that Trump is trying to confirm.
And Kathleen, here is an article about what you were talking about from Fortune magazine.
It says, Elon Musk warns Republicans standing in Trump's way that he will fund primary challenges to them.
It says that a week after Donald Trump's victory, Musk said his political action committee would play a significant role in primaries.
It says the billionaire responded to a report that he might fund challengers to GOP House members who don't support Trump's nominees.
How, quote, how else?
There is no other way, Musk wrote on X, which he rebranded after purchasing Twitter and moving to boost conservative voices, including his own.
And this is Kathy, Waynesboro, Georgia, Republican line.
Yes, hi.
I want to respond to that first caller or the caller in the first hour on the Hollywood access tape about President Trump, what he said.
He said that they would, quote unquote, let you.
He didn't say that the woman, or he didn't say he would do it.
He said that they would, quote unquote, let you.
They have to go back.
He said they just let you, yes.
They let you.
Okay.
And on the him being a quote unquote 34 felon criminal and a sexual assault person, those trials were scams.
So he is not a 34 count criminal and a sexual assault person.
He denied all of that.
So that he is denied that.
And then also on the, I watched that Blinken hearing on C-SPAN, and I saw the same thing that the other guy saw, but his was a different hearing.
But the Republicans would like get cut out.
The tape would like stop and pause really fast, like seconds.
And that was very good.
I just want to say that that might be an issue with your cable, with your TV.
But you can always go back online at c-span.org.
You can look for that hearing.
The full hearing is there online for you.
And there's also the points of interest that you can find certain points very easily so you don't have to go through the whole thing if you don't want to.
Mike, Rockford, Illinois, Independent Line.
Morning.
Tomorrow being the anniversary of the ratifying of the Bill of Rights, maybe we can not do the intelligent agents talking points each segment of Washington Journal for the next 10 days, but do a segment that really will spice it up.
As in, could we be being deceived with these drones for new legislation to police?
As you read off the article of the new legislation they want to do with all different stuff now.
Also, when Hunter was given the pass a couple days ago to get it out of the news, all of a sudden we see the assassination of a bigwig.
And now everybody wants to police the bigwigs.
Could this all be part of the police state?
And if we spice up these segments all the way to Christmas, could we do a segment about our government buildings being sold, our post offices being sold, and who owns it and who bought them?
Mike, I don't know what you mean by spice up the segments.
I think they're already spicy.
But I'm glad you brought up the Bill of Rights because you're right.
That is tomorrow, the anniversary, and we are having a segment on that for Bill of Rights Day tomorrow.
So make sure you watch that.
This is Lori in Hamburg, Pennsylvania, Democrat.
Hi, Lori.
Hi, I'm just wanting to, I'd like to let Democrats know not to back down right now, stand up and try to broaden our coalition because we're stuck in this 50-50, and that's why we have such a populist movement right now.
And that's why Trump has taken great advantage of that.
And so what let me ask you, Lori, what do you think?
Who else would you include in that coalition?
How would you expand the coalition?
By talking to each other, like with drones, with the drones, with immigration.
We need our representatives working on these issues that affect us.
People are panicking over these drones because a lot of even Democrats I heard yelling about because I think they think they have to act like that now or they'll be accused of not caring about these things in the air.
But we need our representatives to work on our challenges to like both party systems have broken down.
I think this is the longest period in history that we've had a 50-50 pretty much split in our country.
And it's not good for us.
By people not believing in their government, they're panicking.
I'm not worried about the drones.
I figured that, you know, if there was something dangerous going on, my government would let me know.
They would just, they would let me know because, I mean, we've had been safe since 9-11.
Apparently, the FBI, the institutions are doing their job.
But what bothers me a lot also is for a long time now, there's been gerrymandering, there's been primary and put that that way.
They have scorecards.
You know, if they don't score well, if they don't vote the way that these money donors want them to, they send primary people in.
And it's a populist movement, and it's all, I'm more worried about getting an immigration policy, getting a fair tax policy, having representatives that are paying attention to what I need and what my concerns are.
Housing.
There's so many homeless people in America right now.
It's sad.
And it's not because they're lazy rolling drugs.
They work full-time jobs.
It's because the rent has just skyrocketed.
So, Lori, you did mention those drones, and I wanted to just update people from the Associated Press.
What do we know about the mysterious drones reported flying over New Jersey?
It says that a large number of mysterious drones have been reported flying over parts of New Jersey in recent weeks, sparking speculation and concern over who sent them and why.
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, law enforcement officials stressed that drones don't appear to be a threat to public safety.
Many state and municipal lawmakers have nonetheless called for stricter rules about who can fly the unmanned aircraft.
It says this, dozens of witnesses have reported seeing drones in New Jersey starting in November.
At first, the drones were spotted flying along the scenic Raritan River, a waterway.
And it says, but soon sightings were reported statewide, including near the Piketini Arsenal, a U.S. military research and manufacturing facility, and over President-elect Donald Trump's golf course in Bedminster.
The aircraft have also recently been spotted in coastal areas.
Representative, U.S. Representative Chris Smith said a Coast Guard commanding officer told him a dozen drones closely followed a Coast Guard lifeboat near Barnegat Light and Island Beach State Park in Ocean City over the weekend.
