CSPAN - Washington Journal 01/11/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 11, 2025 07:00-10:01 - CSPAN

03:00:55

Washington Journal 01/11/2025

Participants

Main

tammy thueringer

cspan 30:51

Appearances

brian lamb

cspan 00:47

deanne criswell

01:49

donald j trump

admin 01:50

Clips

barack obama

d 00:02

bill clinton

d 00:02

elizabeth prelogar

admin 00:12

george h w bush

r 00:02

george w bush

r 00:04

jimmy carter

d 00:03

ronald reagan

r 00:01

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Coming up this morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, we'll take your calls and comments live and then a look at the pending ban of the social media app TikTok in the U.S. We'll speak with Axius tech policy reporter Maria Curie and then we'll discuss the role and trends of women serving in elected office with Kelly Dittmar with the Center for American Women and Politics.
		Washington Journal starts now.
		Join the conversation.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		This is Washington Journal for Saturday, January 11th.
		Yesterday, a judge sentenced President-elect Donald Trump to an unconditional discharge for all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
		The sentence means no punishment, including jail time, fines, or probation, will be imposed.
		To start today's program, we want to hear your thoughts on the sentencing.
		Here are the lines: Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can text your comments to 202-748-8003.
		Be sure to include your name and city.
		You can also post a question or comment on Facebook at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN or on X at C-SPANWJ.
		Good morning, and thank you for being with us today.
		We'll get to your calls and comments in just a few minutes, but first, I wanted to show you some headlines in today's newspaper about that sentencing.
		This from the Wall Street Journal sentence cements Trump as a felon.
		The front page of the New York Times with sentence, Trump will now be the first felon to occupy oval office.
		And the front page of the Washington Post, Trump becomes first president to be sentenced.
		From the article, it says President-elect Donald Trump received no penalty Friday for his convictions and his hush money trial, an extraordinary moment that saw him become the first U.S. president sentenced for a crime.
		The sentencing hearing, held just 10 days before Trump is to be inaugurated for a second term, reflected the history and affirmed that Trump would be the first president to enter office as a felon.
		Trump, sometimes scowling or looking away, appeared on a screen from New York or from Florida as New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Mershon spoke about the difficulty of sentencing the incoming president.
		It was Justice Mershon who oversaw the case and he did speak before announcing or he did speak during the sentencing hearing.
		Here are some of his comments.
unidentified		As with every other defendant in your position, it is my obligation to consider any and all aggravating and mitigating factors to inform my decision.
		Some of those aggravating factors have already been articulated in my Sander Ball ruling at the start of this trial and by my recent written decisions on December 16th and January 3rd.
		Thus, they need not be repeated at this time.
		However, the considerable, indeed, extraordinary legal protections afforded by the Office of the Chief Executive is a factor that overrides all others.
		To be clear, the protections afforded the office of the president are not a mitigating factor.
		They do not reduce the seriousness of the crime or justify its commission in any way.
		The protections are, however, a legal mandate, which pursuant to the rule of law, this court must respect and follow.
		However, despite the extraordinary breadth of those protections, one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict.
		It is clear from legal precedent, which until July 1st was scarce, that Donald Trump, the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump a criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protections.
		I'm referring to protections that extend well beyond those afforded the average defendant who winds their way through the criminal justice system each day.
		No.
		Ordinary citizens do not receive those legal protections.
		It is the office of the president that bestows those far-reaching protections to the office holder.
		And it was the citizenry of this nation that recently decided that you should once again receive the benefits of those protections, which include, among other things, the supremacy clause and presidential immunity.
		It is through that lens and that reality that this court must determine a lawful sentence.
		After careful analysis, in obedience to governing mandates and pursuant to the rule of law, this court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge,
		which the New York State Legislature has determined is a lawful and permissible sentence for the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree.
		Therefore, at this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts.
		Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Our topic for the first hour of today's program is that sentencing hearing and the sentence that President-elect Donald Trump received yesterday.
		And you can call in now if you would like to comment or like to comment on the topic.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		We will start with James, Rome, Georgia, line for independence.
		Good morning, James.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Let me start this conversation out with this this morning.
		The Supreme Court is a role.
		These people, what they are doing, they are taking away our rights.
		They are maintaining white privileges in this country.
		Trump is a king.
		This is the white privileged president, and you see it.
		What Trump can do as president, think about this, with that immunity.
		He can steal as much money as he wants from the treasury, have someone do it, such as a Steve Mnuchin, and then he can pardon that person.
		So those people up under Trump, which these legal scholars are telling you all, they can be pardoned by Trump.
		Anything that Trump tells them to do, they are going to do it.
		He can pardon them.
		He can also pardon himself.
		The rule of law, there is no rule of law.
		There's an interpretation of the Constitution by people, whoever they decide to touch it.
		Slave was illegal one time.
		Think about that.
		It was legal up under the Constitution.
		Anything can be legalized up under the Constitution if you have the right judges.
		And this is what you are seeing.
		This is a corrupt system.
		I could go out and steal a piece of bubblegum and get 10 years black man.
		This is crazy and makes no sense whatsoever.
		Ain't no rule of law.
		This is James in Georgia.
		Rick and Florida, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Rick.
		Good morning, and thank you for your time.
		I was just thinking the insurrectionists should lose their citizenship.
		And that's something that the courts can't do.
		They can't take it away.
		That's what presidents do.
		And, you know, just take all their citizenship away from them, all over how many thousands were there, and put them behind the South Americans.
		And that's all I got to say.
		Thank you.
		Pat in New Jersey, line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Pat.
		Hi, good morning.
		Hi, Pat.
		Hello?
		Can you hear me?
		Yes, Pat.
		Go ahead.
		You're on.
		Okay.
		I just wanted to say the unjust judge was not picked by a 24-judge pool.
		He was selected by someone.
		He should have recused himself because it was a conflict of interest.
		His daughter raised around $93 million for the Biden and Harris campaign, and she profited about $12 million for her work.
		President Trump had the Presidential Act and received different treatment than Senator Joe Biden at the time, who did not have clearance.
		Barack Obama, also January 20th, 2017, has not returned documents until this day.
		This is abuse of power and also a sad day for America.
		Trump is, you know, is being, this is politically motivated, and timing is everything.
		But the just judge is coming back soon.
		Deuteronomy 32, 34.
		Thank you.
		That was Pat in New Jersey.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Ed, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, line for independence.
unidentified		Good morning, Ed.
		Good morning.
		How are you doing?
		Doing well, Ed.
		Okay.
		There was a time in this country, a black man was charged with a crime.
		They would haul him into court.
		The jury would be 12 Klansmen, and the judge would be the Grand Wizard.
		That's what was going on yesterday.
		Okay.
		That's the trial that Trump got.
		That's all I got.
		Herbert in Georgia, line for Democrats.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Herbert.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Well, the thing is that he cannot pardon himself from this felony.
		And me as being an ex-felony, Keller, I was denied jobs for the last 30 years.
		And now the opportunity have been open for all ex-felons that they cannot be denied these jobs.
		If they do, they are liable for civic suit.
		They are allowed for civic suits.
		Now, I I hope all these civic attorneys get on board and defend all ex-fellas if we deny jobs in the post office or going to the military or policemen.
		Because now it's time what Trump did, opened up a can of worm for all ex-fellas, over 10 million of them, to get these jobs.
		And they cannot be denied jobs no longer because of their ex-felons.
		Attorney, y'all civic attorneys, get on board, defend all ex-felons, because if you allow him to be privileged to get the highest office as an ex-felon, then now no longer they can deny me if I put an application in to the post office, police officers, and corrections officers.
		And every job in America cannot be denied to ex-fellas no longer.
		No longer.
		So get on your job, civic attorneys, and let's sue.
		And we're going to show the people right today, justice is for all.
		God is not a privileged person.
		And here in Trump is not privileged to God eyes.
		He might be privileged to the Republicans and a king to them, but not to God.
		Thank you, God, for allowing this to happen for all ex-fells in America.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Herbert.
		And Herbert was talking about this sentence or what it means when you become a fillin.
		This from the New York Times says a conditional discharge would have required Mr. Trump to meet certain requirements, such as maintaining employment or paying restitution.
		But this sentence comes with no strings attached.
		No other defendant in Manhattan convicted of Mr. Trump's crimes has received an unconditional discharge in the past decade or so.
		Court records show.
		President-elect Trump was given the opportunity to speak during yesterday's hearing.
		He spoke for about six or seven minutes.
		Here are part of his remarks.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I'm totally innocent.
		I did nothing wrong.
		They talked about business records, and the business records were extremely accurately counted.
		I had nothing to do with them.
		That was done by an accountant or bookkeeper who I think gave very credible testimony and was corroborated by everybody that was asked.
		And with all that's happening in our country today, with a city that's burning to the ground, one of our largest, most important cities burning to the ground with wars that are uncontrollably going on with all of the problems of inflation and attacks on countries and all of the horrible things that are going on, I got indicted over calling a legal expense a legal expense.
		It was called a legal expense.
		I just want to say I think it's an embarrassment to New York and New York has a lot of problems, but this is a great embarrassment.
		I believe that this and other cases that were brought, as you know, the DAJ is, DOJ is very much involved in this case.
		It's because that's the political opponent they're talking about.
		The DOJ is very involved.
		You have a gentleman sitting right there from the DOJ who was from the DOJ's office.
unidentified		He was also involved with the New York State Attorney General's case.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		And he went from there to here.
		He went around and did what he had to do.
		He got them to move on me.
		But in the meantime, I won the election and a massive landslide.
		And the people of this country understand what's gone on.
		This has been a weaponization of government.
		They call it lawfare.
		Never happened to any extent like this, but never happened in our country before.
		And I'd just like to explain that I was treated very, very unfairly.
unidentified		And I thank you very much.
		Back to your calls, Cookie in Ohio, Line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Cookie.
		Good morning.
		Cookie, can you go ahead and turn your television down in the background?
		I can't hear you.
		Can you turn your television down in the background?
		Hold up.
		Okay, you're called Cookie in Ohio, line for Republicans.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Cookie.
unidentified		Cookie, can you go ahead and turn your television down in the background?
		Hi, Ellen.
		Hold on.
		I can't hear you.
		Can you turn your telephone down?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Cookie, go ahead and give us a call back once you have that taken care of.
		Just a reminder to our callers: keep those voices or keep your telephone or your televisions muted.
		Once you're on hold, listen through your phone.
		We'll go to Carrie in Illinois, line for independence.
unidentified		Good morning, Carrie.
		Good morning.
		How are you?
		I'm doing well.
		I want to thank you, and I enjoy your program.
		I just, I think there's several factors going on here.
		First of all, the judge could only pass a sentence based on the way that the Constitution is written.
		Like, the president cannot serve time and cannot be convicted while holding office.
		So there's that.
		But the other aspect of that is he was convicted by 12 people who sat in that courtroom every day and heard the facts of the case presented from both sides.
		And while I don't, I just think it's a really sad day in America for our sitting, soon-to-be sitting president to be in this situation and place America in this situation.
		But, you know, the other thing, too, that I'm more concerned about is that this is going to open the floodgates on a lot of other things.
		And I don't know.
		I'm just, I'm really kind of torn, but I agree with what happened today because the judge had to rule the way he did, he did that so that his thing could not be overturned.
		So, because he had to follow the Constitution.
		And I just think people need to take accountability for what they did.
		And that's all I have to say.
		That was Carrie in Illinois.
		Linda in Mississippi, line for Democrats.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Linda.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I think that Trump didn't get what he deserved.
		He has committed crimes ever since he was a young man.
		But those that's moaned and defended him when Trump is a convicted felon.
		And that's embarrassment to the United States to have a convicted felon.
		The first time it ever happened.
		And I pray that it's the last time it ever happened for this country.
		But those that voted for him and try to defend him listen to him instead of watching the show.
		He never says anything about what he's going to do for you or your family.
		It's always the rich and the powerful.
		But he has showed the world that if you're white, fat, and rich, you can get away with any kind of murder, any kind of crime you want to.
		And Trump is a prime example.
		I pray for this country.
		And I pray for those, especially those that voted for him and cannot see that he is the biggest crook this country has ever elected in our lifetime.
		And that's saying a lot.
		Thank you very much.
		That's Linda in Mississippi.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Beth in Shalomar, Florida, line for Republicans.
unidentified		Good morning, Beth.
		Hi.
		I'm not even sure where I want to start on this.
		I mean, as far as the sentencing goes, I think Judge Mershon did all that was in his power to do, given that he was following the laws of the state of New York and the Constitution of the United States.
		As far as Trump is concerned, he says it was all a legal expense.
		I didn't know Stormy Daniels had a law degree.
		So that's interesting.
		But the thing that made it a felony, as far as I'm concerned, was if the 1099 was issued by the Trump world to Michael Cohen for $420,000, that was a false document.
		And it met the three requirements to make what might have just been lesser than a felony the felony itself because it was a document generated by the company that had false information.
		It made Michael Cohen file a false tax return, made the Trump company file a false tax return to the federal government.
		It was sent to the IRS as a 1099 for Michael Cohen and the Trump company for the transfer of that money.
		So it was a tax document.
		It was a false document generated by the company.
		And I can't remember what the third count was, but it met that too.
		And as far as Trump saying that it was all legal, it wasn't.
		$130,000 went to pay hush money.
		Now, if he had written a check to Stormy Daniels from his own checking account for $130,000, he might have gotten away with it.
		There's no law against that.
		But when he's running for president, he has to abide by the rules that have been set down for elections.
		And that's why Mr. Pecker from National Inquirer realized that he had made a mistake in paying off the other girl.
		Because once Trump ran for president, he was getting into campaign finance.
		And so those laws were broken.
		And this conspiracy lasted for years and years and years.
		And it was before he ever even decided to run.
		He was in a conspiracy with the National Inquirer.
		So he's not getting any comeuppance from this, but I don't think he can learn from anything anyway.
		He's not going to change.
		He's been impeached twice, and the Senate failed us.
		The DOJ failed us by starting so late on this.
		We've got two other federal cases hanging out there that are not going to be able to be conducted.
		We are in a constitutional crisis because the day before Trump had to be sentenced on this, he's in a telephone call with one of the Supreme Court justices who knows what the appearance of conflict is, and yet he takes the call, and it's about loyalty of a former clerk from 14 years ago.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Got your point, Beth.
		We'll leave it there.
		Hearing your thoughts on the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump yesterday, the members of Congress are also have been tweeting out their thoughts.
		This from Representative Eric Swalwell, he says, Trump wants to annex Canada, which is interesting because as a convicted felon, he will not, he's not allowed to visit there.
		So I don't know.
		I just don't know how this is going to work.
		This one from Senator Bill Haggerty.
		This entire law fair, law, lawfare case was a political campaign sham designed only to brand President Trump as a felon in the media.
		The judge didn't even impose a punishment.