You can read the rest of that article at apnews.com.
Gordon, Kansas City, Kansas, Republican, good morning.
Morning, Mimi.
Thank you for taking my call.
I wanted to talk to the guy from the Rand Corporation so bad because back in 2008 when I was still working as a carpenter general foreman, they hired me and six, five other carpenters.
And we went to the, it was a secret type place that you had to look through all your stuff all the time.
You had to be walked around the facility with a guard and they took us to a room.
We stayed in that room for a whole week.
We did nothing.
And then they laid us off that weekend.
You didn't do any work?
No, we did nothing.
And they told us to just hunker down.
They were going to find us something to do.
And the RAND company is the guy called in about the military industrial complex.
That is the military industrial complex.
And they're the ones that charge $7 for a toilet seat or whatever, a roll of toilet paper or whatever.
The RAND Corporation has millions and probably billions of dollars worth of contracts with our government.
And as far as the drones, I wouldn't doubt that our FBI and DHS and all of them don't know what it is because they're stupid and they don't have anybody coming to work.
Thank you.
James in California, Independent Line.
Hi, James.
Thank you, ma'am.
I would like to address the first caller from Georgia.
I'm a black man, just so it's understood.
And I get tired of these black people that are calling up about slavery and Jim Crowism.
It's not a problem of today.
I don't understand.
What is their purpose?
What is the purpose of slavery, Jim Crowism?
Black people.
The problems of today are not the problems of yesterday and 200 years ago.
That's why, in many ways, we are so far behind because we are focused on the raw issues.
Better look at this AI.
Better look at this custody Musk and his friend are going to make.
The job changes, the education.
It just gets to me that they're so hung up.
So many of our black people are hung up on this slavery issue.
Thank you.
And just to update you on some news from Axios, former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has been hospitalized.
She sustained a serious injury to her hip, was hospitalized during a congressional visit to Luxembourg, and that was as a result of a fall.
John in Brooklyn, New York, Democrat, good morning.
Good morning.
How are you?
I want to make three points.
I want to let everybody know.
First, I wonder how could it be such a close election?
Trump won by one and a half points and no recalls.
I mean, it's no harm in recalling an election where he won by one point, one and a half points.
That's one of my points I want to make.
The next one I want to make is don't worry about Trump and that crazy stuff he's talking with these people that don't know what they're doing.
We have an answer.
We can cut him off in the mid-election.
So focus on what he's doing, wait to the mid-election, and then we can cut him off.
So don't worry.
Let him go ahead and put all those people in there that don't know what he's talking about.
He don't know what they're talking about.
And we'll get him in the mid-election.
Number three, give me a minute.
With these, the guy that just said about slavery, we're still worried about it.
Slavery is still in effect in America, but it's in a different way.
It's in a more hidden state.
We still have lots of slavery in Africa.
So don't that just call about slavery?
We still have slavery going on with blacks.
We don't get debates redline us.
People judge us by our color before they know who we are.
I'd like to snap the lady out of her suspension of disbelief when she talked about Donald Trump saying they let me.
The suspension of disbelief, it's a comedic device that allows the listener to suspend logic and common sense.
She was telling the story in the incorrect order.
If she listened to the Billy Bush tape, Donald Trump actually said, I see a beautiful woman.
I just go into a rut.
I grab her by the hair.
I drag her into my cave.
I have my way with her.
And she loves it.
That's not a real thing.
And as far as the drones go, drones have, I think America's been hypersensitized to drones because drones have been around for 175 years, mostly in war, especially over in Afghanistan.
I mean, we have drones blowing up weddings and buildings with one person in them, cars just driving around.
But now, when the drones are in a white neighborhood, they see death and destruction.
Drones have been around in black neighborhoods forever.
I tell you, you know, solve the drone problem.
Call George Clinton on the mothership.
He'll take care of it.
And Mimi, I got one bone to pick with you.
It's just not fair that you look great in everything.
Gobble gobble.
Bye-bye.
Tom in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Democrat line.
Hi, Tom.
Hi, I was just calling about two things.
One is Elon Musk and threatening our legislators with his money.
I think it's time that the legislators, the Senate, the House wake up and get the money out of politics.
We cannot have one man threatening our government like this.
The other one is the CEO was murdered for the health care.
It's also time to get the money out of health care.
Let's go to Medicare for all, non-all-inclusive Medicare for all.
Thank you.
And here's Charles in Fort Lee, New Jersey, Independent Line.
Good morning, Charles.
Good morning.
The problem with the drones is indicative of the people's response that the government, the Democratic government, doesn't seem to respond to things that the people feel is important.
You can go into what happened with the train derailment, look at the hurricanes.
The Democrat authorities in this country don't seem to be responsive, whereas Republicans do seem to be responsive.
Trump shows up.
And so when you have thousands of people, it seems, concerned with drones, and the Democrats who are in charge of the government seem to be unresponsive.
It's indicative of why the Democrats lost.
Democrats have not learned a lesson.
You have to listen to the people.
Republicans seem to listen to the people.
That's my concern.
That's my statement.
And I think people should really understand that Republicans seem to be more responsive to the problems that Americans seem to be expressing.
Groceries and oil and so on.
But in this case, it's the drones.
No response from the government after a month and a half other than everything's okay when they have no idea what the hell is even going on.