		What a pathetic waste of taxpayer resources that should have been used on the real crimes harming New Yorkers.
		This one from Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett.
		There are two-tiered systems of justice in this country, and Donald Trump lives on the tier where he gets to walk into the White House without spending a single day in jail or being put on probation after being convicted of 34 felonies.
		And one more, this from Senator Lindsey Graham.
		He says, the New York justice system is beyond anti-Trump.
		The New York Attorney General and Manhattan District Attorney see President Trump as a political prize.
		They have singled out President Trump for prosecution for offenses that either never existed before or were cobbled.
		That's part of his tweet there.
		Back to your phone calls.
		Rob in Louisiana, line for independence.
		Good morning, Rob.
unidentified		How you doing?
		Getting well, Rob.
		Yeah, can you hear me?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Yes, go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, so much to say, but I will keep it simple.
		God bless these people for not knowing the whole truth.
		God bless them.
		We see Celsius color.
		And America made the right decision had this been Jesus, as he said, in another type of situation.
		And these Americans did make the right decision based upon the wisdom given to them from our forefathers who instituted the laws in a command and style way that they did.
		And that's all I said, man.
		God bless these people who do not see the whole truth.
		That's it.
		You guys have a good day, man.
		And thanks for allowing us to happen.
		Good day.
		I love you.
		Goodbye.
		That was Rob in Louisiana.
		Maxine in Maryland, line for Democrats.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Maxine.
unidentified		Yes, I don't agree with the verdict for Trump that this other person that was on was saying that we got other people that do crimes.
		They go to jail.
		And it's just like a slap on the wrist for Trump.
		It's like, he can do no wrong.
		But my thing is, I don't understand when that judge got up there and gave him this little thing.
		And I was just wondering, could he do anything else by being a judge after I just giving him a slap on the wrist?
		And furthermore, people that voted for Trump, they ought to be ashamed of themselves for voting for him.
		Maybe we had a chance with Kamala Harris.
		We don't know.
		But right now, this democracy we have right now isn't a mess.
		It's a chaos.
		And he ought to be ashamed of himself when he sitting up there saying that he didn't do these crimes.
		But he needs to be punished.
		It's like they sent Michael Goren to jail.
		See, that's not right.
		He got time.
		And then that damn Supreme Court, they need to get rid of him.
		That's all I have to say.
		That was Maxine in Maryland.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And a couple callers bringing up Michael Cohen.
		This from the New York Times this morning, the case arose.
		Donald Trump's sentencing, a reminder, the case arose from a 2016 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, who was selling her story of a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump.
		Had she gone public, she might have set off a scandal in the final days of Mr. Trump's presidential campaign.
		Mr. Trump, the jury concluded, reimbursed his fixer, Michael D. Cohen, for hush money and then directed the records be falsified to keep the payment under wraps.
		President-elect Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, witness for the prosecution during the Hush Money case, reacted to the sentencing yesterday on MSNBC.
		Here's a clip.
unidentified		Obviously, very torn between what I would have liked to have seen happen.
		Don't forget, I received a six-year sentence, three years of incarceration, three years of supervised release.
		In my entire legal career, I've never even heard of an unconditional discharge.
		I was so confused about it, I actually went to ChatGPT, despite the fact that Judge Furman doesn't think anybody should go through ChatGPT, right?
		And I looked it up and I was unable to find anybody in history who has ever gotten an unconditional discharge.
		Well, let me ask you this.
		So there's already a record here, right, of using the Justice Department and having you in his sights.
		They're promising this on day one.
		You know, they're trying to get Kash Patel the FEA.
		Like, how do you, what is your expectation, your level of, you know, anxiety or worry about essentially being targeted for unconstitutional and unlawful retribution by the government of the United States?
		Well, it's why I actually put in a presidential pardon application, and my hope is that Joe Biden offers and presents me with the same pardon that he did for his own son.
		I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
		I have been targeted by the Bar Department of Justice.
		That's fact.
		That's not circumstantial.
		It is factual.
		Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein himself acknowledged it was retaliatory, that he had never seen anything like it.
		I think there are a lot of people that are on this enemy's list.
		I want to make it clear that from the very, very beginning with the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence all the way through this Manhattan DA criminal case, I have been subpoenaed to testify.
		And to be honest with you, based upon this unconditional discharge, to hindsight being 2020, if I knew today what, if I knew back then what I know today, I never would have appeared for any of these.
		I don't think it's fair.
		I don't think that that's the way our system should be designed.
		I don't think that it's right that somebody should be above the law, despite that the Supreme Court has provided that presidential immunity doctrine, which again, to me is confounding.
		But if I knew then what I know now, I never would have appeared.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Just about 30 minutes left in this first hour, asking you your thoughts on President-elect Trump's sentencing in the Hush Money case.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We'll hear next from Rodney in Texas, Line for Republicans.
unidentified		Good morning, Rodney.
		Good morning.
		I have a couple rhetorical questions, and this is regarding President-elect Trump's claim that he had a gag order placed on him.
		Is there a such thing as ex parte communication?
		And maybe that's one of the reasons why the judge in his hush money trial placed the gag order on Trump to prevent ex parte communication.
		And the other rhetorical question is, correct me if I'm wrong.
		He had an opportunity during his trial to get on the witness stand and defend himself against these allegations that were involved in this hush money trial, but he didn't do it.
		Is that correct?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Dallas Rodney in Texas.
unidentified		Alan in North Carolina, line for independence.
		Good morning, Alan.
		Good morning.
		How are you?
		Doing well, Alan.
		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I don't really know where to begin, but the Trump derangement syndrome is alive and well in America.
		The first thing I want to talk to is all the Christians who call up and say they're praying all this, but they don't do nothing but spout hate.
		I don't know about their Bible, but my Bible says that all have fallen short of the glory of God and that all men need grace.
		There's not any good, no, not one.
		So I don't know how you call yourself a Christian and you spew nothing but hate for a human being out of your mouth.
		The second thing is everyone knows that the trial in New York was the biggest scam in history.
		It was a bookkeeping error.
		There were two misdemeanors that were past the time limit.
		They resurrected them.
		Nobody still knows what the underlying charge that was supposedly made him a felony is.
		Nobody knows.
		There are 12 reversible errors in that trial.
		Everyone say he was convicted and he got this.
		The trial should have never happened.
		It never would have happened if his name wasn't Donald Trump.
		Every single prosecutor that looked at the case decided not to pursue it because there was no case until Trump decided to run for election.
		The minute he ran for election, a DOJ prosecutor left the DOJ, went to New York to be a lowly state prosecutor to get Trump.
		Anyone who doesn't have Trump derangement syndrome knows that.
		It's about as obvious as the nose on your face, 34 felonies for calling legal fees legal fees.
		And the hush money payments happen every single day in this country.
		They're totally legal.
		It's all a bunch of VS and everybody knows it.
		New York voted.
		That district, that district in New York voted 96% Democrat.
		You can't get a straight jury out of that.
		And plus, the jury was not allowed to see half the evidence.
		So how are they going to come back with anything else but a guilty conviction?
		They didn't have any choice but to come back with guilty conviction.
		They didn't see half the evidence.
		And they weren't told that all this was manufactured and made up.
		So I don't blame the jury.
		First of all, they all hate Trump to start with, most likely.
		And then they're given evidence to be as.
		So just like, it'll all be turned over on appeal.
		Then what are you going to say?
		You're going to come back on C-SPAN and say I was wrong?
		But I really want to admonish the Christians.
		You know, they just, they amaze me.
		They spit hate out of their mouths.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Got your point, Alan.
		We'll go to Frank in Savannah, Georgia, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Frank.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, I hate to agree a little bit with the previous caller, but yeah, this is actually the weakest case that was brought against them.
		If it would have been out to me, I wouldn't have brought this case.
		And there's a reason the Justice Department wouldn't touch this case with a 10-foot pole.
		And so Trump was totally lying as usual.
		He said, oh, the Justice Department was involved.
		No.
		But see, I'm glad that he at least has a felony record, a felony on his record.
		I guess the judge decided, you know, well, Trump is watching G.O.T.V. in the White House.
		Now, it would be too much work for him to pick up a telephone and call a probation officer every week, you know.
		But, you know, that's okay.
		At least he's got the onent record.
		Yeah, the most more serious crimes, like the papers, classified papers case, were dismissed.
		And the reason they were dismissed, because Judge Cannon is, she is basically in the tank for Trump, just like the Supreme Court, the majority is right now.
		And you will see her on the Supreme Court in a couple of years.
		The thing is, we don't want to look like a banana republic when the new president charged the last president with all these crimes.
		But yeah, that's true.
		But we still, we can't let someone commit crimes, very serious crimes, left and right, and do nothing.
		Do nothing at all.
		So this is going when it was, for me, it was a nightmare when he was elected the second first time.
		And now the nightmare will continue.
		I don't know.
		I don't think there's justice in this world or the next one either.
		But we'll see what happens.
		At least it'll be interesting.
		It'll be exciting for me.
		So, yeah.
		Yeah, I'm glad he was convicted.
		It was like when O.J. Simpson was not convicted for the crime, but for another crime, they threw the book at him.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Frank in Georgia, Mary and Florida, Land for Republicans.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Mary.
unidentified		Yes, my friend in North Carolina took the words right out of my mouth.
		34 felonies.
		This man has been convicted since the first day in 2016 that he was inaugurated.
		Scam after scam after scam after scam.
		As far as this New York case, another scam.
		Alvin Bragg, Judge Merson, they're idiots, complete idiots.
		This judge wishes him Godspeed.
		He had a chance to let things go, but he refused because they're complete idiots.
		Donald Trump has been a very good president, but with all the scams on his back, they didn't give him a chance.
		And it's a shame.
		I voted for him three times.
		This man is a good man.
		He did good for this country.
		Why don't you ever, this channel, why don't you ever talk about what Joe Biden has done and his son with all the scams that they pulled?
		It's a shame what this country has become and what this present president has done to it.
		Thank you.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Mary in Florida.
		Topic for this first hour.
		Just about 20 minutes left is your reaction to President-elect Trump's sentencing yesterday in the Hashimani trial.
		Do you want to give you an update on another story that is happening out on the West Coast, the fires, the wildfires happening there from the Los Angeles Times?
		This was updated coming in just about 37 minutes ago.
		It says that 11 deaths have been confirmed and more than 12,000 structures have been damaged or destroyed.
		More than 150,000 people remain under mandatory evacuation orders.
		Law enforcement sources told the Times that it's likely many of the small fires will turn out to have been the work of arson.
		Back to your calls.
		Keith in Savannah, Georgia, line for independence.
		Good morning, Keith.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
unidentified		Can you hear me?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Keith.
unidentified		First things first, I just want to say thank you for C-SPAN.
		I contribute monthly, and I think you have a great service.
		This is my first time calling.
		I'm on the Inventiline.
		I'm a historical Democrat.
		I do feel that Trump has been unfairly persecuted in this particular case.
		It seems like this would be a personal issue, and it's become a political one, which I'm not in favor of.
		And I think during his first term, we had to deal with the whole Russian investigation.
		That also seemed to not really have merit at the end of the day.
		So, what I would like to see for the second term is let him do what he wants to do.
		I am in favor of President Trump.
		Let's stop persecuting him and let's hope for a hopeful and prosperous future.
		And that's all I have to say.
		Thank you.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Keith in Georgia.
		Daryl, also in Georgia, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Darryl.
unidentified		Yes, I don't know where that caller from Savannah, but he's from that crazy coast.
		I'm from Colombozo.
		I'm on the other coast.
		Yeah, I'm so happy that all this happened.
		He's banned right now from 38 countries.
		38 countries.
		Our president of the United States is banned from 38 countries.
		And then just get this.
		This past Tuesday, like the other lady said, he called Samuel Lito and Samuel Lito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh.
		Those four were willing to let this guy get exactly what he asked for.
		But thankfully, Comey Barrett and Roberts stuck with the Democrats on the Supreme Court.
		And they voted five to four for his butt to go to Troy.
		He didn't want to, when he did Friday, he didn't want no part of that.
		And like another caller said, if he was innocent, he could have got his butt up on the stand and testified and showed the American people that he was innocent.
		So this guy is a scam.
		There's more to come.
		A president can't own a gun.
		He can't be around bullets.
		This is sad, man.
		And you, Republicans, one out of three Trumpers are as dumb as the other two.
		That's my choke for the day.
		Goodbye, Cease Man.
		Miss Lady.
		Bye-bye.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Daryl in Georgia and Daryl talking about some of the things that felons can't do from the Associated Press.
		This headline: Trump can still vote after sentencing, but he can't own a gun and will have to turn over a DNA sample.
		The article notes that he will be, he's registered to vote in Florida, and he will be able to continue voting there.
		The caller was correct.
		He will not be able to own a gun under federal law.
		People convicted of felonies are not allowed to possess firearms.
		The article also says the question is: can he travel outside the U.S.?
		And that answer is yes.
		As president, Trump will have a diplomatic passport enabling him to travel to foreign countries for official business and can also keep a regular or tourist passport.
		People sentenced to incarceration or probation can have their passport denied or revoked, but that isn't the case with Trump.
		Next, we will hear from Lawrence in Texas, line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Lawrence.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yeah, I'm kind of perturbed on some of the comments, especially some of the racial stuff.
		You know, the white guy and getting away with, you know, all this stuff.
		It's crazy.
		That's just a sad state of affairs our country's in right now, but it is what it is.
		I'd like to comment on the fires in California.
		You know, I'm a retired military guy.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Lawrence, well, we're keeping the conversation to the I did read a story about it, but our conversation for this first hour is the Trump sentencing.
		If you want to call back at about 9:30, you can comment on the wildfires.
		David in North Carolina, line for independence.
unidentified		Hi, David.
		Yes, good morning.
		Good morning.
		My name is David Greene, and I wanted to call and say some of the comments that I heard this morning are completely uncalled for.
		We had an election this past November, and Americans voted for Donald Trump as president of this nation.
		And I've never seen, I knew there was so much division and so much hate going around for this man that people don't even know him.
		And they get on and they call and they despise him.
		They just hope he dies.
		I've never seen the hatred.
		And he's our president.
		He's the leader of the country where they live.
		I've never seen anything like that.
		I just don't understand the hatred.
		I'm an independent.
		I'll vote a Republican.
		I'll vote a Democrat.
		The policies, it depends on the policies, what they do.
		I lived here for four years under Joe Biden.
		I saw firsthand what his policies did to this nation, what his policies did to people that hate Trump.
		And they're so blinded by the hatred for the man that they won't want to give him a chance.
		They want something bad to happen to him.
		When he's just a billionaire, he doesn't have to do that job.
		He does it because he wants to.
		He was on Infra Winfrey in the 80s.
		She asked him, would he run for president?
		At Oprah Winfrey, he told Oprah Winfrey that only if he saw where the country needed him.
		And that's what he's done.
		So I just don't understand the hatred that people have towards the man.
		I wish they would get over it.
		I wish they would let's move on, support the guy.
		Let's go ahead and make this country better than what we've had it in the last four years.
		I'm 60 years old.
		I've never seen the country fall down in four years like it fell down just under Joe Biden.
		First time I've ever seen it.
		And I know we had COVID.
		I know we had some things that happened that hadn't happened in the past.
		But you still hear this anger, especially when you, I mean, listen to C-SPAN.