Thank you very much.
All right, Charles.
And here is Ava in Columbia, Mississippi, Republican.
Hi, Ava.
Good morning.
Thank you.
The person that called in about Elon Musk and money for the parties and the legislature, I don't have come in on that part of it.
I just want to say I did not hear one Democrat complain when George Soros was about buying, and he's from some other country, buying DAs and judges around the country against Republicans.
Not one time did they voice.
That shows that they're hypocrites.
They're two-faced.
So watch out if you meet one in the hallway.
They're two-faced.
You can't care which way they're going.
And happy Christmas to everybody.
This is also some news for you from the New York Times.
South Korea's president has been impeached over the martial law crisis.
It says that celebrations broke out in Seoul after lawmakers voted to impeach President Yoon-suk-yool.
He vowed to fight removal in the country's constitutional court.
Joe, Tampa, Florida, Democrat.
Hi, Joe.
Hey, good morning, everyone.
I just wanted to talk about the move to bring back government workers to the office.
You know, people who've been really comfortable working from home.
And I think that is probably going to lead to a lot of people resigning.
You're not going to have enough people to actually do the work.
The same move is happening in corporate America, but I don't think it's a good move because I think after COVID, people realize that they can actually work better from home with less distractions.
So yeah, just be on the lookout for less people working and possibly resigning from office.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
And here is Tim in Minnesota, Republican.
Hi, Tim.
Hello.
How are you?
Doing great.
I just think it's great that somebody like me can call in and speak out on some of these national issues.
So there's just so many of them.
You know, on Elon Musk and his money, You know, he's just bringing something that's happening in the background to the foreground.
If you think, if people think, you know, he's the one of the first guys to support politicians with money and influence, you're just sadly mistaken.
It's happening all the time.
On the election, you know, I'm from Minnesota.
It's such a blue state, but I've voted for Democrats before, and the Democratic Party shot itself in the head.
You know, Biden committed to being a one-term president.
He did his job.
He beat Trump.
He was supposed to step aside.
Dean Phillips from Minnesota was the only guy publicly that said, you know, the guys ran against him and he lost.
What did you think of Dean Phillips?
Do you, since you're from Minnesota, would you have voted for him?
Had he been the nominee?
No, I probably would have.
You know, there was no alternative.
There wasn't a good alternative to Trump, in my opinion, partly because, you know, Kamala Harris wasn't elected.
There was no debate on Kamala.
She wasn't the best option.
And if Trump or if Biden would have resigned or let it, you know, not run, they would have come up with a better candidate.
And I think any better candidate would have beat Trump.
But Republicans didn't have an alternative.
All right.
Here's James in Aiken, South Carolina, Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
The caller that called in about Trump touching people.
She said that, you know, they say it's okay.
How do you know it's okay?
I mean, you got to touch someone.
That's all the time we've got, and we are having our next segment with Robin Maher.
She is executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.
She'll discuss calls for President Biden to commute federal death sentences before President-elect Donald Trump assumes office.
We'll be right back next week on the C-SPAN networks, the House and Senate are in session for their last scheduled week of work for the 118th Congress.
Both chambers are facing a December 20th deadline to pass government funding to avert a shutdown.
The Senate also plans to vote on the House Pass 2025 Defense Programs and Policy Bill, known as the NDAA.
On Tuesday, Charlie Baker, president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating the growth in legalized sports gambling since the Supreme Court's ruling in Murphy versus the NCAA.
Watch next week, live on the C-SPAN networks or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
Also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
C-SPAN, your unfiltered view of government.
New York City real estate developer Larry Silverstein acquired a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center just weeks before the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Sunday night on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. Mr. Silverstein, author of The Rising, shares stories about the rebuilding of the World Trade Center complex following the attacks and discusses the business, political, and engineering challenges he faced during his 20-year rebuilding effort.
I said, it's got to be replaced.
Because if you don't, Loman has going to become a ghost town.
People are going to leave it.
They'll never come back.
I said, secondly, If we don't rebuild it, we're going to give the terrorists exactly what they want.
I said, this is an attack, not on the Twin Towers, nothing like that.
Much more so serious.
It's an attack on America and everything we stand for.
So we have an obligation to rebuild it.
Larry Silverstein with his book, The Rising, Sunday night at 8 Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A.
And you can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app.
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 to talk about the death penalty in the U.S. is Robin Marr.
I've been pronouncing it wrong this whole day.
She's the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.
Robin, welcome.
Hi, Mimi.
It's great to be back.
So tell us about the Death Penalty Information Center and how you're funded.
Yes, thank you.
We are a national nonprofit organization.
We provide information, data, and analysis to the media, to lawmakers, and to the public about how the death penalty is used in the United States.
We're not an advocacy organization.
We are an information center.
So does that mean you do not take a position on the death penalty?
No, we don't have policy.
We're not seeking abolition, but we do have a small cold.
Sorry about that.
We do think it's important for people to understand all the facts when they're talking about how the death penalty is used in the United States.
Let's talk about some of those facts because there have been calls for President Biden to commute the federal death sentences before he leaves office.
How many individuals are there on federal death row?
Right, there are 40 men who currently have an active death sentence on the federal row.
So what does that mean, the federal row, and is there a state death penalty and what's the difference?