		They still say many people out there, and that's all they want to do is just trash the guy.
		I support.
		That was David in North Carolina.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Yesterday, during the sentencing hearing, Joshua Steinglass, one of the prosecutors of the case, explained the reasoning behind the sentencing.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Here are his comments.
unidentified		In the probational court, which we just received this morning, the author, having interviewed the defendant, noted that the defendant sees himself as above the law and won't accept responsibility for his actions.
		And that's certainly consistent with everything else that we've seen.
		Now, in a typical case, both the offense conduct and these other exacerbating factors would impact the appropriate sentence.
		But in this case, we must be respectful of the office of the presidency and mindful of the fact that the defendant will be inaugurated as president in 10 days.
		Any undischarged portion of the sentence has the potential to interfere with the defendant's performance of the duties of his office.
		As a practical matter, the most sensible sentence prior to his inauguration is an unconditional discharge.
		The court has expressed an inclination to do exactly that because, in the court's words, quote, the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow defendant to pursue his appellate options is to proceed to sentence.
		Now, as you know, in New York, a conditional discharge is authorized by penal law, quote, if the court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and to the history, character, and condition of the defendant, is of the opinion that neither the public interest nor the ends of justice would be served by a sentence of imprisonment and that probation supervision is not appropriate.
		An unconditional discharge is authorized if a conditional discharge is authorized and, quote, if the court is of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant's release.
		Because these crimes are felonies, the court must set forth in the record the reasons for its action.
		The American public has the right to a presidency unencumbered by pending court proceedings or ongoing sentence-related obligations.
		But imposing this sentence ensures that finality.
		Sentencing the defendant permits this court to enter judgment, to cement the defendant's status as a convicted felon while he pursues whatever appeals he intends to pursue.
		And it gives full effect and respect to the jury's verdict while preserving the defendant's ability to govern.
		People therefore recommend that this court impose a sentence of an unconditional discharge.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		You can listen to the full audio from yesterday's court proceeding, including President Trump's remarks online at cspan.org.
		President-elect Trump did speak during the hearing.
		He also pushed out or published a statement after on his social media platform, Truth Social.
		It says, the Radical Democrats have lost another pathetic un-American witch hunt after spending tens of millions of dollars, wasting over six years of obsessive work that should have been spent on protecting New Yorkers from violent, rampant crime that is destroying the city and state, coordinating with the Biden-Harris Department of Injustice and Lawless Weaponization, and bringing completely baseless, illegal, and fake charges against your 45th and 47th president, me.
		I was given an unconditional discharge.
		That result alone proves, as all legal scholars and experts have said, there is no case, there never was a case, and this whole scam fully deserves to be dismissed.
		The real jury, the American people, have spoken by re-electing me with an overwhelming mandate in one of the most consequential elections in history.
		As the American people have seen in this, he says, quote, case, there has no crime, no damages, no proof, no facts, no law, only a highly conflicted judge, a star witness who is disbarred, disgraced, serial perjure, and criminal election interference.
		Today's event was a despicable charade.
		And now that it's over, we will appeal this hoax, which has no merit, and restore the trust of Americans and our once great system of justice.
		Make America great again.
		Again, that's the statement of President-elect Donald Trump after the sentencing, yesterday's sentencing hearing.
		Just about 10 minutes left in this first hour.
		James in Brunswick, Georgia, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, James.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I'm going to say that Trump is phoning.
		Trump started, you know, insurrection.
		Trump did fraudulently in New York City.
		Trump is all about robbing, killing, and destroying the Constitution.
		He tries to take away equal rights, civil rights, everything.
		And I mean, everything is transparent.
		He doesn't have the right.
		And I mean, he's able to have all these felony accounts and also get on top of it, be able to become president.
		It's people in this world that need jobs, that can't even get jobs because they got way lighter felonies than Trump.
		I mean, he is not nothing but a dictator.
		And he's trying to turn back the pages.
		He's trying to take everything away from the citizens of the United States.
		And he's hiding behind the United States seal.
		That's a presidency.
		And I mean, it's wrong what he's doing.
		And I mean, he's lying.
		He's doing everything possible to get away with it.
		I mean, he even went and put people in the Senate.
		I mean, the Supreme Court so they could protect them.
		The man is guilty.
		He needs to be in jail.
		I mean, they got witnesses.
		Everybody that came to court, I mean, he's disrespecting generals, lawyers, district attorneys.
		I mean, it's wrong.
		And it's apparent.
		And it's right in our face.
		You can see it.
		It's on TV what he's doing.
		And they let him get away because he got money.
		He's trying to protect rich people.
		He don't care nothing about the citizens of the United States.
		And it's wrong.
		He's been going to other countries.
		He's even collaborating with Russia.
		He's collaborating with North Korea, China, everybody to bring down our Constitution and everybody.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was James.
		We'll go to Barry in South Carolina, line for independence.
		Good morning, Barry.
unidentified		Yes.
		I think about King David, the king of Israel.
		He found a woman, Bathsheba, and who was married to, I think, Uriah.
		And he took that man right and had that man executed, put on the front line to die.
		He committed murder.
		Yet, God said that David was a man after his own heart, which means that God loved David, although David had done something similar to what Donald Trump had done.
		Secondly, I don't think a man sitting on that jury or a man that's calling in this morning that have commit the same sin that Donald Trump committed would not have done the same thing that Donald did or greater to hide his sin against his wife.
		So we need to get over it.
		It was a bad strategy that the Democratic Party took out instead of worrying about gas prices, food prices, people surviving the economy.
		They were more concerned about muddying up this guy's reputation.
		And it failed.
		So it's time to move on.
		The Bible says pray for those that are in authority.
		Have a blessed morning.
		That was Barry in South Carolina.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Wanted to share some social media posts coming in this morning.
		Reaction to yesterday's sentencing.
		This on Facebook from Ali.
		I can understand the anger behind those who call it a political witch hunt.
		But again, what about the facts of the case that gave reasons to the jury to find him guilty?
unidentified		This is a sad day for the U.S.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		This one from Nomar says, I understand why the judge did it this way, but any other person would have likely received jail time and fines.
		Vicki says, says more about the DA judge in the Biden administration who sent one of their DOJs to set up this sham, proudly voted for this so-called felon.
		It will be struck down.
		I watched the judge and the trial.
		It was prosecutor malfeasance and judicial corruption.
		And this last one from Julie says, I always had full respect for our Supreme Court, but not any longer.
		Trump is no better than any of us.
		He should spend the rest of his life in jail, not in our White House.
unidentified		Just a couple minutes left.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We'll hear next from Mike in Sarasota Springs, New York, line for Republicans.
unidentified		Good morning, Mike.
		Morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I just want to, I'm from New York, okay?
		I'm originally from the city area.
		And the city itself, okay, is completely Democratic, okay?
		This whole thing has been a complete witch hunt, okay?
		And I want to thank you for taking my call, but it's a complete witch hunt.
		And basically, the Biden administration is so corrupt, okay?
		And you gotta, you got, what you gotta do, okay, you gotta, this is all picking on Trump, all right?
		Trump is our elected president, okay?
		And you have more respect, and he is not as corrupt as a Biden and a Democratic Party.
		Wake up, people.
		Wake up, America.
		I told America, I called about a year ago, okay?
		And I said that the Biden and the Democratic Party is corrupt.
		We proved that they are corrupt.
		One of the people are going to realize that we're living in a corrupt administration, okay?
		I go to the store, I buy chicken.
		Take chicken, for example.
		Okay, chicken right now, okay, used to be under $5.
		Now it's $10.
		This is ridiculous.
		Hey, also, the sexuality.
		I mean, totally going against God.
		Look at California, what's happening there.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		I mean, we'll leave it there.
		The next one, next caller, Dumo in Georgia, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Dumo.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		First of all, I want to say, those of you that say America hates Trump, remember how you hated Obama.
		You hated Obama kills to this day.
		Secondly, I agree with the guy that said lawyers should get up and defend felons.
		Yes, it's time to defend felons.
		Thirdly, I want to remind us that Trump always says nothing like this has ever happened in the history of America.
		Today, now he is the first president with this tag.
		A convicted felon.
		The president of the United States is a convicted felon.
		This is huge.
		I was angry with the verdict, but now, with this tag on his head, history will not be kind to him and his supporters.
		Be careful for what you wish for.
		And finally, to those who support Trump and you call yourself Christians, you easily take the mark of the beast because you will never know when the beast will appear.
		You will, because he's white, you will support him and take the mark.
		Be careful if you call yourself a Christian.
		Thank you.
		That was DeMo in Georgia.
		And our last call for this hour is Larry in New Jersey, Line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Larry.
		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I don't think that the outcome of the court cases absolves him because of his infidelity and his guilt.
		And I think that rather than the Trump derangement syndrome, there is a Trump absolvement syndrome out there that's willing to look the other way, even though he is a cheated on his wife and abuses the truth constantly.
		Thank you.
		That's Larry in New Jersey.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Our last call for this first hour.
		Next on Washington Journal, we'll be joined by Axios tech policy reporter Maria Curie.
		She will discuss the latest in the U.S., potentially banning the social media app TikTok.
		And later, Kelly Dittmar of the Center for American Women in Politics will join us to discuss the role and trend of women serving in elected office.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
		At 7 p.m. Eastern, in the lead up to Inauguration Day, American History TV looks back at famous inaugural speeches.
		This weekend, speeches by Jimmy Carter in 1977, Ronald Reagan in 1981, and George H.W. Bush in 1989.
		At 8 p.m. Eastern on Lectures in History, Hillsdale College professor Richard Gamble on civic faith and how American nationalism incorporated religious elements and symbolism during the Cold War.
		And at 9.30 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, Keith Hartidge Lee with her book The Mysterious Mrs. Nixon recounts First Lady Pat Nixon's time in the White House, including her support for the Equal Rights Amendment, a woman on the Supreme Court, and more in mid- to high-level government jobs.
		Exploring the American story.
		Watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
		Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		At 4:30 p.m. Eastern, human rights advocate Mark Clifford, with his book The Troublemaker, talks about the life and activism of Hong Kong media mogul and dissident Jimmy Lai, who's being tried for sedition and other crimes by the Chinese government.
		Then at 10 p.m. Eastern, on Afterwords, journalist Adam Chandler, with his book 99% Perspiration, a new working history of the American Way of Life, argues that hard work is not enough to obtain the American dream.
		He's interviewed by author Alyssa Quart.
		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.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell has spent 40 years in the United States Senate, 17 of those as leader of his Republican colleagues.
		That's the longest any senator has been at the top of the leadership rung in either political party.
		Senator John Thune was elected a few weeks ago to head up the Republican majority in the Senate in 2025.
		Meanwhile, journalist Michael Tackett's book, A Profile of Senator McConnell, is called The Price of Power and subtitled, How Mitch McConnell Mastered the Senate, Changed America, and Lost His Party.
		Mike Tackett, the Deputy Washington Bureau Chief of the Associated Press, conducted over 50 hours of interviews and was granted access to never-before-released oral histories.
unidentified		Journalist Michael Tackett, with his book, The Price of Power, How Mitch McConnell Mastered the Senate, Changed America, and Lost His Party on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
		Washington Journal continues.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Joining us now to discuss the latest on the U.S. potentially banning the social media app TikTok is Maria Curie, tech policy reporter for Axios.
		Maria, thank you for being here.
		This oneey.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Why don't we start with yesterday?
		It was the Supreme Court.
		They heard oral arguments in the case TikTok versus Merrick Garland.
		Bring us up to speed how we got to yesterday.
unidentified		Well, you know, Congress passed this law that basically said ByteDance has to sell TikTok or TikTok faces a ban in the United States.
		And that was last year.
		But this is something that dates way back to even the first Trump administration, actually.
		President-elect Trump was the first one to really go after TikTok and say it's a national security concern.
		So, you know, after this law passes, TikTok quickly challenged it.
		The DC Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the law was constitutional, and then they appealed to the Supreme Court.
		And now we're waiting to see what they decide.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And remind our audience what the government's arguments are for banning the app and what TikTok's arguments are for overturning the ban.
unidentified		Yeah.
		So the government is really arguing here that ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, poses a national security threat to the United States because of its ties to the Chinese government and basically the ability for the Chinese government to access the troves of data that is collected through TikTok.
		That data collection is one national security threat.
		The other threat would be these risks of a covert manipulation attempt and these abilities for the Chinese government to kind of manipulate what we see online and dictate public opinion in the United States.
		TikTok is arguing that this is an infringement on the First Amendment right of all of the creators that use the app for speech and TikTok itself, which is a U.S. company.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And yesterday, again, the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in the case after it made its way up to the court.
		takeaways.
		What did we learn or what did we hear at the oral arguments?
unidentified		My main takeaway is that the judges did not seem, the justices did not seem very convinced that this is a First Amendment concern, which was really the question at the heart of the case here is whether or not this law violates free speech.
		And they did not seem convinced that all of the creators, the 170 plus million people on this platform or the company itself, that this would be an infringement on their First Amendment rights.
		And it really came down to the fact that this app and all of the creators that are on this app can continue to exist even if ByteDance divests.
		So judges did not seem, or justices did not seem very convinced of that argument.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Our guest, Maria Curie, tech policy reporter for Axios, for the next 35 minutes or so, we'll be discussing the latest on the potential ban of the social media app, TikTok.
		If you have a question or comment for her, you can start calling in now the lines, Democrats 202-748-8000, Republicans 202-748-8001, and Independents 202-748-8003.
		I'm sorry, 8002.
		And Ashley, yesterday, I'm sorry, Maria, yesterday, the Supreme Court heard the arguments.
		They didn't release a decision, but they are very limited by time.
		The ban would go into effect a week from tomorrow.
		If they uphold it, when are we expected to hear a decision?
unidentified		You know, we don't know.
		We are all waiting.
		From now until January 19th, they could come out with a decision to pause the ban, which is certainly what TikTok and Byte Dance are hoping for, as well as President-elect Trump.
		So it would be a major win for them if the court decides to do that.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		If the ban is upheld, what would it look like?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		What won't it look like come next Sunday?
unidentified		So we have been hearing a lot of talk of the ban, you know, going, of the app going dark, of it shutting down.
		I think it really depends on what these, you know, app stores and internet service, these web hosting platforms decide to do.
		The fact of the matter is that on January 19th, it will be illegal to be hosting this app.
		And so these companies could pay, could face $5,000 fines for every user that is still on the app.
		It would be a big risk to take, but they could be banking on the incoming president simply not enforcing the law.
		So we'll see what they decide to do.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And speaking of that, President-elect Trump has been supportive of TikTok and saying that he opposes the ban.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		What options will he or his administration have once they're in office?
unidentified		So that's a really good question.