Yeah, that's one of the challenges about talking about the death penalty.
Every state makes a choice about whether it will use the death penalty.
Right now there are 27 states that have the option of using the death penalty.
The federal government also has a separate system, as does the military.
So there are really three different kinds of systems.
And of course, among the states, there are many differences about how they choose to use the death penalty or not.
Well, let's first let me ask you about what happens when a death sentence is commuted.
Does that immediately become life without parole or what actually happens?
Right.
Well, this is a point of confusion.
When we talk about the power that President Biden has, his clemency power, which is constitutionally granted, really is an umbrella term for a lot of things that he could do.
For example, for his son, Hunter, that was a pardon.
That was a very different kind of clemency grant.
What we're only talking about for these 40 men on the federal row is a change of their sentence from a death sentence to life without the possibility of parole.
That's really the only option, and that's what would happen if President Biden decides to go that route.
And can these decisions ever be reversed?
Can that person be put to death later under another president?
You know, I've been asked that question.
That's never happened.
There's no precedent for that happening, and the law doesn't permit that from happening, doesn't permit that to happen.
But, you know, I can't say President Trump, being the kind of person he is, I don't know what he might do.
I think that we can say with some certainty that even President Trump respects the power of commutation and clemency, and I think he would probably leave it alone.
And what are the factors going into that kind of a decision?
Why would President Biden commute those sentences?
Well, there's lots of good reasons.
First of all, this is an enormous coalition of people who are attempting to persuade President Biden.
Organizations, racial justice organizations and civil rights organizations, many individuals, religious organizations and faith leaders like Pope Francis, who has been very vocally persuading, trying to persuade President Biden.
But we also have some unusual voices like a number of corrections officials, people who presided over executions.
We have elected members of Congress.
We have elected prosecutors, state officials, and probably most importantly, we have family members, people who've lost loved ones to violence, some to the very people who are on the federal death row now.
All of these people are calling on President Biden to commute these sentences because they see long-standing systemic problems with the federal death penalty, the way that it has been used.
We'll talk about some of those problems.
Sure.
Well, probably the most important is that it has been used in an arbitrary and racially discriminatory way.
This is an issue that has been studied repeatedly.
It's well documented.
Even DOJ officials have acknowledged these very serious concerns over the years.
So we see that predominantly the federal death penalty has been used against people of color and it's been used against people of color who have killed white people.
So we know that there is a very pronounced race of victim bias as well.
And we can see that in all of the statistics and all of the data that we've seen throughout the history of the death penalty.
For example, three out of four people who have been charged with a federal death sentence are people of color.
And that has been true since 1989.
So these are really powerful statistics.
We also know that the federal death penalty has many of the same problems that state death penalty systems have, which is to say we've had prosecutorial misconduct, we've had unreliable junk science, we've had terrible lawyering, all of which we know leads to unjust results.
And people who are sometimes innocent wrongfully convicted, but people certainly that didn't deserve death sentences as well ending up on death row.
And if you would like to join our conversation with Robin Maher, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, if you've got a question about the death penalty or a comment, you can call our lines.
Here's how they're split up.
If you support the death penalty, you can call us on 202-748-8000.
If you're opposed to the death penalty, it's 202-748-8001.
And if you're unsure, it is 202-748-8002.
Robin, I just want to show Gallup statistics on the question, are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?
And here's what it looks like.
So currently it's at 53% in favor, 44% opposed, and 2% at no opinion.
The trend though is interesting.
The not in favor or opposed to the death penalty seems to be or actually is trending up since the late 1990s.
What do you attribute that to?
Oh, lots of things.
Yeah, the long-term trend has been pretty significant.
Back from a time when almost 80% of the population supported use of the death penalty, we're now down to barely a majority of people, 53%.
And when you dig down into those numbers even further, you find that there are some really incredible generational differences.
For example, young adults now between the ages of 18 and 43, a majority of those young adults oppose the death penalty.
So we can see as we go forward, we're going to see, I think, growing disapproval of the death penalty.
But one thing that has been, I think, a real influencer on opinion has been the specter of innocent people on death row.
This year has been a particularly illustrative year.
We've seen several high-profile cases of people who have very credible evidence of innocence, who have been nonetheless unable to secure any kind of relief from the courts.
One of those men, Marcellus Williams, was executed in the state of Missouri in September.
His case drew more than a million, about a million and a half signatures from the general public trying to support a bid for clemency, which ultimately failed.
So there have been a number of very high-profile cases which is, I think, really shook the confidence of the American public about how accurately the death penalty can select those who are worthy of the death sentence.
And this Gallup poll backs up what you said about a generational shift.
It says drop in death penalty support led by younger generations.
Less than half of millennials and Gen Z are in favor of it for convicted murderers.
Now President Biden ran for president opposing the death penalty, but he has yet, during his term thus far, and it's coming to a close, commuted a federal death sentence.
How often have presidents used this power for the death penalty?
Well, we have seen examples of presidents using this in the past.
They're usually a number of individuals.
It's rare.
There are not many people on the federal death row.
We saw two cases under President Biden who received relief.
One was on the military row, was on the federal death row.
But, you know, the precedent for mass grants of clemency is pretty strong.
We have a number of state governors who have made decisions to clear all the people on their death rows eight different times in the modern death penalty era.