		And it does seem to be that Trump opposes this law, but really in his lawyers' filing to the Supreme Court, he was very explicit.
		He said, I'm not taking a position on this law one way or another yet, but I do want you to pause it so that I can have an opportunity to negotiate a deal that only I, Donald Trump, have the ability to negotiate.
		In terms of what that deal actually could be, we're not sure.
		We do know that in the past he has said he doesn't want these really big tech platforms, you know, Meta, Google, to get even bigger.
		So that might inform his decision.
		But it's really up to him to decide what does a qualified divestiture under the law mean.
		Certainly what lawmakers intended is that all ties to the Chinese government are cut.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And a word you just used, divest your that's something that came up several times during the oral arguments yesterday.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Explain what that is and other avenues that the company could have to avoid a potential ban.
unidentified		So, you know, the main way to avoid a ban is for ByteDance to sell this app.
		And TikTok also has the option to walk away from ByteDance so they could find a different buyer.
		A lot of the justices actually said, why don't you just find a different algorithm?
		Why don't you come up with your own algorithm?
		That's really why Byte Dance is so appealing to all of the users in TikTok itself is because of this powerful tool that makes TikTok what it is.
		And so they could simply find that technology or something similar to it somewhere else.
		It would be very difficult because what makes ByteDance's algorithm so powerful is that source code that is in China.
		But they could find different avenues according to these justices yesterday.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		If you would like to hear the listen to the audio of the oral arguments from yesterday, you can find it online at c-span.org.
		We will go to our first caller for this for this segment, Ralph in Michigan, Line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Ralph.
unidentified		Yes, hello.
		I was wondering about the larger problem of disinformation on these internet social media sites, not just TikTok.
		I don't know of specific examples of election interference on TikTok.
		I don't know if that's happening.
		I presume it probably is happening.
		But what about, like, let's say, Facebook and Twitter, disinformation on other websites, like, for example, the Russian disinformation campaign in 2016.
		And I have to say, the Russian disinformation campaign, which was pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Clinton, I think achieved the Trump victory, very narrow victory in 2016.
		Is there any concern or do you have concerns about disinformation in general and disinformation on all the social media sites?
		So thanks for that question.
		It's certainly very timely.
		We did also find out this week that Meta would stop its content moderation practices and turn to this model of moderating content that's more similar to Elon Musk's X's platform, which basically just says that users on the platform, people like yourself, are basically now responsible for making sure that things that are not factual are not there.
		We know that that leads to more disinformation and harmful speech online.
		And so if TikTok is banned in the United States, that leaves 170-plus million Americans that need to find somewhere else to go.
		And they could very well choose to go to Meta's Instagram, Reels.
		And if content moderation there no longer applies the way that it used to, certainly we could see a lot more disinformation happening there.
		Jody in Charlotte, North Carolina, Line for Independence.
		Good morning, Jodi.
		Morning, I have a question.
		We're talking in terms of data with TikTok as well.
		So, my question is: what about all of that data that for the original people who already signed up for TikTok, it's like the damage has already been done?
		And also, who argued the case for United States when it came to the TikTok ban?
		Because it just seems like what we're being set up for is for a war.
		If we put a ban on TikTok, not only will our people here in America will be banned and censored to even speaking their mind, but also China could get angry and we could be subjected to be in war with China behind that because a bulk of their money and finance and everything with technology is coming from the United States.
		I mean, what are we even thinking about the people?
		So, certainly, and this came up yesterday during the oral arguments as well.
		TikTok, ByteDance, these aren't the only companies that are collecting massive troves of American data, sensitive and otherwise.
		Other big tech companies in the United States, American ones, are also collecting a lot of our data every day.
		I think what makes TikTok unique, at least according to the government, is its ties to the Chinese government.
		And so, there are national security laws in China that basically would require the overturning of that data to the government if the government decides to.
		So, that is what makes this particular company, TikTok, and it's ties to ByteDance specifically dangerous, at least according to the government.
		But, yes, all of these other companies are also collecting our data, and I think that is why you see TikTok's lawyer arguing for other measures that could have been less severe.
		For example, trying to pass a national data privacy law, which is something that Congress struggles with year after year.
		So, other measures were considered, but unfortunately, where we are today is here.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And as we get closer to the date of the ban going into place, there are reports that TikTok users have been pushed or are going over to Lemon8, another app.
		It's also owned by ByteDance, the same company that owns TikTok.
		How does that work in terms of the potential banning of an app if it's owned by the same owner?
		Would it fall into the same category as TikTok?
unidentified		Yeah, the law is very explicit.
		Any app that is owned by ByteDance, including Lemonate, will be illegal come January 19th unless that is paused or overturned.
		And so, we are seeing that a lot of users on TikTok are being encouraged to go over to Lemonate.
		Now, the companies themselves are not tying this to the ban.
		They're saying that this is just the type of migration that would make the creators be able to share their videos more effectively.
		But some of the creators that are promoting this migration are tying it directly to the ban with Lemonate sponsorship on those videos.
		So, we did reach out to TikTok and Lemonate when we reported this story, and they're saying that that was an oversight.
		But we're still seeing those promoted videos on the app saying that users should go over to Lemonate specifically as a reaction to the ban.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And to our caller Jody's point about other social media apps and something that was brought up during the oral arguments, if the TikTok ban is Upheld, could other apps that maybe don't have a direct connection to China face the same face the same fate down the road?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Are each one of those going to have to come up as an individual case?
unidentified		So, I think that in order, I mean, I think that a lot of it will come down to the risk that these app stores will want to take.
		I think the easiest thing to do would just be to remove all of these different app stores, or I'm sorry, all these different apps from their app stores in order to avoid any type of legal liability.
		But, you know, ByteDance is a very complex multinational, you know, corporation, and it'll be difficult to make sure that all of its different operations are shut down.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		This question coming in on X for you from Agik.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry, I'm not sure how to say that name, but they're asking, what precedent is there for banning foreign ownership of a private company?
unidentified		Well, when that foreign ownership is coming from a foreign adversary, there has been precedent in the United States to try to limit that type of communication within the United States.
unidentified		But certainly shutting down an app that is this popular with 170 million people on it is unprecedented.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Jim in Missouri Line for Democrats.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jim.
unidentified		Good morning.
		The talk about collecting personal data, anything you put online through any platform, there is no privacy expectation.
		I don't see what the big deal is.
		Misinformation, well, you know, Meta has told us what they think of that.
		We're not going to check facts anymore.
		Not good.
		Elon Musk Ones, whatever it is, X now, he's a foreigner.
		Why did he buy a social program and then get involved in politics?
		I do not see how you can block part of the internet or else I couldn't watch porn or whatever.
		The dark web is out there.
		How can you stop part of the internet?
		The information that we're worried about is out there on any other platform that you choose.
		So I think what the government's lawyers argue is that what makes TikTok a specific threat is, for example, if the Chinese government has access to all of this data from every American individual,
		what we watch, what our interests are, who our friends are, that they could then, one example that came up yesterday during the oral arguments is that they could end up using this information to recruit and retain spies in the United States or conduct those types of operations that are national security concerns.
		And so while there does seem to be this broader sentiment that all of these tech companies are collecting our data and are using it in ways that maybe the American public is not comfortable with, what the government has really tried to do here is single out TikTok's unique threats because of its ties to the Chinese government.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		C-SPAN did air the oral arguments yesterday.
		Again, you can find them online at c-span.org.
		But it was during the oral arguments that U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelager spoke about those national security concerns.
		Here is some of her comments.
unidentified		The Chinese government's control of TikTok poses a grave threat to national security.
		No one disputes that the PRC seeks to undermine U.S. interests by amassing vast quantities of sensitive data about Americans and by engaging in covert influence operations.
		And no one disputes that the PRC pursues those goals by compelling companies like Bank Dance to secretly turn over data and carry out PRC directives.
		Those realities mean that the Chinese government could weaponize TikTok at any time to harm the United States.
		TikTok collects unprecedented amounts of personal data.
		And as Justice Sotomayor noted, it's not just about the 170 million American users, but also about their non-user contacts who might not even be engaging with the platform.
elizabeth prelogar ▲ ● ▼		That data would be incredibly valuable to the PRC.
unidentified		For years, the Chinese government has sought to build detailed profiles about Americans, where we live and work, who our friends and co-workers are, what our interests are, and what our vices are.
		TikTok's immense data set would give the PRC a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment, and espionage.
		On top of that, the Chinese government's control over TikTok gives it a potent weapon for covert influence operations.
		And my friends are wrong to suggest that Congress was seeking to suppress specific types of content or specific types of viewpoints.
		Instead, the national security harm arises from the very fact of a foreign adversary's capacity to secretly manipulate the platform to advance its geopolitical goals in whatever form that kind of covert operation might take.
		The act addresses the threat of foreign adversary control with laser-like focus.
		It requires only divestiture of TikTok to prevent Chinese government control.
elizabeth prelogar ▲ ● ▼		And that divestiture remedy follows a long tradition of barring foreign control of U.S. communications channels and other critical infrastructure.
unidentified		So, no matter what level of First Amendment scrutiny applies, this act is valid because it's narrowly tailored to address compelling national security threats.
		Now, my friend Mr. Fisher just emphasized, and I acknowledge that millions of Americans enjoy expressing themselves on this platform.
		But the important thing to recognize is that the act leaves all of that speech unrestricted once TikTok is freed from foreign adversary control.
		The First Amendment does not bar Congress from taking that critical and targeted step to protect our nation's security.
		Again, those full remarks, those full oral arguments, you can find on our website, cspan.org.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We will hear next from Walter, Cleveland, Ohio, Line for Democrats.
unidentified		Good morning, Walter.
		Good morning.
		My name is Walter Huggins.
		I'm thinking about TikTok and Twitter, X.
		Now, if the President, Trump, and Musk, they buy that TikTok, they have control of a lot of people giving them false information.
		Now, if China have this TikTok, we would think twice about what the information would get.
		But if we have it, Americans, you know, Mussolini Trump, then we're not going to think twice about it.
		What we're going to do is just take that as being the truth.
		I feel like that's a problem.
		I don't know.
		I don't know what to do with that.
		Okay, that's all I have to say.
		I think you should worry about that.
		I think what you're speaking to here is Americans increasingly not knowing where to turn to for trusted information.
		We know that Americans trust in, you know, legacy media and, you know, just newspapers and media outlets is at a historic low.
		And so a lot of Americans today are consuming their news and their information from these social media platforms, whether it's, you know, X or Facebook.
		And so I think what you're speaking to is also the importance of making sure that there are fact-checkers and content moderations on these platforms.
		But as we have seen, increasingly these social media CEOs are turning away from that approach.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And it was also this week that that happened at Meta.
		It was announced that they are ending a fact-checking program.
		What are they going to be doing instead?
unidentified		So instead of having these fact-checking teams, which was Mark Zuckerberg's idea in the first place, and it was what he was really touting ahead of even this last election to the people who were concerned that election misinformation would once again run rampant on social media sites.
		He is now saying that too many mistakes are being made with this approach, and it's also leading to bias.
		And so he is now turning to an approach that is basically the community, the people on the platform, are now responsible for flagging what they think is not factual or is misinformation.
		That is very difficult to do for an average person who is not trained on these things.
		And it's what we have seen happening on X where misinformation has increased.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		What has the reaction to that announcement look like?
unidentified		You have advocates who are trying to combat harmful information online, child safety advocates really sounding the alarm over this.
unidentified		But you have, for example, the incoming administration who is very happy to be seeing this because for a while now, Republicans and conservatives have been alleging the censorship of conservative views online and they view this as a win for free speech.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And do we know anything about other social media companies or potential changes that could follow this trend?
unidentified		Not at this point.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We will go to Margaret in Santa Maria, California, line for Democrats.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Margaret.
unidentified		Good morning.
		What I wanted to say was that Crump used to be against TikTok.
		Then he got $400 million from a board member of TikTok for his campaign.
		Now, Trump is no more than a lobbyist for TikTok.
		So that was my point.
		Noted.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We'll go to Steve and Marilyn online for independence.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Steve.
unidentified		Yes, thank you for putting me on.
		I'll try to be brief.
		I've been keeping this up for years.
		I've been all over the United States.
		I grew up in the deep south, and I just got back from the deep south.
		I'll make it quick.
		I think a lot of Americans are super undereducated and super lack of knowledge about Chinese politics and the world control of things.
		And a lot of these TikTok users and supporters, they really don't appreciate freedom of speech and what China can do if they had their way.
		If there was 9-11 that came to America and China caused it, and let's say if China suddenly took over the United States in every possible way, the freedom of speech would be gone.
		There'd be even more sexism and racism.
		Slavery would come back to the United States.
		So my view is these TikTok to supporters and users, they don't understand that.
		And they should be just the polar opposite.
		They should stop using TikTok and start be proud Americans and stop supporting the Chinese way of doing things because we won't have an America anymore.
		And that's my comment.
		I love this country and the people supporting TikTok.
		I don't think they love America.
		Thank you.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Any response?
unidentified		I think for creators, they are really viewing this as a way to grow their small businesses, get their messages out there, grow their brands.
		And this is an algorithm that has really allowed them to reach audiences in a way that these other platforms have not allowed them to.
		If you layer on that, while TikTok and ByteDance does have a very specific danger tied to it, when you layer on that, that other platforms are also collecting our data and we don't necessarily know what is happening with it, we get to a point where it's difficult, I think, for these creators to specifically go out against this app.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And along those lines, this question from Scott in Massachusetts says he's an independent.
		He asks, what is the economic impact of a ban?
		He says it doesn't affect me per se as I'm not on TikTok, but others generate income from the platform.
unidentified		That's right.
		You have a lot of creators on this platform that are generating income for their small businesses and their brands.
		And the economic impact would be big, not just for the creators, but for the small businesses across the country that use this to promote their brands.
		But at the end of the day, this is really a case about free speech and national security concerns.
		And as we saw yesterday from these justices who will ultimately decide whether or not to uphold this law, they seemed to really push the idea that these creators could go to different platforms.
		Andrew in New Jersey, Line for Independence.
		Good morning, Andrew.
		Yeah, good morning.
		You had a gentleman on C-SPAN some time ago talking about banning TikTok because there's a dark side to this that nobody's talking about.
		There's a thing on TikTok called the choking game, where what they do is they challenge kids to choke themselves till they pass out.
		And this is rampant and this is killing our children because they did a piece on 60 Minutes a while ago where this parent said goodnight to their daughter who was a high school student.
		He went into a bedroom and after a while they checked on her, no response, and they busted down the door.
		They found her hanging.
		And on her bed was her phone with a TikTok app open and instructions how to hang herself.
		Now, I've seen commercials about TikTok on TV where they help businesses, where they help a guy who got his school, a World War II veteran who got his scooter stolen, and money was raised on TikTok.
		But let's look at social media, what it's doing to our kids.
		We had a kid in Middletown, New Jersey, who hung herself because she was being bullied on social media.
		So this is the wave of the future.
		And I serve this country in the military.
		This is not the country I serve.
		Thank you.
		Yeah, I think what you're speaking to here is an issue that was really top of mind on Capitol Hill and in the Biden administration and will continue to be a big issue in the incoming administration, which is protecting children online.
		These challenges that unfortunately result in a lot of harm to children and in times even death are not just happening on TikTok.
		They are happening on pretty much all of the other social media platforms that are owned by U.S. companies.
		And the content moderation practices that these companies were doing on their own voluntarily, which some of these companies are now letting go of, try to really address this issue.
		But as we've discussed today, some of these companies are now letting go of these approaches.
		And for a lot of child safety advocates, those content moderation practices were not enough.
		They wanted even more protections for kids by, for example, making the platforms themselves liable for what happens on these platforms.
		But again, that is a debate that on the Hill constantly hits a dead end because shifting the liability to these platforms would be a major, a major shift that some argue could also end up in chilling free speech.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Looking at the year ahead when we were talking about tech regulation beyond the future of TikTok, what are you going to be watching for it?
unidentified		We last in this last Congress covered a lot of regulatory efforts around artificial intelligence, and we expect that to be a continued major point of discussion on Capitol Hill.
		Except now I think the conversation is going to shift to promoting innovation, which is another way of saying deregulation or no regulation at all, really allowing these companies to continue to make these products more and more powerful, releasing them out into the world and making the United States competitive in this tech race with China.
		So we will be seeing how that plays out on Capitol Hill and in the Trump administration.
		Let's talk with Jim in Massachusetts, Line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Jim.
		Hi, good morning.
		I just got a general question of if this app is not allowed in China for the citizens and the youth in China, why would we let it here in America?
		I mean, this past Cola talked about the choking game.
		You know that's not being seen or used in China.
		So why would we let that app be here in America?
		Thank you.
		I think that free speech advocates would say that we allow all sorts of things in America that maybe are not allowed in China because we allow Americans those types of freedoms to decide what they want to engage with.
		That's kind of at the heart also of this specific issue.
		Do we, as some view it, infringe on Americans' First Amendment rights in this country that are very uniquely American?
		Or do we put these national security concerns first?
		Joe in Buffalo, New York, Line for Independence.
		Good morning, Joe.
		Good morning.
		Like the previous caller, talking about the millions of dollars that Donald Trump got in the election from TikTok.
		And it's basically, let's face it, it's a payoff.
		I'd like to know who else was influenced by TikTok on Capitol Hill.
		So on Capitol Hill, we actually talk a lot about and report a lot about lobbying efforts from big tech companies and how that sometimes could get in the way of some regulations moving forward.
		But when it comes to TikTok and ByteDance, there was actually very broad bipartisan consensus on the Hill that it poses such a national security concern that it should either be sold off to an American company or banned.
		And so this is an area where there are really, you know, only three like free speech absolutists who are saying we still want this app around for free speech purposes.
		Let's hear from Peter in Silver Spring, Maryland, Line for Independence.
		Good morning, Peter.
		First of all, thank you so much for C-SPAN.
		Thank you for having this type of a conversation online.
		It's really helpful to educate everybody about it.
		I think we're missing one of the points here, which is, to me, a little concerning about trying to mask making profits off of misinformation and using free speech as a reason that they're allowed to lie, they're allowed to misrepresent all the information they want, but because of free speech, we can't quiet them down.
		And Meta has just followed X because by not fact-checking, you can put up lies that generate billions of dollars in revenue and billions of dollars in algorithm-generated profits.
		And this is all about making as much money as they possibly can, and it has nothing to do with free speech.
		You should not be allowed to lie on free speech.
		You should be able to be fact-checked and held accountable for telling the truth.
		Thank you.
		Yeah, and I think, you know, Mark Zuckerberg did see the way in which Elon Musk cozying up to Trump has benefited him, right?
		You know, Elon Musk is now his Department of Government efficiency, has a place in the incoming administration.
		We'll see how long it lasts.
		But Musk is so far exerting a lot of influence over, you know, policy decisions and politics.
		And I think that is something that Mark Zuckerberg probably saw and realized he could also potentially benefit from by implementing these policies that are going to be more favorable with the incoming Trump administration.
		The decision to get rid of fact checkers was just the latest in a long line of decisions from Meta.
		You know, they just yesterday also recently announced they would get rid of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.
		And so we are seeing a big shift in doing what is going to be seen as favorable with the incoming power dynamics in Washington.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		DeAndre in Baltimore, line for Republicans.
unidentified		Good morning, DeAndre.
		Good morning.
		Thank you, Fatis Man.
		Good to see you.
		I would basically like to, I agree with this, with the ban on TikTok.
		Essentially, you know, it's already been proven that China, the CCP essentially, and an enemy of America, has access to collect meta-bulk data.
		And who knows how long they've been doing it?
		And think about the different people that use this TikTok or may have used it in the past.
		U.S. citizens, U.S. military personnel, government personnel, federal employees.
		And imagine all the data, KYC and Arthur's Ticity, stuff and passwords that has been collected by the CCP through this TikTok thing, basically knowing everything on your device, biometrics included, and imagine that data being sold off to a foreign enemy, if it's data, if it's being collected by foreign entities.
		So I agree with this TikTok ban.
		It should have been banned a long time ago.
		And yeah, so I agree with this.
		And it should be something that should be really not necessarily enforced, but really pushed and make the public aware of the cyber threat of these apps.
		Our foreign enemies can have access to everything, literally everything.
		But yeah, that's about it.
		Thank you so much.
		And thank you, Prasie Smith, and God bless.
		Those concerns are certainly in line with the Biden administration, the first Trump administration, Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
		So we'll see where the Supreme Court lands on this.
		Mike in Reston, Virginia, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Mike.
		Good morning.
		I don't agree we should ban TikTok.
		I tell you, corporate media is controlled.
		They cover what they want.
		If they don't spread disinformation like Fox, they cover the story like they want.
		In Russia, they talk about Ukraine, but they stop talking about Gaza.
		So I went to TikTok, see what's going on in Gaza.
		I'll go to BBC or go to France.
		So they just want to control what we hear.
		TikTok, I can express myself on TikTok.
		And if they're worried about China hacking our information, they already hacked OPM.
		They looked at everything at all the personnel.
		We do the same thing.
		We have Voice of America.
		I mean, we should not be afraid of free speech.
		Fox News was controlled by Australian.
		That's more dangerous to democracy than any other outlet.
		And even some people can say MSM disinformation.
		Some people can say CNN disinformation.
		No, this is, and I'm sorry to say, but I think APTEC is a push behind this to ban what's going on in Gaza because we don't hear it on many media.
		And I think it's a great place to express your belief.
		They can track us with credit cards, with using gas, buying groceries.
		They know everything about us.
		I'm not worried about taking my personal information.
		Everybody knows our personal information right now.
		And that's what I want to say.
		No, you should not ban TikTok.
		You know, one of the main arguments from the government yesterday was that this isn't about speech at all, that this is about national security concerns.
		And so if the exact same content that you are seeing on TikTok today could continue to exist, the government doesn't really care about the content itself.
		If people posting anti-American, pro-China content, if they want to continue to do that on any other platform, on YouTube, on Facebook, on Instagram, on X, then they can go ahead and do that.
		What the government says it's trying to do is really cut off the government, the Chinese government's access to America's Americans-sensitive data and any data really, because through that data, they could, you know, kind of influence the American discourse and they could use that data to really target Americans and maybe make them spies in the future and do covert influence campaigns.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Jason in Oregon, Line for Democrats.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jason.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I was just wanting to comment on basically what you were talking about earlier about fact-checking and how that they're saying that if we start fact-checking, that that would be like against free speech, right?
		Like, but isn't fact-checking, like, wouldn't that be a form of free speech within itself too?
		Like, I mean, like, why wouldn't that be free speech as well?
		And I think, in terms of fact-checking on these platforms, it matters because increasingly this is where Americans are getting their news and their information about current events.
		And so, it's not just you and your friends talking at a restaurant.
		It's this big platform where conversations are happening, where people who are in power, Republicans or Democrats, are making statements.
		And if you don't have a systemic way to make sure that those statements are accurate, then that impacts the way that Americans are receiving information and then making decisions based on that information.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Our last call in this segment, Jim in Pennsylvania, Line for Republicans.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jim.
unidentified		Good morning, ladies.
		Thank you for listening to us.
		Hey, I have a question for the lady there.
		I understand that China is buying up all the farmland, all the hotels and motels.
		They own 50%, 51% of Chevrolet.
		Now they're going to get into the steel mills here in Pennsylvania.
		What's the difference with this TikTok?
		They're buying up the country.
		They're getting the country.
		And why is our politicians letting them do that?
		I think what you're pointing to here is that this U.S.-China competition and increasing tension really goes beyond one social media platform.
		We're seeing it across tech.
		You know, we're seeing that it will impact other segments of the economy as Trump prepares to impose tariffs.
		And so I think what you're pointing to here is that it's a much broader discussion than just this social media platform.
		I think this has gotten a lot of attention because it's a way that millions and millions of Americans are talking every day, and it's a big part of the information ecosystem.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Our guest, Maria Curie of Axios, she's a tech policy reporter.
		You can find her work online at axios.com and on X at Axios.
		Maria, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Next on Washington Journal, Kelly Dittmar of the Center for American Women and Politics will join us to discuss the role and trend of women serving in elected office.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We'll be right back.
unidentified		Sharon McMahon, host of the Here's Where It Gets Interesting podcast and author of The Small and the Mighty, is our guest Sunday night on C-SPAN's Q&A.
		She profiles lesser-known Americans who've changed the course of American history, including retail pioneers Richard Sears and Alva Roebuck, former slave and philanthropist Clara Brown, and others.
		If you ask people, who is the best person that you know, almost never will they say Jeff Bezos, right?
		Almost never will they say some TV star.
		They'll almost always say somebody that has impacted them in some really, really important way.
		And very often those people are not famous.
		They're not rich.
		They don't have daddy's money.
		They don't have their name on the side of a building.
		And there are thousands of Americans who have shaped the course of history, who have changed who the United States has become through their actions.
		But for a variety of reasons, their stories have not been recorded in those bold face fonts in the history textbooks.
		Sharon McMahon with her book, The Small and the Mighty, Sunday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app.
		Witness democracy unfiltered with C-SPAN.
		Experience history as it unfolds with C-SPAN's live coverage this month as Republicans take control of both chambers of Congress and a new chapter begins with the swearing in of the 47th President of the United States on Monday, January 20th.
		Tune in for our live all-day coverage of the presidential inauguration as Donald Trump takes the oath of office, becoming President of the United States.
		Stay with C-SPAN this month for comprehensive, live, unfiltered coverage of the 119th Congress and the presidential inauguration, C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Joining us now to discuss the role and trends of women serving in elected office is Kelly Dittmar.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		She's the research director at Rutgers University's Center for American Women in Politics.
unidentified		Kelly, welcome back to the program.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Remind our audience what your organization, what the center does and its mission.
unidentified		Yeah, for over 50 years, the Center for American Women in Politics has been investigating and tracking women's political progress.
		We're often known for tracking representation, so the numbers of women in office across levels, but we also do analysis of women as candidates, the diversity among women, as well as behavior of women as voters.
		And in addition to just keeping track of numbers, we do research to understand why those numbers are where they are, why it matters to have women's political representation across levels and types.
		And then we do programs.
		Our programs are also invested in building women's political power.
		And so we have ready to run and new leadership national training programs across many states that try to do this work to target and support women and others who want to support women to increase their representation and influence in politics.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And as you mentioned, the center does track the number of women in politics at all levels.
		Wanted to share the numbers for Congress for the new Congress.
		It just came into office last Friday.
		If we are looking at the Senate, there are 25 women serving in the 119th Congress.
		That is 25%.
		There's 125 in the House.
		That is about 28, almost 29% of the 435 seats.
		And not included in those numbers, but we want to make sure to note them are four delegates, non-voting delegates.
		Kelly, when we look at those numbers, they are the same as they were last year.
		There's no gain.
		Why?
		What are some of the factors behind those numbers staying where they are?
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, we have a slight decrease by one, but yeah, they're about stasis, right?
		And why is that?
		There are a couple reasons.
		One is we didn't have a mass increase or a significant increase in the number of women running this cycle.
		So we had a smaller pool than we had in the past few cycles.
		If you remember, we had a record year for women in 2018 where we had a huge jump in the number of women running as well as the number of women winning.
		And that continued through 2020.
		We're starting to see a kind of plateau and even a little bit of a decline since then going into 24.
		So that affects kind of how what the results will look like.
		We also had a high number of women retiring or leaving to run for other office.
		So what that meant is that we started at a deficit in this cycle.
		We had to fill in those losses and then try to make additional gains.
		So we had about 13 women leaving.
		We had 18 new women in the House.
		So again, you are going to only see slight increases, if any.
		And then of course we saw other incumbent losses and defeats along the way.
		So the lack of the loss of some incumbents, the smaller number of candidates were certainly things that contributed.
		And lastly, typically in years where we see Republicans fare better or at least Democrats fare not as good as expected or not as good as they have in previous cycles, that tends to not be great for women because women are a much larger proportion of Democratic candidates than they are Republicans.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And Kelly, when we look at research, talk about the impact that research has shown about women serving in Congress and the impact they've had on policymaking and the overall legislative outcomes.
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, when we talk about the importance and representation of women, we often talk about it maybe in three ways.
		One is it's a democratic imperative, right?