Clear them in what way?
Clear and commute everybody's sentence on the row and commute them to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
So, I mean, these are decisions that address legitimate public safety concerns.
No one is saying that these people are going to be released.
What it means is that they're going to die in prison.
It's a very harsh, very severe sentence, but it's an alternative to the execution.
Let's talk to callers, and we'll start with Nathaniel in Irvington, New Jersey.
Nathaniel, go ahead.
Hello.
Hi.
How are you guys doing?
Good morning.
First of all, I just want to thank Ms. Robbins for the great work that she's doing.
As a minority in this country, we do have, we do feel a sentiment that the death penalty deliberately targets us as a community unjustly.
And I've always had one issue with a lot of conservatives and full-life advocates is that there's so much on the front line for life at the beginning of the room.
But so many of them plant these stakes in the flag and just pushing for the death penalty.
So I've always felt like that's a walking contradiction amongst conservatives because how can you do so much for life at the beginning of life, but then in the end of life, middle of life, you're just so harsh and so much of a proponent of the death penalty.
So I would love to ask Ms. Roberts' opinion on that, but thank you for the great work you're doing and I will listen offline.
Thank you.
Oh, thank you so much.
I appreciate the comments.
Yeah, this is a really important subject.
You know, Americans have been used to the death penalty, dealing with the death penalty in their lives for many decades.
We've really had it since colonial days.
But what we're seeing in the past few decades is that most Americans are turning away from the death penalty.
They've really lost confidence both in its accuracy, but are also pretty concerned about the racist effect that they see in so many cases and also the tremendous cost.
You know, death penalty cases are the most expensive of all criminal cases in the federal system.
There was a study done in 2010 that documented that seeking a federal death sentence costs eight times more than seeking another kind of sentence, including life without the possibility of parole.
So for lots of reasons, I think taxpayers are looking at this issue and deciding this is not something that they want their taxpayer dollars invested in.
There are alternatives that they much prefer that will keep them just as safe.
Let's talk to Bruce in Laurel, Maryland.
Bruce, you oppose the death penalty.
Yeah, good morning.
She mentioned that the death penalty, all the people on the death row are men.
The bias against men compared to blacks is much higher.
They even use it in court.
You know, they say, well, should a black woman be convicted in the Manson family trial?
They use that, even though that was one of the rare cases where women got convicted, but they use that as evidence.
And you can see other times they'll say, should we give the death penalty to a woman?
So I think it's much higher than that against blacks.
Thank you very much.
Well, right now there are about 50 women on state death rows throughout the country.
You may remember that during the Trump administration, one woman on the federal death row was executed, Lisa Montgomery.
If you could talk about the methods of execution being employed and how that has evolved over time.
Right.
Well, that has been very interesting to watch.
The most common method is still lethal injection.
That's the method that most of the states still use and the federal government used during the Trump administration executions.
In recent years, some of the drugs that were typically used in lethal injections have become more difficult to secure.
They've also gotten a lot more expensive.
We know that in Utah, for example, Utah officials spent $200,000 to secure just three doses of pentabarbital for a recent execution.
So some of the states have looked to other methods.
Alabama is probably the most notable example.
They have decided to use nitrogen gas to suffocate prisoners to death.
They used that method three times this year.
But other states have looked at old methods.
South Carolina is looking at using the firing squad and the electric chair again.
So these are the same.
And sorry, why was the electric chair phased out?
Well, chiefly because people objected to what they were seeing.
There were some really horrible examples of people who were executed in an electric chair.
Some of them were set on fire.
These were really graphic, awful displays.
People reported, witnesses reported smelling flesh burning during the execution.
This didn't really sit well with the American public.
I mean, people didn't think that was something we should be doing as a modern, evolved society.
So, lethal injection was turned to as a way of using a very sort of peaceful, clinically appropriate way of executing people.
Of course, we saw that fall apart a few years ago when states began experimenting with different drugs, and we saw a number of botched executions, very painful executions where it looked like the prisoner was suffering quite a lot.
So, we still see problems with almost every method of execution.
Some of that has to do with the training of staff, some of it has to do with the drugs that are chosen.
And one additional complicating detail is the fact that most states shroud their protocols in secrecy.
So, the public and the media are not allowed to see what kind of information has gone into creating this protocol, what kind of experts were consulted, what kind of drugs, where the drugs were obtained from.
So, there are a lot of questions, and that leads to, I think, an increased risk that there will be another botched execution.
Have you ever witnessed an execution?
I have not.
I have not.
Let's talk to Ashton, who is in St. Petersburg, Florida, on the line for Unsure.
Hi, Ashton.
Hello, ma'am.
How are you?
Good.
So, I had a question about the death penalty.
With there's the issue of when a new president comes into office.
Does said president take responsibility for previous president's death penalty statement?
Death penalty statement, meaning if he commutes any sentences?
Yeah, it's like if the previous president and he wants him to go ahead and pass away, then the next president comes along, changes his mind, and says, So he wants the man to live.
Now, is that something that is done and possible?
Robin, I'm not sure I understand the question.
So, in other words, if he, I guess, if the original president says he's going to be executed, but then before he's executed, the next president comes in and commutes the sentence, if that's okay.
Yeah, yeah, no, that would be fine.