		We say we're a representative democracy, so that our governmental institutions should be representative of the constituents they serve.
		And of course, women are over 50% of the population.
		So there's a kind of fairness, justice, democratic imperative to why it matters to have women in office.
		Another reason is it's symbolically important, right?
		People look at government and they say, is that a place for me?
		Is that a place that I can make change?
		And if they don't see people who share some of their identities and lived experiences, they may believe it's not.
		And they may also have a little less trust in those institutions that they're going to look out for them.
		But lastly, as you're asking, you know, primarily, people want to know what difference does it make in policy.
		And the research that my colleagues and I have done, as well as many other scholars, have looked at the substantive differences and outcomes of having women in office.
		It's not only changing a specific policy or bringing a specific policy outcome, it's changing conversations.
		So we know, for example, when women are at the table, they're going to raise different lived experiences and concerns that maybe their male counterparts aren't aware of.
		When we were looking at welfare reform, it was women who were saying, sure, we can put, we can require a work requirement and welfare, but what are we going to do about the child care aspect of that?
		When we had more women than ever on the armed services committees, women were saying, are we going to address sexual assault issues in the military in a serious way?
		And that was women across the aisle.
		They were also saying, you know what, we should also make sure that body armor fits women in the right way.
		So there are just real life experiences and perspectives that women bring that will shape not only the outcomes, but the agendas and the conversations.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Our guest for the next 35 minutes or so is Kelly Dittmart, Research Director, Rutgers University's Center for American Women in Politics.
		If you have a question or comment for her, you can start calling in now.
		The Lions, Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Kelly, along the lines of what you were just saying, wanted to share a headline that was out last month from ABC News.
		It says, no women will lead House committees for the first time in two decades.
		Your reaction.
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, this is part and parcel of the partisan division or problem we have when we talk about women's political representation.
		So I mentioned earlier that at the candidate phase, Democratic women are much better represented among Democratic candidates than our Republicans.
		But the same is true when we look at office holders.
		So from the state legislative level all the way up to Congress, women are a much smaller proportion of all Republicans or Republican caucuses.
		In fact, when you look at state legislators, for example, in over half of our states, women are at parity or above with their Democratic counterparts in the Democratic Party.
		But in no states are women at parity with men among Republicans.
		When we look at Congress and again, any other level of office, that has real implications for the work of that caucus, especially when Republicans are in the majority.
		So what we're seeing in the House is that now Republicans, you know, again, are in the majority.
		That means that they hold all the chairmanships and there are not enough women.
		There are not women in that level of seniority at this point to hold those chairmanships.
		There's just a smaller number that are likely to ascend to those positions.
		If Democrats were in control, we would have many more, right?
		We see that in the ranking members.
		So to me, it leads me to kind of the continued request or hope that the Republican Party will also look at ways to be more strategic and targeted in the support of women.
		But we can talk more about this.
		That has really been counter to the philosophy of the party, which has said we don't worry about or target demographic diversity.
		We're focused on merit and we should not look at identity as part of that.
		We'll bring our audience into the discussion and start with Homer in Louisiana, Line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Homer.
		Yes, sir.
		How are you this morning?
		I'm an 82-year-old veteran.
		And excuse me, but well, and I think that women ought to get a good chance at this.
		These old white men have been doing it for been messing up for 400 years.
		So why don't we give the women the chance?
		And I didn't understand.
		They got the biggest voting block.
		I didn't understand them a lot of things are going on.
		And I just wasn't elected in my lifetime.
		See how the women run this thing.
		And thank you for the letting me rattle off.
		Thank you.
		Kelly, your response.
		Yeah, I mean, first of all, thank you for your service.
		And I certainly agree that, you know, there are so many more opportunities for women to ascend to political leadership.
		But, you know, unfortunately, we've had a lot of barriers and challenges in the way.
		Some who don't have that same belief that women's lived experiences and perspectives should be brought into office.
		One thing I just want to add to that, just because the caller mentioned his status as a veteran, sometimes when we talk about the importance of women's representation, those who maybe reject the idea that we should care about gender divisions or differences will say, well, that's just checking off a box.
		It doesn't mean anything.
		But when we say, hey, we want more veterans or folks with military experience in office, they'll say that's really valuable, right?
		And I agree with that.
		I agree, though, that the same way we think about veterans having distinct lived experiences that would matter for policy discussions, women in our country and women of diverse backgrounds have distinct lived experiences by almost every measure: education, health, economically.
		And so we should value those experiences in similar ways.
		Let's hear from Tina in Tennessee, Line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Tina.
		Good morning.
		Go ahead, Tina.
		Okay.
		I was calling to say that my mother went to Vanderbilt High Vanderbilt University and she was the secretary at my high school.
		I wanted to be an engineer, and so I applied.
		My first choice was MIT, and I got a letter back like three days later that basically said, it didn't say you must be stupid.
		It just said, in case you haven't heard, we don't accept women.
		And so I applied.
		My second choice, I didn't want to stay in Nashville where I live, was Georgia Tech and got the same letter back.
		I didn't think to read about what sexists they took.
		And so my third choice was Vanderbilt.
		And when I got there, I was real complimented that my advisor, they said the advisors always pick the students they want because they compete with each other.
		Well, the dean of students that assigns these or lets people pick picks first, and he picked me as one of his.
		And I asked him why he picked me, and he said, I always picked all the girls and they're four in your class of about, I think, 400 people because their standards are so high that they do well.
		They do better than all the rest.
		And I think I have, if my mother hadn't been a secretary, if it hadn't been for my father saying you can be an engineer, just keep trying, I would have looked at, I would not have thought about working because I didn't know anybody whose mother worked.
		If my mother had worked and my grandmother had worked in a professional position, I would have been a lot more likely to have gone into it.
		And we're just now reaching, I'm a grandmother now, and I've got grandchildren that are going into profession.
		And I have a granddaughter who's now a lawyer.
	And they, so they, that example, you know, that's what do I know that adults did when you're in high school makes a big difference.
	We're just now entering into the position where people can see the examples of women, basically.
	That's my comment.
	Kelly.
	Yeah, I mean, I agree.
	That's such a good example of, you know, what Marion Wright Edelman would always say, which was you can't be what you can't see.
	And I think as I was talking earlier about the symbolic importance of having women in positions of political power, it's really hard to tangibly measure that.
	And I have some colleagues who've really done important work to look at young people and who they see as political leaders.
	And we do see biases still.
	Even though women are increasing their representation, it is still more likely that if you ask a young person to draw a political leader, they draw a man because that's what they're used to seeing.
	And that has real ripple and psychological effects because then young women may say, okay, well, what are my options?
	Maybe politics isn't one of those.
	And I should add that there are racial disparities, of course, across these levels of office.
	And so the same is true.
	If you don't see individuals like you who share those identities and experiences, you might decide that this place is not for you.
	And what that means is we lose your voice in the political process.
	So it is really important.
	And that's one of the reasons that we do the work that we do to try to amplify the women who are there and what they're doing across the aisle, across parties, as well as to encourage others, young women especially, to consider this path of political service.
	One of the things, one of the other things that the caller mentioned was different standards.
	Unfortunately, we see that that's still true.
	We can look to our most recent election and find plenty of examples where women are often held to higher standards.
	And their anticipation of that means that when they're campaigning for office, et cetera, you're going to see women much more likely talk through all of their qualifications, have detailed policy plans.
	And even still, people will say it's not enough.
	We know that for men, a lot of times those qualifications are just assumed.
	And so we still have an unlevel playing field.
	While it's improving, it's still unlevel when it comes to gender and intersectional differences in expectations and standards to which candidates and office holders are held.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Kelly, a few weeks after the election, you had an op-ed in Forbes.
		The headline, Election 2024 brings no increase in women's congressional representation.
		In the piece, you note that net counts aren't the only indicator of success when it comes to progress of women in politics.
		Walk us through some of the wins that, or some of those other factors and gains that women picked up in the November election.
unidentified		Sure, absolutely.
		Yeah, when we talk about representation, as I was noting, you know, it isn't just the numbers.
		So there are particular ways in which we saw more and different types of representation for different groups of women.
		So, for example, on the Republican side of the aisle, where there weren't a lot of gains, we did see, though, the election of the first woman to the House from North Dakota, Julie Fedorcz.
		So that's a state, right, that's going to have now a different perception of who's in office.
		Sarah McBride became the first trans woman in Congress.
		As we've seen, unfortunately in the news, there's been backlash to that by some of her peers in Congress.
		But she's, you know, demonstrating the ways in which, I think, quite respectfully navigating this space and talking about and demonstrating the importance of her presence.
		And we'll see that as policy debates, et cetera, continue.
		We also had some firsts in terms of race and ethnicity.
		The center, our center is based in New Jersey.
		We elected our first Latina woman to Congress, Nellie Poe.
		In Oregon, the first black woman was sent to Congress.
		So these are all gains when we think about the diversity of women's representation.
		And then I would add one more thing, which is beyond the congressional level, we also now have three states that are at parity, meaning women are at or above 50% of the full state legislature.
		While that's only three of 50 states, it's the first time we've only before had one state at any given time that's reached that level of parity.
		So we're making gains both numerically as well as in the diversity of women serving in office.
		Let's hear from Warren in Brandon, Florida, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Warren.
		Good morning.
		Just a quick comment.
		I can appreciate what your guest is saying, and I do.
		But when she mentions this last election cycle, it looks like the only thing that's standing in the way of women is women.
		That's what it looks like to me, because it seems to me that women voted really overwhelmingly against their own interests.
		This is who they elected.
		It was women who put this guy in.
		So you need to address that.
		Who were those women and why they went for this guy as opposed to the Democratic candidate?
		Kelly.
		Yeah, I mean, I would just remind the caller that the largest percentage of support for Donald Trump was white men.
		Men were more likely to support Donald Trump than women.
		Women in every election since 1980 have voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate.
		I think what the caller is speaking to probably is a particular subset of women, white women, and even more specifically non-college educated white women.
		As we saw this cycle, white women overall continue to go for the Republican.
		They have done so in every election for many cycles.
		But when you drill that down even further, actually, college-educated white women have moved increasingly since the election of Donald Trump to the left in terms of their support.
		So nearly 60%, getting closer to 60% of that group has voted for Kamala Harris.
		So I agree that there are conversations to be had about which groups are supporting whom, but we do need to be very specific.
		And that's true among men as well, to look at the idea that these groups are not monolithic in who they support.
		And I would add that there is an assumption that women should just vote for women or that all women in terms of policy are pro-choice.
		That's not true.
		And so we allow for the same, we allow for the diversity of men's points of view, whether it comes to policy issues or who they vote for.
		We don't assume men just vote for men.
		And we just shouldn't do the same for women.
		So it's not to say that we shouldn't have real conversations with women, especially in the case that you have candidates who have been blatantly misogynistic in their commentary and in their policy.
		I agree with that.
		But we should also recognize that women are not monolithic in their priorities, in their privilege, and in what they want to see in policy outcomes.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Jerry in New Jersey, Line for Democrats.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jerry.
unidentified		Yeah, hello.
		Well, I listened to you, and I have a question, and I will ask it after my comments.
		I'm a registered Democrat.
		I voted for Biden in the primary, but of course he got pulled out by the Democrats, and they put Harris in and forced her down our throat.
		And so we decided to go.
		I went with Trump.
		The question I have for you is twofold.
		One, we have Republicans that are up like Kelsey, not Republicans, actually, a Democrat, Kelsey Gabbard.
		And we have other, like it used to be, Sarah Palin and stuff like that.
		Nobody was more critical of the women than the Democrats.
		So you're not quite supportive of women the way you say.
		I noticed that if it's a Republican, you go right after them.
		If it's a Democrat, it's okay.
		And the other question I have is, how proud are you or Bass?
		How proud of you are Bass in California, the girl in Georgia that was going after Trump, who screwed up the whole thing.
		These are all women in charge that are blowing it.
		And who would you think could run as a woman in 2028 that could really beat?
		Because at the rate they're going, Barbara War, I mean, Waters, and I can go on and on, Nancy Pelosi getting rich off these stock.
		Who, who's going to run on the Democrat side?
		Your Democrats are blowing it.
		Kelly.
		Yeah, so I just want to clarify, they're not my Democrats.
		So we're a nonpartisan center.
		I'm talking about, as I mentioned before, the successes for Republican women, Democrats, et cetera.
		So just want to clarify that we do work to lift up women across party lines.
		In fact, that's why we are so concerned about the divisions in terms of our disparities between parties.
		In terms of the question about kind of individual women and the caller's assessment that they're doing a poor job, too often when we talk about women's political representation, fingers are pointed to one woman who did one thing or another woman who didn't do one another thing to say that therefore women's representation is not important or should not be valued.
		It's interesting that we don't do the same thing often to men.
		So we've had histories of men who arguably have not done a great job in government.
		And I would not argue that that means we should have no men in government, right?
		And so I think we just have to be very careful about these wide kind of spread claims.
		And also among some of those women, I think we should look at the degree to which, again, they may be held to a different standard.
		We know very little right now about Karen Bass's leadership through what is a current catastrophe, right?
		We know about her historic leadership as one of the first black women speakers of the House nationwide, who had a really pretty stellar record.
		She was successful in the U.S. House and from what we know, already successful in her role as mayor.
		So we have to wait and see kind of how this will pan out.
		And she should be held to the same standard as any other leader in terms of the criticism, but not then be painted as a representative of all women or all black women based on whether or not somebody thinks she did a good job.
		So I think we just have to be really careful on our assessment, but also consider the ways in which we may be critical of women in ways that are not the same to the men who both are currently serving and have historically.
		The caller asked one other question about the Democratic bench, I guess.
		You know, who's kind of there going forward?
		And I think this is a real question.
		I'm sorry to punt this, but I think that this is actually a real question that the Democrats are going to have to grapple with, as are, by the way, the Republicans after Trump's term is over.
		You know, who is really in line who can capture voters and for the Democrats who can capture voters who even Harris wasn't maybe able to capture this time.
		There are no shortage of women.
		There are lots of qualified Democratic women.
		We have a record number of Democratic women governors who are serving who are often kind of on those lists, like Agression Whitmer or others who are currently holding office, who are often put on the short list.
		We have women in the Senate and the House.
		Those are just some of the women that you might consider and start looking at as we look at their role and attempts maybe to travel the country over the next four years.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Diane in Manchester, Missouri, line for Republicans.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Diane.
unidentified		Good morning.
		How are you?
		I have a court.
		I'm upset.
		I'm older than this woman, Kelly Young, and she made some statements that are just wrong about women are more Democratic than are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.
		I find that wrong because of my social group and people that are from all aspects of life.
		You know, that's not correct.
		And I also find that the Democrats have not put forward a candidate like that would be seriously considered.
		I mean, Kamala Harris, forget that.
		Even Hillary Clinton had more experience than Kamala, but she had a lot of baggage.
		Now, you have to look at an individual.
		Just because she's a woman, you can't just vote for her, which they were trying to do this past election.
		Kamala Harris is black and a woman and have to vote for her.
		And women have to vote for her.
		That's crazy.
		You know, you have to vote for the qualification and the person itself, not what the Democrats tell you to vote for.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Kelly.
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, I agree with you.
		And I actually think most Democrats probably agree with you as well.
		One thing that was really interesting in the Harris campaign that I actually got asked a lot about was, well, why doesn't she talk more about being a woman and being a black woman and making history?
		I think that you heard her from her mouth directly say, I don't take any votes for granted.
		I'm not asking people to vote for me because I'm a woman or a black person.
		So I actually don't think, it's funny that people, there were people who said, oh, you're just asking people to vote for her because she's a black woman.
		That was never the message of the campaign.
		It's certainly not a message of organizations like ours who are saying, look, yes, you should value the representation of women, but that is not why you vote for somebody, right?
		You vote for somebody because you think they represent the things that you care about.
		What I'm arguing and what I think the larger literature in terms of representation would argue is that at least in part, identity and lived experiences are part of the credentials that you bring to being a candidate.
		So women may have some overlap with the lived experiences of the caller.
		Now, Kamala Harris's experiences are going to be very different perhaps than the callers, maybe or maybe not, right?
		But those are things you could look at and gender is just part and race is just part of that story.
		And I would just follow up on the idea that I was presenting disinformation.
		You can look at any data on partisan identity, again, for over the last 45, nearly 50 years, and it is consistently true that women in the electorate, maybe not in a particular community, but in the electorate, the U.S. electorate overall do identify overwhelmingly as Democrats.
		So I shouldn't say over 50% of women are Democrats, and they are also more likely to vote for Democratic candidates.
		So that's true.
		That data is on our website if folks would like to see it.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		And Kelly, I will share some of that data with our audience.
		There are numbers coming from your organization that look at women serving in Congress, the number of women serving in Congress to date.
		When we look at the number of Senate, there have been 44 women who have served in the Senate.
		That includes 27 Democrats, 17 Republicans, 377 have been in the House.
		That is 252 Democrats and 125 Republicans, plus eight non-voting delegates.
		And that breaks down evenly for Democrats for Republicans.
		19 have served in both the House and Senate.
		Again, it's 12 Democrats, six Republicans, and one Independent.
		Also want to note that one of the numbers on the website, when we look at those numbers, that when we look at women serving in Congress to date, it is 3.3% of all women in Congress.
unidentified		We'll hear next from Yvette in Florida, Line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Yvette.
		Good morning.
		Well, listening to this conversation, I just want to pass on my own experience with women these days.
		And the ones that I've met in the military, for instance, here in Florida were so impressive.
		I was so impressed with these women.
		And also the young women in high school.
		I've met some young women recently that I visited with who were very impressive as well.
		And I think the white men are voting for the beat your chess guy because they're afraid of these women.
		They're beating them out in law school and medical school from what I'm reading.
		And I'm just saying, guys, you know, quit whining and compete.
		It's just, you know, they want us over there in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, so they don't have to compete.
		Yvette, we'll get a response from Kelly.
		Yeah, thank you.
		I mean, and I really appreciate kind of looking to the next generation and the optimism that Yvette is bringing to the conversation.
		When we look at activism and advocacy, a colleague of mine, Melissa Deckman, has written a great book on the politics of Gen Z and talking about high levels of mobilization among Gen Z, and particularly among Gen Z women and even more specifically, Gen Z women of color, who are really taking a lead when we look at protest politics and advocacy in all sorts of areas.
		Environment, issues around safety and gun control, class-based arguments and efforts to look at greater equity in those areas, educational access, things like that, right?
		Women, young women in particular, are really impressive in the work that they're doing.
		It's not to say that young men aren't as well, but we are seeing even some gender differences in that level of engagement and participation.
		And so it is true that, you know, the future is bright there in terms of seeing more women hopefully translate that advocacy into an interest and success in running for office and so that we can continue to see the gains in office holders.
		And I think the other thing that the caller raises is what literature would talk about as kind of male fragility or masculine fragility.
		Susan Faluti's book, Backlash, kind of speaks to this in some way, which is to say that when we see progress, whether it's gender progress, racial progress, et cetera, which we really have seen, often we confront a backlash to that.
		And often it's based in a perception that my well-being or my privilege is under threat.
		And I do think we're seeing that among some men, some communities of white people.
		And it's something that Donald Trump in his elections has tapped into by saying, we'll go back.
		We'll go back to when these groups had greater privilege and greater security and more traditional gender roles.
		And so it is absolutely part of our politics of this moment.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Kelly, we're talking about the importance of women in elected office, but there's also a lot of women who work behind the scenes.
		It was shortly after, just today after the November election, that President-elect Trump named Susie Wiles as his chief of staff.
		She'll be the first woman in that post.
		Talk about the importance of women working in politics, but in less visible roles.
unidentified		Yeah, I think it's really important.
		Thank you for thinking about and pointing out the representation of women in unelected positions.
		It's something that I've been really interested in when we think about congressional staff or other consultants, those who inform the politics of our moment, whose names we often don't know.
		When we think about women's political representation, we also have to think about power.
		And power can be defined in lots of ways, but one way is to think about how much influence do women have on outcomes in these political spheres.
		So if you think of somebody like Susie Wiles, who had obviously a prominent role on the Trump campaign, will now have a prominent role in the White House, that's a lot of influence.
		That's power.
		Arguably more than maybe some women in the U.S. Senate.
		And so we have to look at all the areas where women can gain political influence and power and try to, I would argue, encourage women to think about those roles for themselves.
		So, in addition to the type of high-level staff roles in the White House, you can be a legislative or congressional staffer.
		In our system, lobbyists are very influential, and some kind of give lobbyists a bad name.
		But we know that they're a source of information and influence for elected leaders.
		So, it's a place where women, if they care deeply about certain policy issues, might think about lobbying and advocacy as another way to influence outcomes.
		When we look at the representation of women in these unelected roles, we've also seen persistent underrepresentation.
		That's been true in the White House and high levels of leadership, cabinet leadership, even in the Trump administration of before.
		And so, we want to think about ways how do we kind of put a little more pressure on those who are selecting those staffs and selecting those appointees to consider diversity in that selection.
		And I know that many will push back against that, but again, I think if you recognize the value of perspectives and lived experiences, you might see the value as well of encouraging more diversity across these unelected roles.
		Let's hear from Juanita in Cincinnati, Ohio, Line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Juanita.
		Good morning.
		How are you?
		We're Snowden.
		It's very cold here in Cincinnati.
		Before I say anything, I want to say, make a comment about the lady who's going to be Trump's chief of staff.
		As far as I'm concerned, she's going to be another Mark Meadows.
		So I'm not impressed at all.
		Secondly, about Mrs. Harris, Ms. Harris, can you imagine what the backlash would have been had in any way, shape, or form that she would say that she would rely on her race and gender to be elected?
		Don't forget, a lot of black men did not vote for her either.
		And thirdly, all you have to do, and I'm an old lady, so I can look, I can say it, all you have to do is look at the numbers over the years in Congress.
		Women tend to bring to Congress the things that make houses or homes work.
		Things like, okay, if you're taking care of mom and dad, who's going to take care of the kids?
		Who's going to make sure that the gas and the electric bills are paid?
		Who's going to make sure that the house taxes are paid, especially in these weird states?
		I live across from the state, Kentucky, where half the state, oh, they went for Trump.
		But by the way, half their counties don't even have a doggone a nursing home and half their hospitals have closed.
		So the numbers tell why women over the years have become Democrats.
		And we'll just have to see what happens in the next four years.
		Thank you.
		Kelly.
		Yeah, thank you for that point.
		I think you stated it more clearly than I did in terms of the value of women's congressional representation.
		And I just want to back that up with some interviews we did in Congress.
		We did a book, my colleagues and I called A Seat at the Table, where we talked to over 80 women in Congress across party lines.
		And one of the things they continually came back to when we talked about why does it matter, or we asked them, why does it matter that you're here?
		They often talked about exactly what the caller was talking about, which was we understand the distinct challenges of caregiving and running a household economically in terms of care responsibilities, being within a sandwiched generation where they're caring for elderly parents and kids.
		And they would talk about how having those experiences and responsibilities in their personal lives.
		really did influence what they brought to Congress.
		So whether it be thinking about paid leave, which by the way, both Republicans and Democratic women have led on, just in very different, you know, they have a very different model for how you get there, but they still were leading on those questions or elder care issues, social security changes that would better address caregiving.
		We see women leading on so many of those things, as the caller said.
		So I do think there are ample examples of why and how it matters and that you can apply those across party lines.
		And one other thing the caller mentioned in terms of, you know, how difficult it would have been for Kamala Harris to ever say, you know, vote for me or think about my race and gender in this, I think she's absolutely right that were that to be something she did say, the criticism would be she's playing the gender card or she's playing the race card.
		In fact, you know, again, as the earlier caller noted, there was an argument she was, even though she never said those words.
		So it is a constraint that you have as a candidate who represents very diverse identities from what we've always seen in office.
		Whereas you have, you know, male candidates, white male candidates.
		Donald Trump repeatedly said, you know, if Hillary Clinton, she doesn't have the presidential look, right?
		So he was very much playing into identity, but often we don't call it out as such when we assume the neutrality of whiteness and maleness.
		We have time for one last call.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We'll talk with Laura in Pennsylvania line for Democrats.
unidentified		Good morning, Laura.
		Good morning.
		I would like to say that, first of all, women are what runs this country.
		Like if you think about it, like they're caretakers and givers.
		And Kamala Harris, I felt so bad for her when she had to stand up there next to the speaker and have to say the numbers.
		That had to be so humiliating for her.
		I was like, I felt so bad.
		And also, Trump, okay, he hired women for certain jobs, but definitely national security.
		We need somebody in national security that can run this country.
		And she has no clue, absolutely.
		He just hires women that he likes.
		They have no experience.
		And we are under siege right now inside our country.
		You know, we need a woman that knows what she's doing.
		If we're going to elect a woman, it doesn't matter what she looks like.
		It's the experience.
		And that's what really gets me.
		Like, I don't understand how people don't see what he's doing.
		And it's just like a, he's a circus.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Laura, we'll get a response from our guest.
unidentified		We're running short on time.
		Kelly.
		Yeah, I just want to echo the fact again that this is absolutely true.
		None of this work and none of this argument is to, you know, say any woman, support all women, regardless of their beliefs or their experience.
		The argument that I would make, and I think many of us make, and I think the caller is making is women should just be held to the same standard.
		So same criticism, same scrutiny over qualifications, experience, and perspective as their male counterparts, not higher.
		And so if we do that, we should see more women in positions of power and influence in ways that can make positive outcomes.
		And also, not all women are going to share the same position.
		So that's why we want to see a diversity of women in office, because we have a diversity of viewpoints and experiences and desires among women in the electorate.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Kelly Dittmar is the research director at Rutger University's Center for American Women in Politics.
		You can find her work and others online at cawp.rutgers.edu.
		Kelly, thank you so much for joining us for this conversation.
unidentified		Thank you.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We are wrapping up today's Washington Journal with Open Forum.
		If there's a public policy issue you'd like to talk about, you can start calling in now the lines Democrats 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		We'll be right back.
jimmy carter ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is always an unfinished creation.
ronald reagan ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is worth dying for.
george h w bush ▲ ● ▼		Democracy belongs to us all.
bill clinton ▲ ● ▼		We are here in the sanctuary of democracy.
george w bush ▲ ● ▼		Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies.
barack obama ▲ ● ▼		American democracy is bigger than any one person.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected.
unidentified		We are still at our core a democracy.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
unidentified		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 4:30 p.m. Eastern, human rights advocate Mark Clifford, with his book The Troublemaker, talks about the life and activism of Hong Kong media mogul and dissident Jimmy Lai, who's being tried for sedition and other crimes by the Chinese government.
		Then at 10 p.m. Eastern, on Afterwards, journalist Adam Chandler, with his book 99% Perspiration, A New Working History of the American Way of Life, argues that hard work is not enough to obtain the American dream.
		He's interviewed by author Alyssa Quart.
		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.
		Next week on the C-SPAN networks.
		The House and the Senate are both in session.
		The House continues work on the Republicans' priority list of 12 bills focusing on border security and immigration policy.
		The Senate continues work on the Lake and Riley Act, legislation to require Homeland Security Department officials to detain migrants for theft-related crimes.
		Also, stay tuned to the C-SPAN networks for comprehensive coverage of confirmation hearings for President-elect Trump's cabinet nominees.
		On Tuesday, Pete Hegseth, nominee for Defense Secretary, will testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
		Wednesday, South Dakota Governor Christy Noam, tapped to lead the Department of Homeland Security, will appear before the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
		Florida Senator Marco Rubio, nominee for Secretary of State, heads to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
		Also, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, nominated for U.S. Attorney General, will begin her confirmation hearings.
		She'll testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee across two days, Wednesday and Thursday.
		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.
		Democracy unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We are in open forum for the rest of today's Washington Journal.
		We'll get to your calls in just a few minutes, but first, wanted to give you an update on the wildfires out in California.
		Reporting from NBC this morning says that the fires have killed at least 11 people and have swept through 37,900 acres in the greater Los Angeles area, destroying communities and more than 12,000 structures.
		It says evacuation orders for the largest blaze, that's the Palisades fire, has expanded.
		It has expanded as it sweeps east and threatens Brentwood and Encino.
		That fire is currently 8% contained.
		At least 153,000 LA residents were under evacuation orders overnight.
		And also, the Los Angeles County has declared a public health emergency, warning that smoke and particle matter could pose immediate and long-term threats.
		It was yesterday during the White House briefing that FEMA Administrator Deanna Criswell spoke about the federal response to those California wildfires.
deanne criswell ▲ ● ▼		Recovery from these fires is going to be complex.
		I've seen many disasters throughout my four years in this role.
		This is certainly one of the worst that I have seen.
		And the debris removal alone is going to be one of the major things that we have to accomplish, that the state has to accomplish to get this recovery journey started.
		And that's why when President Biden authorized 100% reimbursement for the first 180 days, it is really going to set the stage to jumpstart this recovery for these communities.
		I had a chance to drive through some of the communities that were impacted as well.
		And it's not just the homes that are lost.
		We've seen schools that have been destroyed, businesses, small businesses, religious institutions.
		These are things that we are going to be helping, are going to be able to help with temporary facilities like temporary schools to help get children back into the schoolhouse, but also any other emergency measures as they begin the work of permanent repair.
		Thousands of homes have been destroyed, and we continue to hear the numbers change, but know that this is going to be a long-term recovery for all of these individuals that have been impacted.
		And as I told the governor and the mayor yesterday and today, I assured them that our programs, our staff, the entire federal family are going to be here with them, alongside them, helping them achieve the outcomes that they need to not just rebuild these communities, but also rebuild them in a way that's going to make them stronger and more resistant to the types of weather events that they have been experiencing.
		This recovery journey is going to be long, but we are going to be there with them to support them every step of the way.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		We'll start this open forum segment with Henry in Georgia, Line 4 Republicans.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Henry.
unidentified		Good morning.
		In response to your previous guest, I think that any quotas based on race and gender and diversity, I think that that's just a trash can of promoting someone into a position.
		And simply putting someone in a position doesn't always mean that the decisions they make will be decisions you agree with.
		So you have to take some salt along with the sugar.
		But I do believe that one of the characteristic downfalls of filling positions is to base it on a quota, race, or gender system.
		Merit should be utmost.
		And then, of course, everyone will decide that they support or do not support the vision and represent type of representation that the voter particularly wants.
		But no person voted into an office or promoted to a position is a panacea for all the problems that they're going to have to deal with.
		Thank you very much for your time and the opportunity to comment.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Henry in Georgia.
		Diane in Ohio, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Diane.
unidentified		Good morning, Kimberly.
		Okay, first of all, I want people to know next month I'll be 72 and I'm white.
		And the other day when they were talking about the Black Lives Matter, I watched Rittenhouse hearing, and the three people he shot, two which had died, were white supremacists.
		So obviously, it must appear that anytime there was disturbance during the time that people were doing the, I can't think of the word I want to use right now, when they were demonstrating that white supremacists started the trouble.
		Second of all, I want to thank President Biden for being here because he did an excellent job.
		And I wish Harris would have become president because I know this year we are going to be in a recession because of this man coming into office.
		If anybody thinks he's not after six, six, he had lost all that money and now he thinks he could do better.
		He knew back in September of 19, I mean, 2019, that we were going to have a pandemic.
		And in October of that year, my older sister was in the city that it occurred in.
		And when she came back, she was very sick.
		Luckily, she lived through it.
		He could have stopped that back then.
		So all those lives that were lost was Trump.
		Comes Diane in Ohio.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		David in New York, line for independence.
unidentified		Good morning, David.
		Well, we got the tinfoil hat brigade calling in.
		Hey, we're on the younger side.
		We have three daughters.
		We live in New York City.
		And I guess my question for the previous caller would have been, what is a woman?
		Because we have girls that go to gifted schools, and they are being edged out by biological men who are coming in, taking their scholarships, taking their places on track, and also in volleyball.
		And we sit here and try and teach them that they need to work hard, but they're completely overshadowed by these biologic men.
		So I would ask that quick question.
		What is a woman?
		Thank you.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Amy in West Virginia, line for Republicans.
unidentified		Good morning, Amy.
		Good morning.
		I want to thank you for this topic today.
		And I just wanted to ask the questioner, make the comment: how are there going to be more women Republican candidates when the news media absolutely seeks to destroy every single one of them?
		It happens locally where I'm at.
		It happens everywhere you go and everywhere you look.
		It is absolutely true that they will be destroyed by the media in any way possible if they run.
		How can a center such as yours deal with situations like that and give some kind of help so that more Republican women can be representatives?
		That was Amy in West Virginia.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Amy, our guest is no longer with us, but she is on Twitter.
		If you tweet your question to her, you might get a response.
		Let's hear from Terry in Florida, line for Democrats.
unidentified		Good morning, Terry.
		Good morning.
		I'm just thinking about the wildfire, and I feel for those people.
		But we have more serious issues that Trump needs to take care of, not renaming the golf of Mexico.
		If that's the case, then why don't you give California back to Mexico?
		I can't understand this man.
		We have too many problems for him to be raising petty, petty issues.
		He's not a leader.
		And God really bless and forgive those that voted for him.
		I see no way that the U.S. is going to make it through this.
		I'm putting my trust in God and not in any old white man or men.
		We need to get a younger group in that has a bigger view of this country, not bringing in a South African who has hate in his heart.
		I'm sorry, but I'm just upset.
		Thank you.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		It's Terry and wanted to show this headline from this morning's Washington Post: Federal prosecutors seek at least 15 years for Bob Menendez.
		The former senator says he was found guilty on 15 felony charges for large-scale bribery plot.
		It says the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York describe Menendez as a historic figure in a sentencing memorandum filed this week.
		He is the first U.S. official who has been found guilty of acting as an agent of a foreign country and the first whose corruption offenses has reached the top position within a Senate committee.
		Menendez was the ranking Democratic member and then chairman of the Influential Foreign Affairs Panel during the bribery scheme, which ran from 2018 to 2020-20, according to records from his trial.
		Over nine weeks in Manhattan federal court last year, prosecutors showed how three businessmen, Whale Will Hanna, Fred Diabes, and Jose Uribi, showered Menendez and his wife with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash-filled envelopes and checks, gold bars, jewelry, household items, and a Mercedes-Benz convertible,
		all in exchange for Menendez's help securing business deals with officials affiliated with the governments of Egypt and Qatar.
		Menendez also tried to disrupt several active criminal investigations into Diabes and Uribi's associates witness testified.
		Menendez is scheduled to be sentenced on January 29th.
		His attorneys are requesting a sentence of no prison time.
		Say Menendez is poised to not only lose his office, but his pension and law license and has already suffered reputationally by becoming a quote national punchline.
		Back to your calls.
		Louise in North Carolina, Line for Independence.
		Good morning, Louise.
unidentified		Good morning.
		You're doing a great job.
		Before I make my comment about the open forum, I want to mention the woman that called earlier in from Ohio.
		Hopefully, she's listening.
		Donald Trump did try closing down everything, all the flights coming in, bringing COVID in, you know, bringing the Wuhan virus.
		And Nancy Pelosi and everyone in the Democrats in California and Fauci, all of them had a fit.
		So there's that.
		Woman from Ohio, I hope you hear this.
		But what I want to mention is we're up here in North Carolina.
		We've been devastated.
		I heard nothing from Biden, nothing about 100% helping us.
		And I just wanted to say this because everyone in America needs to see what kind of fool we have up there in that administration right now.
		Thank God Donald Trump won.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Brad in Minnesota, Line for Republicans.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Brad.
unidentified		Well, good morning there.
		I wish that your last guest that you had on there was still on, but it's almost crazy talk to have this DEI type of stuff going on.
		And you wonder why we are where we're at.
		And it's because young women like her that she really can't do much more than talk.
		And I wouldn't have her lead, okay?
		She is no leader.
		But to stand there and she's pointed out, you know, like people should have white guilt, you know, and it's just like, wait a minute, you know, that's over the line when she starts talking like that.
		And so I look at it like, are we just going to talk about Trump?
		Is all of these guests that you got coming on just Trump haters?
		I mean, that's, I mean, you already gotten the last eight years of having Trump haters on your show.
		Now we're going to have four more.
		Think about it.
		You're going to have 12 to 13 years on C-SPAN of just Trump haters.
		So I think that when you got rid of Steve, and I still think Steve is in the background getting the type of guests that you got coming on.
		And so I hope that Washington Journal turns away and doesn't keep following in the steps of like MSNBC and CNN.
		And I mean, listen to how these people are talking.
		They're crazy.
		They listen to the wrong things in their life and they're poisoning their heads.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		So Brad, who would you like to see come on that would speak favorably of Trump?
unidentified		Well, regardless, it isn't, why do you got to keep talking about Trump, Trump, Trump?
		How about we start talking about the things that really matter?
		How about bringing on people?
		I just want to talk about the direction of where they believe our country should be going instead of always just focusing that the problems that we're in right now is caused by Trump.
		I mean, listen to half of your people are going to be calling in that are Democrats.
		It's always Trump.
		You know what?
		You didn't work there when Steve worked there.
		And it just seems like Steve is still behind the scenes pulling the strings and then having these types of people keep coming on and on and on.
		And so I've never talked with you and I've talked with all the other, you know, your hosts there.
		And I mean, What are people to think that when you continually going down this road as same as MSNBC and CNN?
		I mean, it's just like you're a parent company to them.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		Brad, we do have guests on that have a variety of viewpoints on a variety of topics.
		We encourage you to continue watching the program as we have those guests on.
		Joe in Chicago, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Joe.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I would like to say about this tragedy, a natural disaster, which has occurred in Southern California.
		And the Republican standpoint of attacking the Democratic leadership on the issue of not enough water available.
		It doesn't make a difference how much water and how much fire apparatuses they would have had to fight this fire.
		Nothing would have been enough.
		It was like the fire bombing of Dresden during World War II.
		All you have to do is look at the pictures and see the devastation.
		There was never going to be enough.
		Okay, never going to be enough.
		There was nothing that could have been done.
		And for the incoming president, and this is for the guy that just called, Trump has no business knocking anybody on the response or what wasn't done.
		He's going to be running the show in about a week.
		And he should be there being presidential on what he's going to do to help these people, like Joe Biden is doing now.
		Okay, and that's all I got to say.
		This is a disaster.
		Okay, and let's treat it as such and get the politics out of it.
		Thank you.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Joe in Chicago.
		Sarah in Cole City, Indiana, line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Sarah.
unidentified		Yeah, to the guy that just talked, Biden told Gavin Nunas a long time ago that they need to do something about the underbrush and all that.
		And they cut him off, made fun of him, and all that.
		But that's not my point.
		I agree with the guy from Minnesota about your station, Tammy.
		Do you realize, Tammy, your last guest, and I do it every day, your last guest, you called six Democrats, one Republican, and no Independents.
		Pull it back up, people, if you don't believe me.
		No?
		And to the guy that, the guy from Minnesota saying that, you know, how you guys are, well, guess what?
		They got a CNN guy on there.
		It's not that Steve Scully anymore.
		They got a guy that's come over from CNN, people.
		Wake up.
		All you got to do, you know what I used to do, Tammy?
		I used to mark down how you guys would call.
		And oh, my God, it's overwhelming how you go, Democrat.
		Pull it up.
		All you got to go back is you talk about archives all the time.
		Go back in the archives, sit down and start writing it down.
		And you're a Democrat, we know it.
		And Mimi, and so is the other lady.
		The only one, really, the black lady, is the best one out of all of you ladies.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		She's a black, she's the.
		Her name is Kimberly.
		We'll go on to Alex in Detroit, Michigan, line for independents.
		Good morning, Alex.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I don't know how you take it.
		You could.
		I just wanted to say about this GOP MAGA.
		You know, it's like when you watch those people talk on their podcast and stuff, Kirk and Roland and all those guys, the gotcha question is, like I heard this morning a couple of times, what is a woman?
		Well, back in the 60s when I was in junior high, when they used to have debates and stuff, Get one-on-one stuff, and they have to get a gotcha question.
		What is a woman?
		Well, back in the 60s, a woman was your mama, and that's what a woman is.
		So, tell all these MAGA folks that when people ask you, what is a woman, tell them your mama.
		Thanks for listening.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Alex.
		And our last call in today's program is Willie from Hope Mills, North Carolina, line for Republican.
		Good morning, Willie.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I first want to establish one thing: I'm not identified as an African American.
		I'm a black American with generations of history in this country.
		And to me, the division is ridiculous.
		The Democrats need to accept the fact that you've lost.
		Accept that.
		Biden scorched their policy of just making things extremely difficult for the incoming administration.
		It's just ridiculous.
		It's child's play.
		Why are they doing it?
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Willie in North Carolina.
		We do have one more caller.
		It's Richard in Missouri, line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Richard.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I was glad to get in.
		You know, Oklahoma down here is right close to me where I live.
		And they want to put the Ten Commandments in school, all the schools, you know.
		I think they ought to change that Ten Commandments.
		We got a president that, let's say, has adultery, lied to us, stole from all the people he did business with.
		I, you know, I'm an old man.
		I'm 87 years old, you know.
		And I know I'm going to die pretty soon.
		And Trump's an old man, he's going to die too, pretty soon.
		He ought to go out and enjoy life instead of being a damn pest.
		Thank you.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		That was Richard in Missouri.
		And our last call for today's Washington Journal.
		Thank you to our callers, to our guests, and to everyone who watched.
		We'll be back tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Eastern with another edition of Washington Journal.
		Enjoy the rest of your day.
unidentified		Coming up Sunday morning, Evelyn Farkas of the McCain Institute at Arizona State University and Reed Smith of Stand Together discuss foreign policy challenges facing the incoming Trump administration.
		Then NPR's Robin Farzad on the latest data on the U.S. economy and financial and economic stories to watch in 2025.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Sunday morning on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
		Later today, newly elected North Carolina Governor Josh Stein will deliver his inaugural address.
		Mr. Stein, a Democrat, previously served as Attorney General of the Tarhill State.
		He defeated former Republican Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson in the November election to succeed Governor Roy Cooper.
		Watch his remarks live at 2 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Charter Communications.
		Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers.
		And we're just getting started.
		Building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.
		Charter Communications supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
tammy thueringer ▲ ● ▼		This is Washington Journal for Saturday, January 11.
		Yesterday, a judge sentenced President-elect Donald Trump to an unconditional discharge for all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
		The sentence means no punishment, including jail time, fines, or probation, will be imposed.
		To start today's program, we want to hear your thoughts on the sentencing.
		Here are the lines: Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can text your comments to 202-748-8003.
		Be sure to include your name and city.
		You can also post a question or comment on Facebook at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN or on X at C-SPANWJ.
		Good morning, and thank you for being with us today.
		We'll get to your calls and comments in just a few minutes, but first, I wanted to show you some headlines in today's newspaper about that sentencing.
		This from the Wall Street Journal sentence cements Trump as a felon.
		The front page of the New York Times with sentence, Trump will now be first felon to occupy Oval Office.
		And the front page of the Washington Post.

▲