I mean, the power of the president is absolute.
And so, thinking back on my question, my answer to regarding the commutations, I mean, there's no precedent in history for any president to come in and undo the commutation decisions that a previous president has made.
So, I think that is highly unlikely.
So, each president has incredible power, which is why this is such an opportunity for President Biden.
You know, he's thinking about his legacy, he's thinking about his Catholic faith, which also has something to do with the decision that he'll make.
He's being urged by many religious organizations to think about this decision carefully.
So, this is an incredible opportunity to exercise this very unique power before he leaves office and make an incredible difference.
Alex in Miami Beach, Florida.
Good morning, Alex.
Good morning.
How are you?
Good.
All right.
I'm in support of the death penalty.
I just think we should be a lot more selective on how we go about applying it.
For instance, here in South Florida, Marjorie Stoner Douglas kills 17 innocent people.
He gets a life sentence.
But I've seen people get the death penalty for one or two murders.
So I just don't think that makes any sense.
Right.
What do you think?
Well, so that's a little bit about how arbitrarily the death penalty is used.
And it's one of the reasons that people have serious concerns about how we use the death penalty.
Each of these cases is unique.
Juries make different decisions, but there are so many variables that go into who gets charged and who is ultimately selected for the death penalty.
You know, the Supreme Court back in 1976 said we can either use the death penalty fairly and consistently or not at all.
And so the arbitrariness that the caller just talked about is one of the reasons that people are a little bit concerned that the death penalty is not what we should be doing anymore.
Here's Helen in Cape May Courthouse, New Jersey.
Good morning, Helen.
Good morning, ladies.
I oppose both the death penalty and abortion because human life is so precious and fragile, and we've just become very cavalier about destroying human life at the beginning and at the end.
And that's why I do not support either the death penalty or abortion.
Yeah.
Thank you.
And this is John in Mississippi, line for support.
Good morning, John.
Yes, ma'am.
I do support death penalty.
We need a desperately.
Any other comment, John?
Nope.
You know, one thing I'd like to add, Mimi, is that people feel strongly sometimes about being in favor of the death penalty or not, but that can be a different question from whether this is the right thing to do for these men on the federal death row.
The kind of long-standing problems we have fairly administering the death penalty can be separate considerations.
And so what I think most of the people in this coalition are talking about are problems that have occurred in the past.
We have these 40 men, many of whom were convicted and sentenced to death decades ago under overzealous prosecutorial laws that unfairly targeted black men chiefly.
This is a remedy.
This is a way of remedying a terrible wrong that most people believe has occurred over the last several years with the use of the death penalty.
Just want to show a map of the United States.
This is from your website, deathpenaltyinfo.org.
And that states with and without the death penalty as of this year.
So if you take a look, the red is where the death penalty is instated here.
The yellow is not.
And then the blue are states with the death penalty, but a pause on executions is in effect by executive action.
What are you seeing, Robin, as far as trends in those statistics?
Well, what we've seen in trends is a continued decline in the number of executions and new death sentences.
I can't overemphasize how important the number of new death sentences is.
That's a current day.
That's the most reliable indicator of how our society feels about the death penalty right now.
And, you know, previously, 25, 30 years ago, we had more than 300 death sentences, new death sentences every year.
This year we're going to be in the low 20s.
So it is a dramatic difference.
And well, it shows that people are just really not interested in using the death penalty anymore for all the reasons I identified earlier.
They've lost confidence that it can be accurately used.
I think they've lost confidence that it can be effectively used as a deterrent.
There really is no evidence to support the idea that use of the death penalty deters future crime.
And they're concerned about racism and unfairness.
So the other thing we're seeing as a trend is that the death penalty, where it is still being used, is being used in just a handful of states.
We had just nine states executing people this year, ten states sentencing people to death.
That is a very small number of the larger group that have the death penalty available.
But in those other states, they're not using the death penalty by choice.
Here's Sue in East Brunswick, New Jersey, opposed to the death penalty.
Hi, Sue.
Hello.
Go right ahead.
I have a, Ms. Mayor, for the lethal injection protocol, I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I've always wondered,
instead of using these strange mixes of barbaric drugs, have they ever considered using something like a powerful overdose of morphine?
Yes, I don't.
I think that a number of states that are examining their execution protocol have considered a variety of things, including overdoses of various drugs.
And, you know, part of the question here is how much should we be experimenting with human lives?
You know, there is no perfect form of execution that we can guarantee will not result in pain and suffering because things go wrong when human beings are involved.
And again, because of inadequate training or a protocol that does not have specific details, when unexpected things happen, things can go terribly wrong.
We're also seeing that as prisoners get older and spend more time on death row, they have physical, underlying physical conditions that can also complicate the execution itself.
But fundamentally, to answer your question, I think it's not a great idea for states to be experimenting with using different kinds of drugs to kill people because that can result in some very painful and unfortunate deaths.
Let's talk to Andy in Phoenix, Arizona on the line for support.
Hi, Andy.
Hey, good morning, ladies.
So I kind of look at it a little different.
I really think the family of the victim should have kind of a say-so with the prosecutor.
I'll give you an example.
You may know about this or may not, but Jocelyn Nungari, the little 12-year-old girl in Texas who was brutally murdered by two illegals, her mother thinks it's the appropriate sentencing for that situation.
So I think a lot of people who don't have skin in the game really can say what they want, but it really should be left up to the family.
I know if someone did something tragically to one of my loved ones, I would probably support the death penalty.
Thank you for your comment.
Well, that's why one of the more unique aspects of the voices that we're hearing in support of commutation are the voices of victims' family members.
These are people, as I said, who've lost loved ones to violence.
You know, one of the more vocal voices in this effort is the Reverend Sharon Riesher.
She lost her mother to the Charleston shooting that Dylan Roof was convicted of committing and sentenced to death for.
She's been extremely vocal with the fact that she does not believe that executing Dylan Roof is going to bring back her mother or ease her pain.
And so she is among the prominent voices that are persuading, trying to persuade President Biden to take this action.
On the other hand, if there's a family that says, I really want the death penalty and I want it done quickly, does that make a difference?
Well, I think those are voices that prosecutors listen to.
But I think the important thing to hear is that all victims' voices are not the same.
They're very different, and it's a very individual decision.
And what we've seen in recent years, by way of trend, is more and more victims, family members, who are speaking out to say that this does not bring me any more peace.
It does not hurt, it does not solve the hurt and the pain that I feel, and it's not something that I'm in support of.
All right, and here is John in Florida, line for unsure.
John, you there?
John is not there.
I'm here.
Okay, go ahead.
Yeah, the reason I'm asking about everybody's bouncing around whether they should live, whether they should die, I'm wondering who's paying for keeping somebody alive.
Because only about half the people in this country pay taxes.
The people that pay the taxes are the ones keeping these folk alive.
Is it up to the state or is it up to the federal to pay the fee for those people staying alive or is it to the taxpayer?
Yeah, great question.
It's the taxpayer.
That's another good reason why people have started to think twice about using the death penalty.
The death penalty is enormously expensive.
Every single study in the states that have conducted it has demonstrated that using the death penalty is many times more expensive than sentencing someone to an alternate sentence of even life without parole in a maximum security setting.
Why?
What are the costs associated with that?
Yeah, right from the get-go, at every step of the process in a capital case, there are additional expenses.
At the moment that the prosecution decides to seek death, that automatically makes that criminal case the most expensive criminal case of its kind.
The jury needs to be carefully selected.
Juries are only seated if they agree that they can provide a death sentence.
So they need to be, it takes a lot of time to ask all the right questions and to seat them.
There's additional security that's needed at a capital case.
Capital cases are two parts, a guilt phase and a separate sentencing phase.
Takes a lot more time, a lot more resources, and a lot more effort on both the part of the prosecution and on the defense.
And that's just the trial.
Then subsequently, we have appeals, we have additional security at a separate death row for people to be kept, all the way leading through to the execution itself.
So by any measure, the death penalty is far more expensive, which is a reason that many people have said, look, I have other things I would like my taxpayer dollars to be invested in.
Can you explain death row?
Is it a separate area of a prison or what is it?
Yeah, it's different in every state.
In the federal system, the federal death row is at Terre Haute, Indiana.
This is a separate facility where people who are under sentence of death are kept.
These are incredibly difficult, isolating conditions.
Most people are in their cells for the majority of every day, maybe allowed to exercise for a few hours each week.
They don't smell the fresh air.
They don't get good food.
There is very poor medical and mental health treatment available.
And they are kept in extreme isolation.
I mean, so much so that under international law standards, we are in violation of restrictions on the use of solitary confinement.
We also know that this really takes a toll on prisoners.
We know that people who are in that kind of severe isolation, solitary confinement, for years at a time, will decompensate mentally.
So these are very, very serious conditions.
You know, this is not a light sentence by any means.
This will be a very severe and serious sentence.
You know, what's nice to know is that many of these prisoners who are in these conditions have come to grips with the crimes they've committed, have worked on rehabilitating themselves, and also at expressing remorse to the families that they've hurt.
So that has been a very unique aspect of that long-term confinement.
Here's Lorraine in Naples, Florida, on the line for opposed.
Yeah, hi, Robin, everybody.
I'm opposed because I read up on other countries, how they treat the prisoners for their wrongly doing.
And I think that we need to be educated and lift up the country and educate.
I mean, the people that are on death row can give back so much to those who are in jail for life.
They have an experience now.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Comment?
That was great.
Nothing to add.
Ronnie in Hartsville, South Carolina, on the line for support.
Yes.
The problem is we don't have any staffing in these prisons.
You're supposed to have 25 and 30 people working, and you got five or six trying to watch 160, 1,800 inmates.
And it's dangerous, and you feel sorry for the people, the inmates, but you don't feel sorry for the staffing.
I mean, they are in danger all the time.
And now you want to keep more people.
Yeah, it's an interesting comment, and not my area of expertise, but I will say that some of the voices that are part of this broad coalition that's urging President Biden include voices of corrections staff and officials.
Why is that?
Well, we've become more aware of the trauma that these corrections officials and staff experience when they are participating in executions.
We've heard from a great number of them, you know, example supporting commutations in state systems, but also at the federal level, we have a corrections official who presided over a number of executions in Ohio saying that this is not the death penalty is not going to result in any kind of deterrent effect and doesn't help anyone and all it does is traumatize the staff that have been working with these prisoners for so many years.
So these are really unique perspectives.
I think makes this entire effort a really interesting one to look at.
And Margot in Berryville, Arkansas.
Good morning, Margot.
Morning, Mimi.
Thank you for having me on.
I just want to share, my brother was murdered in Phoenix, Arizona, and they did catch the guys that did it.
It was horrible, horrific.
And I'll make the story short.
When it came time for sentencing, the judge gave the family, gave us the opportunity to say what we wanted.
Do we want the death penalty or do we want life without parole?
And after giving it much thought and prayer, mine was to give him life without parole is what he got.
And the other guy that participated in stabbing him multiple times.
And they were sentenced to life without parole.
And they ended up, the one tried to kill himself, and the one did die.
But before they died, they said that they were sorry and to the family for what they did.
And, you know, I just personally myself, I couldn't say, kill him.
It was just something inside of me as a Christian.
I could not take somebody's life.
I did not want that hanging on my shoulders for the rest of my life.
And I left that up to God.
And so that was my thoughts on it.
And for almost two years, the family, we were just held kind of in limbo, waiting to see what the judge was going to say.
And the judge had each one of us that didn't attend the sentencing to write a letter to the court.
And I wrote a little letter and he read them to the court.
And basically what I said was, today, you stand before the judge on this earth, and he's going to sentence you one way or the other.
But you will stand before the great judge one day, and you will be judged for what you did.
And I left it at that, and I said, I have forgiven you.
And that was the biggest release in my life ever to go through something was to say, I forgive you.
Marco, thank you so much for sharing that with us.
Yeah.
Thank you, Margo.
Richard is next.
Minneapolis, Minnesota line for support.
Good morning, Richard.
Good morning.
You know, I was shocked listening to Robin say how much money it costs to keep them with a death penalty and appeals.
I think that's a bunch of BS.
When someone's proven guilty beyond a doubt, they should be put to death, ASAP, not put in prison for 10 or 20 years, paying their medical and feeding them and guarding them.
That's my opinion.
Yeah, well, you know, one of the reasons we need some time after a conviction is because we know that we don't get it right all the time for lots of reasons I've already mentioned, including the fact that sometimes the best lawyers, the best defense lawyers aren't involved.
Sometimes there are mistakes with the evidence.
Sometimes there's prosecutorial misconduct.
We need time to look carefully through the trial, raise any possible issue, and make good decisions about whether that conviction was correct and that death sentence was correct.
And that unfortunately does take time.
It's a thoughtful process that takes many years sometimes.
But I think that's what we need to do if we are willing to use the most severe punishment available in our criminal justice system.
We've already seen 200 people.
We reached the number 200 this year, people who were wrongfully convicted and very nearly executed.
And that's probably an undercount.
We know that there were probably many other people who were wrongfully convicted and executed before we learned about their circumstances.
And we have extremely strict criteria at the Death Penalty Information Center.
We only look at people who've been completely exonerated by a court.
So this is a very small number of what we think is the actual number of people who were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.
So this is why we need that time.
We absolutely need that time after a conviction and a death sentence to make sure we didn't make a mistake that we need to correct.
Christopher Daytona Beach, Florida, good morning.
Good morning.
How do the men need to hear this conversation?
Everyone that's calling in that is a male is so quick to accuse and just kill.
And then you listen to the women speak.
There's life-sustaining verbiage.
The vocabulary is different.
The heart is better.
This is why it's kind of confounding to me to hear both of you speak so eloquently.
You're both very well spoken, very intelligent.
To hear the politics brought into killing people and hearing you on C-SPAN speak about the death penalty like this, I don't know.
It just seems like maybe some of these callers that are calling in to say that that's their opinion and that these people should just be killed.
Maybe a little pushback from more intelligent people.
Not that anyone's more intelligent than another, but like you can push back a little bit on these people that hang up so quickly and maybe remind them, teach them that they're on death row because they did something horrible.
Or, like you just said, some of them are innocent.
But if they did do that horrible thing, that's still a part of us.
And we can't.
All right, Christopher.
Robin.
Yeah, an interesting perspective.
I appreciate it.
You know, one thing we haven't talked about a lot is the fact that so many of the people who are in our criminal justice system writ large, and then especially the people who end up on death row, are people with really significant vulnerabilities.
These are people with severe mental illness.
These are people with intellectual disabilities, people who've experienced unspeakable trauma and neglect.
One of the reasons I think we're seeing fewer new death sentences and some of the changes we're seeing in public opinion polls is because we know so much more about the effects of mental illness and trauma on behavior.
Our defense lawyers are doing a better job presenting that information to juries, and juries appreciate that so much more.
And when they have to make that ultimate decision about whether this person is worthy of a death sentence or worthy of life, they're going for life more and more.
So I think this is kind of an evolution.
I think it's a lot of what the caller just talked about, which is we are appreciating more about the human frailties of the people in our criminal justice system and finding reasons to go for life instead of death.
It's Robin Marr, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center.
You can find out more about that at deathpenaltyinfo.org.
Robin, thanks so much for joining us.
It's always a pleasure, Mimi.
Thank you.
And that's our show for today.
We will be back tomorrow morning, 7 a.m. Eastern Time.
Until then, have a great Saturday.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy.