CSPAN - Washington Journal 07/29/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 29, 2025 06:59-10:02 - CSPAN

03:02:45

Washington Journal 07/29/2025

Participants

Main

pedro echevarria

cspan 39:39

Appearances

donald j trump

admin 04:12

kim schrier

rep/d 01:12

kristen welker

nbc 00:35

mike johnson

rep/r 01:07

Clips

al green

rep/d 00:28

mike collins

00:14

patty murray

sen/d 00:04

peter navarro

admin 00:01

rachel maddow

msnow 00:07

willie nelson

00:05

Callers

amanda in florida

callers 00:15

donnie in oklahoma

callers 00:03

jimmy in texas

callers 00:15

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		We are speaking to the country.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
		The flag replacement program got started by a good friend of mine, a Navy vet, who saw the flag at the office that needed to be replaced.
		Said, wouldn't this be great if this is going to be something that we did for anyone?
		Comcast has always been a community-driven company.
		This is one of those great examples of the way we're getting out there.
		Comcast supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Coming up this morning on Washington Journal, we'll take your calls and comments live.
		Then, former GOP New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCoy, the chair of the Committee to Reduce Infectious Deaths, discusses healthcare in the U.S. and political news of the day.
		And author, law professor, and ABC News legal contributor Kim Whaley discusses recent actions by President Trump and how they test the checks and balances established in the Constitution.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
		Join the conversation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is the Washington Journal for July 29th.
		The Supreme Court has now been drawn into those associated with Jeffrey Epstein.
		Epstein associate Gelaine Maxwell went to the court yesterday asking for an appeal of her 2021 sex trafficking conviction, arguing the federal government is obligated to honor a non-prosecution agreement that Jeffrey Epstein took that protected Maxwell from prosecution.
		No word on if the justices will hear the case.
		This also is President Trump Law in Scotland.
		Responded to questions on if he would pardon Ghelene Maxwell.
		You can comment on this new development concerning those associated with Jeffrey Epstein by the following lines: 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		If you want to text us your thoughts, you can do that at 202-748-8003.
		You can also post on Facebook at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
unidentified		And you can post on X at C-SPANWJ.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Axios picks up the story about this filing at the Supreme Court by Gelene Maxwell, saying that she pressed ahead with that appeal to the court yesterday, seeking to overturn her conviction on the grounds that she was unlawfully prosecuted for sex trafficking minors with Jeffrey Epstein.
		In the Why It Matters section, the filing by Maxwell, who was sentenced to 20 years to federal prison in 2022, comes just three days after she met with a top Justice Department official that was tapped to re-examine the Epstein case.
		A little more about the appeal, saying that it revolves around a highly controversial 2007 plea agreement that Epstein negotiated with the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida.
		Quote, the United States, according to the plea agreement, agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including, but not limited to, four other suspects.
		Maxwell was not listed as one of those suspects, but her lawyers argue that she didn't need to be.
		That's the setup from Axios.
		It was her lawyer, David Oscar Marcus, posting on X when it comes to this appeal to the Supreme Court.
		And you can find it online at his site.
		But here's a little bit of the argument that he makes regarding that, saying that here's our statement about the reply brief that was filed in the court today.
		No one is above the law, not even the Southern District of New York.
		One government made a deal and it must honor it.
		The United States cannot promise immunity with one hand in Florida and prosecute with the other in New York.
		President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a deal.
		And surely he would agree that when the United States gives its word, it must stand by it.
		We are appealing not only to the Supreme Court, but to the president himself to recognize how profoundly unjust it is to scapegoat Gelaine Maxwell for Epstein's crimes, especially when the government promised she would not be prosecuted.
		That's the statement from the lawyer.
		We'll read you more about the back and forth on this filing at the Supreme Court, but you can make your comments on it as well.
		Again, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		And Independents, 202748-8002.
		As always, you can send us a text at 202-748-8003.
		And you can post on our social media sites too at Facebook and on X. Florida starts us off.
		This is Otis Democrats' line about this new chapter when it comes to Gelaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein overall involving the Supreme Court.
		Otis, you're on.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Good morning.
		Well, you know, when you look for necks in the sand, you can definitely find them because there's too many out there.
		I'd say this here.
		Maxwell, she does not deserve a party.
		She's just as guilty as yesterday was Monday.
		But I can say this is more important.
		This is a line with a lot of Curanon supporters, Republican supporters.
		They agreed with Donald Trump.
		They said there was something there.
		I didn't believe it, and I don't care whether or not it wasn't something there.
		I now want the files to be released for one reason.
		He said it was something there.
		Now it's time to prove it.
		I have an old saying when I was in Army, when I told my soldiers they gave me an excuse because they couldn't think they couldn't do something, didn't do it.
		My phrase is always this: the maximum effective range of an excuse is always zero.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about the Supreme Court being drawn into this?
unidentified		Well, the Supreme Court, we knew it was coming because in Florida, when Maxwell was being given a deal, he made a deal for all his associates.
		But the bottom line was this, that was a deal for Florida.
		It didn't say, it didn't say nationwide.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Otis there, Otis there in Florida giving us his thought.
		This is Joe from LJ, Georgia, Republican line, on this new aspect of the Jeffrey Epstein files involving Gilane Maxwell.
		Joe and Georgia, go ahead.
unidentified		Pedro, I don't think with all the things going on with the deficit and all the activities, I don't think they ought to take it up.
		I just think there are more important things going on in the country today.
		But probably I hate them to spend time on things like that, in my opinion.
		But I think Trump's doing a great job.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But why not bring the Supreme Court into this?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Or why do you think they shouldn't take it up?
unidentified		Well, I just don't think it's that important, in my opinion.
		I mean, I don't know anybody in that area, LAJ or Georgia, that really cares that much about it.
		And I think with so much going on, I think there are other things that are much more important.
		But, you know, if they want to take it up, I guess so.
		But I certainly would not put it high on my list.
		But anyway, I just want to – Trump's doing a great job, and I'm really proud of him.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Joe in Georgia there.
		Again, the line's there if you want to continue on on this new development.
		202748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents 202-748-8002.
		The topic of Gelaine Maxwell also coming up while the president was traveling in Scotland yesterday.
		He's finishing up that trip today.
		Expected back in Washington tonight.
		This is from the Washington Times, Jeff Moordock, with the story out of the Washington Times saying President Trump was noncommittal when asked Monday about a potential pardon for Gelaine Maxwell, the imprisoned former associate of Jeffrey Epstein, saying he has the power to do it, but no one asked him about it.
		She is currently in a federal prison in Florida, serving a 20-year sentence after she was convicted of sex trafficking and conspiracy for 2021 for crimes she committed with deceased sex offender Epstein, who was her lover.
		She is appealing both her conviction and her sentence.
		And this adding, you probably remember from last week that she sat for two days of interviews with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche reportedly answered questions about nearly 100 people allegedly connected to Epstein.
		It was again in Scotland, this question about a possible pardon for Maxwell with the president.
		Here's that exchange from yesterday.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm allowed to give her a pardon, but nobody's approached me with it.
		Nobody's asked me about it.
		It's in the news about that aspect of it.
		But right now, it would be inappropriate to talk about it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, that was from yesterday, just to show you the political headline from that exchange.
		I'm allowed to give Maxwell a pardon, and you can continue on with this new development at the Supreme Court.
		James, in New York, Independent Line, you're next.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I believe the circuits are split.
		I think what, like four of them say that if the government, if you make a deal that it's honored throughout the entire government, and there's only two of them and be New York, one of them that says that we don't have to honor any other federal agreements.
		I think it's completely wrong.
		I believe if you're offered a deal, it should be good for, you know, the entire federal government.
		You shouldn't have to go to, you know, I guess it would be the prosecutor from each district and ask permission for the deal.
		So, yeah, hopefully this report takes this up and straightens it out.
		We have to have the word of the government mean something.
		Either you're good or you're not.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's James.
		And to James's point, Axios points that out in the story that federal appeals courts have split over the key question of whether a plea deal struck by one U.S. attorney's office applies to the entire Justice Department.
		The subhead or the sub point of that saying the Justice Department acknowledged that the divide in its own brief, but has urged the Supreme Court to reject Maxwell's appeal.
		Again, that appeal going to the Supreme Court yesterday.
		Let's go to Roxanne.
		Roxanne joins us from Maine.
		Democrats line, Roxanne, hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
		No, she should not be pardoned.
		It will show Donald Trump's guilt if he does.
		The reason all this came out to begin with is these girls were coming forth with all the information how they were sex trafficking.
		And that should not happen with anybody that abuses children.
		And the way it was done, how these girls were groomed.
		And Maxwell is the one who groomed them for all the sexual innuendos that occurred on the island, especially on the island.
		You know, his name is in there.
		And he wants to make sure that he's cleared.
		And that's why this break is happening with Congress to clear all this and her being questioned.
		And there's a gentleman earlier who stated, if she's pardoned, then everybody else should be pardoned.
		And Donald Trump has always made it clear about the inhumane services that had been applied to sex traffickers.
		Listen, I may be a Democrat, but I believe in fairness.
		I don't care if I'm Republican or Independent.
		I believe in fairness.
		And these poor girls came forth because they could not talk until Epstein was arrested.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'll ask you this, as I've asked others, what do you think about the Supreme Court coming into this discussion about Julaine Maxwell?
unidentified		Well, of course.
		You know, of course, they're going to do that because the political part of this is that they're trying to figure out, you know, did the Democrats, did Biden, Obama put anything in there in the files that were not legal, you know, added more things.
		Listen, this is testimony from these girls.
		That's why it came forth to begin with.
		That's the only reason.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Roxanne in Maine.
		Let's hear from Bob.
		Bob's in Tennessee, Republican line.
unidentified		Yes, I was just wondering to deal with Trump.
		Why are you not doing the Biden story to cover us and being our president?
		What kind of show are you running, a one-sided show?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, we're talking about this latest news.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You called in about the topic at hand, so what do you think about the topic at hand?
unidentified		Well, I get it, but I got to speak on to something else, too.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you made that point, but what do you think about the topic at hand?
		Stop you there.
		Let's go to Maria.
		Maria in Washington State Democrats line.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hi.
		Yeah, Giselle.
		Giselle, Gislaine.
		Gislaine Maxwell seeks Supreme Court overturned on conviction.
		Well, no, I don't.
		Hello?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Maria, you're on.
		Go ahead.
		Yeah.
unidentified		Oh, no, I don't think it should be overturned.
		She should be overturned.
		I think he's hiding probably nobody thought of this, but covering up for his wife, Melania, because they partied and they were friends all together.
		And this guy was a teaching job at the art school.
		He doesn't even have a PhD to teach math.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, if the lower courts are split on this, why not the Supreme Court to decide on this?
unidentified		Why not the Supreme Court to decide on this?
		Why not the Supreme Court to decide on this?
		If the lower courts aren't Maxwell's.
		Well, I mean, she can't.
		Well, why are we letting her be the president, and then we're letting her out, and then Epstein, They were supposed to investigate back when Trump was president.
		When Trump was president, Epstein supposedly got committed suicide.
		He did not commit suicide.
		Okay.
		He went and reached for his throat the first time.
		They found him on the floor, passed out, and he signaled that someone tried to kill him.
		And then the next, then they found him dead, and they can't get minutes from the tape on the in the corner.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, okay.
		We hear you.
		Liam, Liam in North Carolina, independent line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Yes, I don't understand how they can have a plea agreement with Epstein, and that somehow exonerates other people from being prosecuted.
		That doesn't make sense in itself.
		There's no agreement with those people.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When you heard about the Supreme Court possibly being drawn into this, what went through your mind?
unidentified		Well, that's fine as long as they make a decision, not based on politics.
unidentified		As long as they're making a decision on the actual agreement, she didn't have an agreement.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Liam there in North Carolina.
		Axios also adding that the fact that Epstein's plea agreement is still reverberating 18 years later underscores how unusual it is.
		The sweetheart deal has fueled conspiracy theories and criticisms about how the well-connected escaped justice.
		The deal drew national attention in President Trump's first term after he appointed Acosta to be his labor secretary.
		He resigned under scrutiny.
		And then also says in 2020, an internal Justice Department report from the Office of Professional Responsibility rapped Mr. Acosta for using poor judgment and essentially giving a rip, a wrist slap to the pedophile.
		And then in the what to what section, Maxwell is appealing as much the Supreme Court as she is to Trump, who said Friday he hasn't considered what won't rule out a pardon for his former Palm Beach associate.
		He reiterated those comments at the white or during his trip to Scotland.
		Let's hear from Mimi in Virginia, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		The Supreme Court just recently ruled, brought by a Trump birthright citizenship case, that federal district court judges generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions, meaning their rulings should only apply to specific parties and jurisdictions involved in the case.
		But now they want the Florida deal to apply nationwide.
		And which way is the Supreme Court going to rule on this?
		They're very much in cahoots with the Trump administration.
		It's not a coincidence that she had three years that she could have appealed to the Supreme Court.
		She did not.
		Now, all of a sudden, after she met with Trump's former personal attorney, and I want to know what was in the box that she was provided.
		I want to know: are there tapes?
		Because most prisons have recordings of all parties when they are visiting and talking.
		I want that to be released along with the files.
		If the Democrats had something that they could have released, they would have.
		But Trump is the one that pumped this up all throughout his campaign, ever since really he started in 2015, 2016.
		And now all of a sudden, he wants to cower back and say, you know, it's nothing, no list.
		If there wasn't a list, then how did they have clients?
		How did they, you know, How did the clients get service with the girls?
		It's disgusting.
		It's a cover-up.
		The Supreme Court is very much disingenuous.
		And they already know the answer, which is why she's appealing because they already set it up, in my opinion.
		This is nothing to tweak underneath the carpet at all because of their previous rulings.
		We'll see what they say, but I believe it's going to be another split, six to three.
		We shall see.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Mimi Ver from Virginia.
		No indication on if the court will take it up.
		She brought up Democrats involving and asking for information.
		The New York Times with this story that it's Senator Dick Durbin, the ranking member, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, demanding tapes of Gelaine Maxwell interviews, saying that he sent a ment on yesterday, on Monday, demanding all recordings and transcripts of the July 24th and 25th Justice Department interviews with Maxwell, the longtime partner of Jeffrey Epstein, serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking.
		In a letter to the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch, who conducted the interviews, Mr. Durbin also demanded that the Justice Department commit to offering no pardon or commutation of Ms. Maxwell's sentence in exchange for information, citing, quote, serious questions about the potential for a corrupt bargain between the Trump administration and Gelaine Maxwell.
		The letter, a copy which was obtained by the New York Times, was co-signed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee.
		This also saying that because Democrats are in the minority and have no subpoena power, their demands may carry little weight with Mr. Blanche.
		But the letter reflected how Democrats are trying to keep pressure on the Trump administration on an issue that, at least for now, cleaved from the president a portion of his typically loyal MAGA base that is demanding a release of the files that the administration has refused to make public.
		Democrats line from New York.
		William, hello.
unidentified		Yeah, this becomes funny because now when all this stuff is going on, Trump's in a situation where, you know, if he goes and he harms her, all right, what's that saying?
		That, you know, she's guilty, okay?
		And she's not going to say anything unless he gets a deal, okay?
		She's not going to go and say the truth about anything, okay?
		Let's be honest about that because this is ridiculous.
		Beyond being, and people are sitting there, and I'm going online and talking to people, and people want to get passes already.
		If anybody else, David, Obama did the deal.
		Everybody's up in arms.
		Everybody go crazy.
		Okay, they want to release this guy.
		Okay, but yeah, these guys get to wait with this stuff.
		And it's not the first time he's done this.
		He's been doing this for the longest time, but yet people still go to this guy's office.
		Okay?
		This is crazy.
		I don't understand what American people are doing.
		Okay.
		I mean, if anybody knows Joe Glove from Mr. Gold came that stuff, he'd be all up in arms.
		He'd be crazy.
		Which upbringing?
		They got film.
		They got kids.
		They got pictures.
		They got everything.
		And this guy's sitting there in line.
		Why may he bring it forward?
		Now, all of a sudden, because his name is ain't no people on a backtrack and talking about, oh, I don't want to release it.
		Okay.
		And then Republicans are so stupid they're going wrong with it.
		What's wrong with decent people?
		Okay.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's William in New York.
		Let's hear from David.
		David is in Indiana.
		Republican line.
		David, go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
unidentified		What is C-SPAN's mission statement?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We present issues of topics of government, whether it be in Washington or other aspects of government.
unidentified		Yeah, C-SPAN's mission is to provide public access to the political process by televising live gavital gavel proceedings of the U.S. House and Senate, as well as other forums where public policy is discussed, debated, and decided without editing commentary or analysis with a balanced presentation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		Part of that also is a coverage of the Supreme Court in matters concerning the Supreme Court, which brings us to this issue.
		But go ahead.
unidentified		I just, that was my reason.
		Just tabloid sensationalism.
		That's what you're leaning on.
		You're doing it for ratings.
		I mean, think about the trade deals.
		Why hasn't that been mentioned?
		Why isn't that anything on the front line than this debauchery of this fake really story?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, the Supreme Court's entered it now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that?
unidentified		Well, I think, you know, if the Supreme Court accepts it, then obviously you either accept their opinion or not personally.
		But, you know, there's a lot of finagling going on here.
		And I understand why you have it on the topic today.
		But to me, it says tabloid sensationalism.
		So I'm a big fan of C-SPAN.
		I'll continue to watch.
		And thank you very much, Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We appreciate that.
		And also, just the other point, we don't take ratings per se.
		This is something because of intersex with the Supreme Court, which has decided we bring it to you for the people for your comment.
		But thank you, David and Indiana, for doing that.
		One of the people commenting on the possibility of a pardon that had been mentioned by the president was Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson.
		He made these comments on Sunday, and it was during Sunday shows, the Sunday shows, that he talked and was asked about the potential of a pardon for Gelaine Maxwell and how he would respond to it.
		Here's a bit of that exchange from Sunday.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, obviously that's a decision of the president.
		He said he had not adequately considered that.
		I won't get in front of him.
		That's not my lane.
		My lane is to help direct and control the House of Representatives and to use every tool within our arsenal to get to the truth.
		I'm going to say this as clearly and plainly and repeatedly as I can over and over.
		We are for maximum disclosure.
		We want all transparency.
		I trust the American people.
		I and the House Republicans believe that they should have all this information to be able to determine what they will.
		But we have to protect the innocent.
		And that's the only safeguard here that we've got to be diligent about.
		And I'm insistent upon doing so.
kristen welker ▲ ● ▼		Well, I guess my question is, are you open to a pardon or commutation?
		I mean, Mr. Speaker, the victims referred to Maxwell as Epstein's right-hand woman.
		Here's what one victim who testified under a pseudonym told the court at sentencing, quote, the many acts that were perpetrated on me by Epstein, including rape, strangulation, and sexual assault, were never consensual and would not have occurred had it not been for the cunning and premeditated role Ghelin Maxwell played.
		Is that someone deserving of a pardon or commutation in any circumstance, Mr. Speaker?
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance.
		I think she should have a life sentence at least.
		I mean, think of all these unspeakable crimes.
		And as you noted earlier, probably a thousand victims.
		I mean, you know, it's hard to put into words how evil this was and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it, at least under the criminal sanction, I think is an unforgivable thing.
		So, again, not my decision, but I have great pause about that as any reasonable person would.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, those are the comments from the House Speaker that took place on Sunday.
		This aspect of the Supreme Court getting involved in this case with the appeal filed by Jalene Maxwell yesterday at the court is what we're asking you about.
		Let's go to Mary.
		Mary joins us from New Jersey, Independent Line.
		Mary, hello.
unidentified		Oh, hello.
unidentified		Rosemary.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Rosemary, I'm sorry.
		Rosemary, go ahead.
		Yep.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Yeah.
		I just want to put in my two cents.
		Okay.
		Epstein and Ghelane were Israeli agents.
		And it was a honeypot thing where they gathered intelligence on practically everybody in Washington and internationally.
		And everything is okay because the reason they're going to Pardoned because they are Israeli agents and Israel is running our country right now.
		That's what I think.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, then before you leave, tell us what you think about the Supreme Court coming into this.
unidentified		Nonsense, because this is what's going to happen.
		I'm retired.
		I've been watching everything for years, and this is exactly what's going to happen.
		She's going to be pardoned, and she's going to go to Israel, and nothing's going to happen to anybody.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Rosemary there in New Jersey.
		The Washington Times follows up its story by saying, when it comes to the overall, with Jillian Maxwell saying it was the House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky, she subpoenaed, he subpoenaed Maxwell last week after the panel voted to compel her testimony.
		Also, Monday, Mr. Trump offered that confusing explanation for his falling out with Jeffrey Epstein, saying that the New York financier was, quote, inappropriate and hired help, but he did not elaborate on what transpired between the two, saying he did something that was inappropriate.
		He hired help, and I said, don't ever do that again.
		And he did it again.
		I threw him out of the place, persona non grada.
		He told reporters in Scotland during that meeting with the British Prime Minister Kier Starmer.
		I'm glad I did if you want to know the truth.
		That adding that from the Washington Times, it was a new version of why Mr. Trump severed ties with Epstein, a jet-setting millionaire who was convicted in Florida for soliciting a minor in prostitution in 2008, ultimately died in a New York City jail in 2019.
		Let's go to Yvonne in Wisconsin, Democrats line.
		Hello, you're next.
unidentified		Hi.
		I have a question for everybody who's listening.
		Suppose this was your daughter or your son that was raped or sexually trafficked.
		Would you want the perpetrator to be pardoned?
		We need to make this personal.
		Anytime you sex traffic children or do a pedophile or do any kind of wrong to a child, the pardon shouldn't even be considered.
		Certain crimes that you commit, you ought to serve your time or get the death penalty.
		That's just one of them.
		And so I'm asking the Supreme Court on down.
		You got daughters, you got sons, you got godchildren, nieces and nephews.
		If this woman would have sex trafficked them or would have raped them, abused them, would you agree to having that person pardoned?
		So let's make this personal.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, one more call.
		And this, two more calls.
		Joe in Connecticut, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I agree 100% with the lady that just spoke, but I also want to say that, you know, this lady should deserve life in prison.
		She ruined a lot of young females' lives.
		And I can't hear you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm not saying anything.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead and finish your statement, Joe.
unidentified		Oh, because I heard your lips move.
		Okay.
		Anyways, yeah, I hope the Supreme Court does not get involved in this at all.
		And as far as Trump, I just want to know if the American people are aware that he's the one that called the cops first on Epstein when it first went down.
		And he has kicked Epstein off his properties.
		And, you know, I mean, they're just throwing him on their bus with everything without getting all the facts of what's going on.
		And that's what I'm calling for.
		That, you know, they got to consider that at least Trump started the call with the police department to have him investigated.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Ricardo in Philadelphia, last call.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Independent line.
unidentified		Hi.
		I want to thank you for taking my call, first of all.
		And the topic is a great topic to bring to the public.
		Number one, has there ever been a situation in history where a pedophile, someone that abused young girls, teenagers in this manner sexually has gotten off.
		Has there ever been where they did not don't seem to be concerned about the victim?
		The victim are the children.
		They're women now, but the victim are the children.
		Nobody else is a victim.
		They using all their energy to protect those who committed the crime.
		If you were to go out and purchase the services of a prostitute, you would have to be arrested because you were engaged in illegal situations.
		Well, she was the pimp.
		Where's the clients?
		Who were the clients?
		If there was no clients, why would the pimp be in jail?
		The whole thing doesn't make sense to me.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Ricardo in Philadelphia, finishing off this half hour on the question.
		We'll transition to open forum.
		You can comment on the first question if you want.
		Other matters of politics open for your comments too.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Those are the phone lines that you can use to participate in open forum.
		If you've called in the last 30 days, hold off from doing so today.
		Also, pick the line that best represents you and call in.
		And as you wait, if you would, mute your television or turn down the volume or whatever as you wait in line.
		As you are waiting and as calls are coming in, the president wrapping up his trip to Scotland, the Hill reporting on the last leg of it before he heads back to Washington today, saying that it was on Tuesday he opened the president opening his new golf course in Aberdeen, playing a round of golf before returning back to Washington, saying we'll play it very quickly.
		Then I go back to D.C. and we'll put out fires all over the world.
		There's a little bit from the president in that last leg of the tour.
		It was during and talking to reporters before you see him there when he commented on several bits of news involving the administration and matters of public policy.
		We showed it to you earlier this morning on our networks.
		Here's a portion from the president from earlier.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		The area has given us, they've really welcomed us.
		If you remember at the beginning, it wasn't quite a welcome, but it wasn't bad.
		But with time, they've liked us more and more now.
		They love us and we love them.
		They really put it out and they know how good this whole complex is.
		It's Trump International.
		We have the first course, which we call the old course, and the second course, which we call the new course, because that's the best way to describe.
		Anything else gets too complicated.
		They don't know which is which, but they know the old and the new.
		And it's going to be something very special.
		And the big question is which is going to be better if there's such a thing because we've had such great ratings on the first.
		I don't know if you can match them on the second, but the second should be every bit as good.
		The land is of equal quality right on the North Sea.
		And that's going to be really, it's going to be great.
		I look forward to playing it today.
		We'll play it very quickly.
		And then I go back to DC and we put out fires all over the world.
		We did one yesterday.
		As you know, we stopped a war, but we stopped about five wars.
		So that's much more important than playing golf.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The president expected back today.
		If you want to see more from his trip to Scotland, we invite you to go to either our C-SPAN Now app or our website at c-span.org if you want to see aspects of the trip.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		202-748-8001 for Republicans and Independents.
		202-748-8002.
		That's open forum.
		Again, you can comment on what we were talking about in the first half hour.
		Other matters of politics open as well.
		And let's start with Karen.
		Karen is in Pennsylvania.
		Democrats lying on this open forum.
		Hello, Karen.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hi, how are you doing?
		Thank you for C-SPAN, and God bless Brian Lamb.
		I'd like to suggest that the Supreme Court take this case and they deny her.
		And the reason I think they should take this case is they have several points of law that they should settle.
		If the different district courts are disagreeing on whether or not this is valid, that says right there that something needs to be put down in law.
		But I don't think that a plea agreement can survive somebody's death.
		I don't think they would uphold any plea agreement after somebody died.
		Also, go ahead, Karen.
		You're still on.
		He's gone now from suicide, but in an ordinary situation, the government would be getting something in return for that plea deal.
		So suddenly they're not getting what they're not getting, but yet she should get what she gets.
		That don't sound right to me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Karen there in Pennsylvania.
		Let's hear from Tom.
		Tom joins us from Iowa, Independent Line.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I just make a comment on Epstein suicide.
		I retired from the Department of Corrections and watched, observed many on Suicide Watch.
		They are placed in a cell where they cannot have anything.
		They have a paper gown, nothing that they can commit suicide with.
		And matter of fact, posted on their door every 15 minutes, an officer has to sign a check form that he physically checked the cell.
		So there's nothing in those cells that they could possibly hang or commit suicide.
		That's what I wanted to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Tom there joins us from Iowa.
		We go to Sean, who is in Maryland, Republican line.
		Sean in Maryland, hello.
		Ah, he's gone.
		Let's hear from Don.
		Don in Tennessee, Democrats lying.
		You're on this open forum, Don.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Good morning.
		I just want to comment on golf ethics.
		I know it seems trivial, but our president, the way he plays golf, if you ever read Commander-in-Chief, it's a great book, but it tells you all you need to know about a person.
		You give me four holes to golf with somebody.
		I'll tell you the kind of person they are.
		That's my only comment.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And what do you analyze about the president according to his golf game?
unidentified		Oh, he, well, no other way to describe it.
		He cheats.
		Has his caddy drop the ball in front of him?
		And he just breaks every rule known in the game of golf.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can I ask how you determine that?
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		Observation and books I've read about them.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I only want to ask one more time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		It's not a sports show, but what did you observe specifically that drew you to the conclusion?
unidentified		Well, golf is a game where you are judged by your own.
		You call your own penalties.
		That's a major thing.
		And he's the last one in the world to do, call a penalty on himself.
		And it's just so much honor involved in the game when it's played properly, and he displays none of it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Don there in Tennessee.
		You see, there's some video from earlier today as the president at his golf course getting in that one last game before heading back to Washington, D.C., which you've heard reported that he put out fires.
		We'll show you that because one other bit of news that came out of the trip yesterday from Scotland, this is from Turnbury, Scotland, saying that the president set a new deadline Monday of 10 or 12 days for Russia to make progress toward ending the war in Ukraine or face consequences, underscoring frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the three and a half Euro conflict.
		The president has threatened sanctions on both Russia and its buyers of its exports unless progress is made.
		The fresh deadline suggests the U.S. president is prepared to move forward on those threats after previous hesitation to do so.
		Speaking in Scotland, where he was holding meetings with European leaders and playing golf, saying that he was disappointed in Putin and shortening that 50-day deadline that he said on the issue earlier, I'm going to make a new deadline of about 10 to 12 days from now.
		He told reporters, there's no reason in waiting.
		We just don't see any progress being made.
		Again, that's another aspect of a bit of news that coming out of that Scotland trip.
		Let's go to Jamie.
		Jamie in Florida, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi, yeah.
		Good morning, Pedro.
		I was just trying to see if you had the video that the previous caller was talking about with the caddy dropping the ball.
		I'm not sure if you have that article or the video, but it's gone viral overnight.
		I just thought time even has it available.
		So just wanted to point that out for you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Jamie there in Florida.
		Again, it's open forum.
		You can comment on any matters of politics.
		Some of you commenting on aspects of golf, 202748, 8,000 for Democrats, 202748, 8,000 for Republicans.
		Independents, 202748, 8002.
		If you want to join in and make your comments on this open forum, let's go to Houston, Democrats line.
		This is Manuel.
		Hello.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Well, open forum.
		I believe that the Supreme Court with this Maxwell, I think that's probably the fix right there.
		So they're probably going to pardon her on that.
		I mean, not pardon her, just, you know, overturn that, but to keep Trump from partying her.
		But really, my comment is when they had the baby gate accusing Hillary Clinton and the Democrats of killing babies and drinking their blood, and then they accused Biden of being a pedophile because supposedly he's sniffing hair.
		You know, they were pulling their hairs and setting their hair on fire and screaming at the top of their lungs about Biden.
		Now, Trump is the one, and this base is the one who kept this up about Epstein, Epstein, Epstein.
		All these years.
		And now that they've come to Roos now, they've changed their mind on that.
		I mean, the fix is in.
		Trump is a pedophile.
		He's a convicted felon.
		He is known to be a sexual predator.
		There's no doubt about that.
		This man is just, man, words cannot describe this man.
		He's just pure, pure oppressive.
		He's just pure evil.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Eric is in New York.
		New York City, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi there.
		Good morning, sir.
		My comment is about Secretary of Defense Pete Hecht.
		He has offended the United States twice now with the Signal app.
		There was the first controversy where he was texting war plans and not knowing that there was a journalist on the Signal app chat.
		And then he had a second one where he's texting war plans to his wife and kids.
		So I'm calling because Donald Trump once made a promise to the Libertarian Party to have a libertarian in his cabinet.
		And this is an opportunity replacing Mr. Hegseth when Mr. Heckseth is on honorable recess with Michael Scheuer.
		He was once the CIA head of the bin Laden unit.
		He knows his stuff.
		He's certainly down for the job of Secretary of Defense in 2025.
		And that's my comment.
		Please, Mr. Trump, fulfill your promise to the Libertarian Party and have a libertarian in your cabinet.
		That would be Mr. Michael Schwerre as your Secretary of Defense or Alexander Andrew Napolitano in the Supreme Court.
		Thank you very much, sir.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Eric from New York City News coming out of New York City yesterday.
		This is the headline that four are being killed, including an off-duty officer in Midtown Manhattan, the suspected gunman dead by suicide.
		This happened after 6.30 in the evening on Monday at 345 Park Avenue, saying a 27-year-old man wearing body armor carrying an M4 assault rifle shot killed four people, including that off-duty police officer before killing himself.
		A fifth victim was critically injured in the shooting, officials said in a statement.
		NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said the victim is one of its employees, was listed in critical but stable condition.
		The suspect identified as Shane Tamura, carried a note in his pocket claiming he suffered from CTE, asked that his brain be studied and made references to the NFL, according to police sources talking to ABC News there in New York.
		Harold joins us from Tennessee.
		Democrats line, you're on this open forum.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, sir.
		Thank you for taking my call this morning.
		We need to, one fella spoke earlier.
		We need to remember this is the children we're talking about.
		Nobody's talking about them.
		They just talk about, well, Hartjefayo was pretty good.
		It was good.
		But this is children that we're talking about.
		And another thing, too, is we're not talking about, well, we're fixing to get our Social Security and Medicaid stuff cut.
		That is one of the big topics to me, not whether he can play golf or not, you know.
		But this is a big deal.
		You start to put these old people in nursing homes, these old people at home, it's home in Tennessee.
		We call it tin cure, but it's Medicaid is what it is.
		And when you start taking them off of that, and first, this deal he made him and that woman the other day there, that was just something to me like a tick for tap.
		I don't know what happens.
		We're going to pay 15% more for stuff that's coming from over there.
		I don't understand it.
		But remember, this is about the children, not about Donald Trump.
		What it is about him and the people that's in there.
		If they own that list, show them, you know.
		But that's what we're serving.
		The Supreme Court shouldn't even not know who we're near here.
		This they have no credibility left anyway.
		And they should not know who we're near here this case because the woman's been sentenced.
		If it is, what's the use to prosecute anybody, damn court, if you just turn them loose?
		I thank you for your time and keep on going.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Harold in Tennessee there.
		Let's go to Les.
		Less in Kansas.
		Republican line, hi.
unidentified		Good morning.
		To the gentleman that called from Tennessee, I'd like to ask, how many high-rise hotels do you own?
		How many large jet planes do you own?
		How many golf courses do you own?
		If you own any, then I guess you can complain about Trump and his playing golf.
		For somebody that doesn't own anything like Trump and has made the progress he has, I think Trump is doing a fantastic job.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Kerry, Kerry is in Washington, D.C., Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Yeah, I just want to say that I feel like we've pretty much hit a new low here with Trump saying that he had a falling out with Jeffrey Epstein over pilfering employees, not raping children.
		It just, my head exploded this morning when I heard that.
		I just said, it's just too much.
		It's too much, and this might be his undoing.
		This might be rock bottom where his people turn on him and he's gone, which, you know, believe me, I'm praying it happens tomorrow.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, this is open forum.
		You can make the comments.
		202748-8000 for Democrats, 202748-8001 for Republicans, and 202748-8002 for Independents.
		If you want to comment on open forum, you can do that.
		As always, you can post your comments on these and other matters on our various sites on Facebook and on X, if you wish.
		And you can join the conversation by calling us on the lines.
		Let's go to Mary.
		Mary in New York, Independent Line.
		Hi, you're next.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I would like to say I agree with the caller about why are we discussing golf?
		We have so many things going on.
		First, I'd like to say my prayer to the officer who was killed in New York City and the other people who were shot.
		And also, I think Trump had crossed the red line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Meaning what?
unidentified		Well, because bad enough, the economy is horrible.
		He lied like a rug and got away with it.
		And we voted and people voted for him.
		And now we're like, what?
		That's not what I voted for.
		Okay, and now we're talking about a pedophile.
		We're talking about children.
		What happened?
		I thought, you know, pro-life, pro-abortion, I mean, pro-life, against abortion, you know, but now we have a pedophile.
		We're even discussing what we should do with her.
		This is horrible.
		I just don't get the world.
		Look at Gaza.
		There's children starving.
		What are we doing here?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Mary in New York, Independent Line on the topic of abortion.
		It was a federal judge yesterday, according to the Washington Post, temporarily blocking a provision in the president's domestic policy package that cut Medicaid funding to certain abortion providers, a measure that primarily impacted Planned Parenthood.
		The provision in the One Big Beautiful bill barred Medicaid funding for one year for health care providers that perform abortions and receive more than $800,000 in reimbursements annually.
		Shortly after Mr. Trump signed the policy package into law, Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, sued, saying the provision would have, quote, devastating consequences for patients seeking basic health care services, including STI treatments and cancer screening.
		The ruling the latest turn and the ongoing clash between Republican lawmakers and Planned Parenthood over what the organization says is a categorical attempt to, quote, be funded for offering abortions.
		In a statement that was released on Monday from Planned Parenthood, the president Alexis McGill Johnson saying the organization would, quote, keep fighting this cruel law so that patients could continue getting, quote, critical health care, no matter their insurance.
		There's a story that took place yesterday.
		Richard in New Jersey, up next.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hey, thank you very much.
		Don't talk about upstate, I'm afraid, but here's the thing.
		We talk all about the legal things going on, the people involved, the paperwork that's going on, and we generally are beating around the bush because the elephant in the room really is the question that millions and millions of people in the United States and around the world are asking: Is the president of the United States a pedophile?
		That's the question people need answered.
		And when you look at all the evidence, the circumstantial evidence, does anybody believe that he's a buddy with this guy for 10 years?
		He must have known what was going on.
		You don't think he of such low character would indulge in Epstein's hobby?
		I think he would.
		And look at all the other things he said.
		He's literally said he would have sex with girls over 12.
		That was the Howard Stern interview.
		I wish you guys would put that on.
		He's been already convicted for sexual assault.
		He was talking about grabbing people.
		It's clear he indulged himself, I'm sure.
		And that's the question that needs to be answered, if you ask me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Steve.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Steve is in Florida, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		Listen, the border needed to be addressed.
		We know that.
		So that's the only thing I see that has been good in this administration.
		Can you hear me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Steve, you're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, okay.
		So I don't understand how this guy is overriding court orders from judges.
		I don't understand how he's getting away with all these things that he's doing.
		But, you know, nothing is being done by all of us because he's not following the Constitution.
		I mean, how far?
		Where are we going to end up?
		We got three years to go.
		Okay.
		And I understand that, you know, that's not enough time to destroy what he's trying to destroy because actions speak a lot louder than words.
		You know, he doesn't make sense when he speaks.
		He's not coherent.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So what do you think about Republicans like yourself or fellow Republicans like yourself who support the president?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you tell them?
unidentified		The same thing I'm telling you.
		It doesn't make any sense.
		Okay.
		Let's just talk common sense.
		What's driving?
		What's wrong?
		There's no in-between.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		That's Steve there in Florida.
		If you've been paying attention to the state of Texas, they've been holding several hearings over the last couple of days taking a look at the topic of congressional redistricting.
		In fact, they've been taking public comments on efforts by the state to draw new lines within the state, some saying that would favor Republicans.
		Those hearings continue today at 10 o'clock.
		And you can see that if you're interested in what's going on in Texas, especially when it comes to redistricting, follow along on C-SPAN 3.
		You can also follow along on the app at C-SPANNOWCSPAN.org.
		You can follow along too.
		One of the people making comments yesterday during a special hearing talking about redistricting was Texas Representative of the House, Al Green.
		He made these comments yesterday.
unidentified		This is wrong.
al green ▲ ● ▼		It is wrong for us to conclude that we can eliminate four districts with minority representation simply at the behest of a president who wants to stay in office.
unidentified		This is unconstitutional.
		It is, in my opinion, what Senator Miles said.
		This is a racist act.
		This is not something that you should do.
		The Justice Department is asking the state of Texas to commit a racist act.
		I have no problem saying the word racism, just as I have no problem saying anti-Semitism.
al green ▲ ● ▼		If we were about to eliminate four districts that were electing Jewish members of Congress, we'd say it's anti-Semitic.
unidentified		And I would be one of the people out front saying it.
		So I'm out front now saying that this act is wrong and it is a racist act and it's something that we should not allow to occur.
		Now, most of the conversation is about MAPS.
al green ▲ ● ▼		I would hope that the committee would consider not taking any action at all.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That was a portion of yesterday's hearing in the Texas Senate.
		You can follow along again today.
		It's continue on 10 o'clock on C-SPAN 3.
		Also, to let you know at 8 o'clock, just about five minutes from now, a special forum taking a look at the topic of home ownership.
		This is sponsored by Axios.
		The discussion will factor in Senators Tina Smith of Minnesota and Bernie Moreno of Ohio.
		They'll talk about expanding pathways to home ownership.
		C-SPAN 2 is where you can see that starting at 8 o'clock.
		Follow along on the app and the .org as well.
		Jack in Tennessee, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Oh, this is Jack in Kingsport.
unidentified		Yep.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yep, we got you.
unidentified		I'm talking about the redistricting the voting precincts in Texas.
		If you've listened to Al Green history, he was exactly right.
		What they're doing is illegal.
		And they're doing it because of Trump.
		Of course, he wants.
		Because he's needing four more people on that Congress so he can control everything.
		And here's another thing: all this stuff he's done is a distraction over in Israel.
		He's getting Israel to keep attacking the Palestinians that are on the Gaza Strip because he wants that Gaza Strip.
		He doesn't care if you starve them kids to death, but get rid of them out there.
		That's what he wants.
		Keep that in mind because that's going to happen.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Bruce in Kentucky.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You are next up, independent line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Yeah, I like to say I support President Trump, and I think he's a heavyweight.
		I think he's Muhammad Ali of the political system.
		This guy has come through everything.
		He doesn't want Gaza.
		They call it from Tennessee.
		I mean, really?
		And when you talk about gerrymandering, look at California.
		Look at what they're doing, what they've done.
		What you do to equal.
		Won't you do equal?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		The Democrats are the most corrupt party ever.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Bruce in Tennessee there.
		I'm sorry, Kansas.
		Let's go to Gordon.
		This is Gordon in Kansas.
		Sorry, Republican line.
		Gordon, go ahead.
unidentified		Hey, Pedro.
		Thanks for taking my call and good morning.
		And that fight in Cincinnati stirred me up so much.
		I loaded up my new automatic shotgun.
		And I swear this country is headed for a race war.
		And I would like for you to try to get two people on ceasefire.
		Michaela Montgomery, the professor at the HBCU that hugged Donald Trump's neck and chick-fil-a that day, and that's when he won the election right there.
		You have her and that pig, Ellie Mistahl, on the debate.
		You'll see all the nostalgia.
		Anyway, you got a lot of callers that don't pay taxes because a great, big, beautiful bill makes me $3,000 more a year.
		So thank you very much.
		Goodbye.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for the suggestion.
		Our ceasefire program that we've been telling about and you've been seeing promos about the attempt to bring together people from differing political viewpoints to talk about those viewpoints where they differ, where they agree.
		And a conversation that will ideally take place talking about where politics merge when it comes to personal beliefs, all that will be on our ceasefire program.
		Look for it later on this year.
		This is Patricia.
		Patricia joins us from Chattanooga, Tennessee.
		Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		I would like to know why they keep putting Trump up there.
		Drug Torped's White House.
		Then he cut that he's a pedophile.
		And we've been known that our Trump life even when he was in college.
		They were together again.
		And he knew it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Bill.
		Bill in North Carolina.
		Last call on this open forum.
		Bill, hello.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you.
		I would just like to say that I talk about disappointment in leadership.
		I've never been so disappointed and embarrassed by the Democratic leadership and all the lies, all the years they have been lying, and it's been proven over and over.
		I think Donald Trump is an answer to prayer.
		I think that he has done a great job on the world stage.
		I think he has done a great job in trying to get America back in shape.
		Thank you for the time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Bill, there in North Carolina, finishing off that open forum.
		Thank you for those who participated.
		Two guests joining us throughout the course of the morning, talking about various topics later on in the program.
		We will hear from author, professor, and ABC News legal commentator Kim Whaley about actions in the Trump administration, about President Trump personally, and how she feels they test the Constitution's checks and balances.
		But first, a conversation with Betsy McCoy, former Republican New York Lieutenant Governor, current chair of the Committee to Reduce Infectious Deaths.
		She'll talk about the Trump administration's efforts on health care in the United States.
		Back coming up on Washington Journal.
unidentified		Honor the person who first showed you democracy in action and ignite America 250, C-SPAN's 18-month ad-free celebration of our nation's story.
		Give $25 or more by August 31st at c-span.org/slash donate and add your democracy hero to our online wall to keep these vital stories alive for viewers and learners everywhere.
		As our thanks, you'll receive an exclusive democracy unfiltered decal.
		Your gift helps make C-SPAN possible.
		Visit c-span.org/slash donate today and join us in keeping America's story alive.
		Thank you.
		Get C-SPAN wherever you are with C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on demand.
		Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
		Catch the latest episodes of Washington Journal.
		Find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
		The C-SPAN Now app is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
		Download it for free today.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Looking to contact your members of Congress?
		Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
		Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
		This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
		Contact information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.
		The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's nonprofit operations.
		Scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to order your copy today.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We welcome Betsy McCoy to the program.
		She served as the former New York Lieutenant Governor in the state and also now is the founder and chair of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths.
		Betsy McCoy, welcome to Washington Journal.
unidentified		Thank you.
		I always enjoy being on C-SPAN.
		I really love your audience and I have so much information to share today.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's start with your organization, the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What led to its creation?
unidentified		Well, I launched this when I left office way back, well, way back when I was lieutenant governor slightly before the Civil War.
		I'm joking, but in the 1990s.
		And when I left office, I launched RID, Reduce Infection Deaths.
		And here's why.
		While I was Lieutenant Governor, people came to me with their health problems often.
		But increasingly, I noticed they were telling me one version or another of the same terrible story.
		They had brought their mother, or maybe it was their father, or maybe it was their brother or their child to the hospital, and the patient had contracted a deadly infection.
		So when I left office, I thought, I really have to do something about this.
		And at the beginning, what astounded me was how much knowledge we have to prevent these infections.
		What is lacking is the will to do it.
		So a perfect job for a politician.
		I launched RID, Reduce Infection Deaths.
		And our first job was to make people aware of how many infections there are.
		These infections kill more Americans each year than all the cases of breast cancer plus auto accidents combined.
		This is a serious problem.
		And secondly, to give patients more information, when I launched RID, not one state required hospitals to disclose their infection rate.
		Now we're up to 38 states.
		We're heading to all 50.
		The reasoning is if you have to go to the hospital, you should at least be able to find out which hospital has the lowest infection rate.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. McCoy, that reporting, is it strictly a state oversight issue or is there a role federally when it comes to that reporting and making that information known?
unidentified		Well, now Medicare also collects that data.
		So there are several ways you can get it.
		But way back when, around the year 2000, you couldn't get it.
		The hospitals were not reporting it to Medicare or to the state health departments.
		Now, in most cases, they are.
		And if you come to our website, hospitalinfection.org, hospital infection, that thing you don't want to get, dot org, we can actually teach you how to find that information.
		Well, step by step, depending on what state you live in.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What changed in that federal requirement for reporting to Medicare?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How did that happen?
unidentified		Well, we pushed very hard for that during the Bush administration.
		And not just for reporting, but also for Medicare to refuse to pay hospitals for the cost of treating infections the hospital had caused.
		So now if you go into the hospital and you're healthy and you develop an infection three or four or five days later, the presumption is the hospital caused it and the hospital has to be responsible for the cost of correcting it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Your organization, how is it funded?
unidentified		Private donations only, small donations.
unidentified		I just get on the phone and call people and ask them for the money.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our guests with us until 845.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If you want to ask her medically related questions, not only when it comes to infections and death caused by it, but other aspects of medicine when it comes to public policy, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans.
unidentified		And let me just point out.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let me get these lines out, please.
		202-748-8002 for independents.
		And if you want to text, if you're a medical professional, 202-748-8003 is the number that you can go with.
		Go ahead, please.
		Sorry to interrupt.
unidentified		I was just going to point out that there's no such thing as a Republican infection or a Democratic infection or an independent infection.
		They affect all of us.
		It's a wonderful thing, though.
		I've been in politics for many years.
		There's nothing partisan about this effort.
		We want, well, I'm going to show you why clean hospitals is such a major issue.
		If I were to ask you, what is the single biggest factor determining which patients get an infection?
		Maybe you'd guess their age, no.
		Maybe you'd say, well, it's got to relate somehow to the illness or the injury that brought them into the hospital.
		No.
		The number one predictor of which patients get a hospital infection, what room they're assigned to, believe it or not, what room they're assigned to.
		If they're assigned to a room and a preceding occupant had an infection, their risk goes way up.
		In fact, it goes up 583%, according to a study at the Columbia School of Nursing, because that previous patient was discharged, but their germs weren't.
		They were left behind on the bed rail, on the call button, on the TV controls, on the over-the-bed table, and other items within reach of the patient or within reach of the doctors and nurses.
		So cleaning hospitals effectively is a major issue in preventing hospital infection.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		On the broader issue of health care, when it comes to topics, whether related to yours or the medical ones, the larger medical ones, how do you think the Trump administration is doing, especially with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the head of health and human services?
unidentified		Well, I know that he's a controversial figure, but let me get below the headlines and say I've been very encouraged by most of the appointments.
		For example, Marty Macery at the FDA, he's been a hero of mine for many years.
		Marty Macquarie, even when he was a young surgeon at Johns Hopkins, was bold enough to say, there are too many mistakes in the operating room.
		We need a system similar to what pilots have when they climb into the cockpit.
		We need checklists.
		We need timeouts.
		We need to initial the part of the body on which we intend to operate.
		All of these precautions were put into place by Marty Macri and another man at Hopkins, John Pronovos.
		And so many people in the United States owe their health and their lives to the fact that they were bold enough to stand up against the medical establishment and say, we must do better.
		So he's a great appointment at the FDA.
		Another one that I think is really great is Jay Bhattacharara, a hard name to pronounce, but a brilliant man.
		He's the new head of the NIH.
		And I think he's terrific because like Macquarie, he is somewhat of a disruptor.
		He said, let's not all engage in groupthink.
		Let's be bold enough to challenge what the scientist on your right or the politician to your left says and just look at the data.
		So during COVID, when the nation was locking down, Jay Bottora said, well, here are all the data that suggests we ought to be focusing like a laser on the elderly.
		Those are the ones who are dying, the elderly and the disabled, and let everyone else go to work or go to school.
		In retrospect, he was probably right.
		A lot of data support him.
		But at the time, he was silenced, muzzled, vilified, and yet he stood his ground.
		And when it was all over, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences awarded him a special prize for intellectual courage.
		So we need people like that in government.
		And let me say, I'm glad to see that the Trump administration is what some in the newspaper world would call cleaning house, replacing a lot of those who have been there for years with new people.
		Because when I look at the data, American longevity, America's lifespans, how long we expect to live, has been steadily declining since 2014.
		So why would you leave the same people in place who are running the public health agencies when they seem to be engaged in shortening rather than lengthening our lives?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. McCoy, to that topic of cleaning house, one of the actions of the Health and Human Services Secretary was letting go of many people on an advisory committee when it comes to immunization practices, bringing on some new people, some of the people questioning the qualifications, including Senator Bill Cassidy, about that when it comes to some of those members.
		What do you think about that topic overall about the reconstitution of this committee?
		And are you concerned about the experience level there?
unidentified		Well, I'm not an expert on vaccines.
		I will say that right at the beginning.
		All my children and grandchildren have been vaccinated, but it's always good to ask questions.
		And I do, as I just said, I like to see turnover in these health agencies because people who have been there too long do succumb to groupthink.
		We know during COVID, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, I stumbled there because I always call it the Centers for Disaster, the disaster.
		The CDC performed so badly during COVID that it's good that they're really bringing on many new people.
		You think this agency, which was founded in 1948 and all these decades, has readied itself for a disease attack of this nature, right?
		Whether deliberate or not, whether man-made or natural.
		All these years getting ready.
		And yet when it actually happened, they didn't have the right tests.
		They didn't respond quickly enough.
		They didn't have data about where in the United States the virus was hitting us.
		It was so disappointing.
		So of course, they should be new people in an agency like that who will make it perform better next time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is our guest.
		Jay is our first call.
		He's in Maryland, Independent Line.
		You're on with our guest, Jay.
		Good morning.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hi, how you doing?
		So basically, I'm a pre-med student.
		I'm about to graduate, actually, and I'm going to study for my dad, the dental admissions test.
		And due to a rising health cost in our country and the rising cost of school in our country, the barrier for entry to become a doctor or a dentist is so high that I think that's really what's leading to the cost.
		And a way to go ahead and provide affordable health care to everyone would be to lower the barrier for entry in our country to become a medical professional.
		I mean, obviously, we don't want just anyone to be able to operate on someone, but just the rising cost of school and also the barrier of how many classes with your medical career is just outrageous.
		And I think it would really lower costs in our country to make it more easy to become a medical professional.
		Obviously, we're not going to go ahead and scrimp on health care and the service that we can provide, but just all these useless classes and all these costs that are associated with just the ability to become a medical professional in our country is, I think, leading to the real problem in our country that affordable health care and also just service of health care is becoming scarcer and harder to come by.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jay, if I heard you correctly, I think you're getting ready for a medical career.
		What's the expected cost?
		What's the expected cost?
unidentified		Sorry, what?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the expected cost for you?
unidentified		If I go to a private school, a private dental school, it'll cost about $100,000 a year.
unidentified		And that's not including the living costs that I have to live by as well.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Jay, there in Maryland.
unidentified		Thanks.
		Thank you.
		I want to jump into this question.
		It's a very complex question, but let me say, first of all, higher education in general, not just medical preparation, has gone way off the charts in terms of cost.
		And there are many ways that we can bring that down.
		Part of it is the fault of the federal government.
		The federal government has offered so many loans to students.
		And the more loans they offer, the more these institutions raise the tuition.
		In other words, it's like a vicious cycle.
		Somehow, the federal government has to say we're going to offer loans, but we have to have some control over the prices that these institutions are charging so that they don't ratchet up the cost every time we increase the loan availability.
		That's number one.
		Number two, the cost of health care in this country, a lot of it goes to insurance companies and their red tape.
		I've been pushing very hard for insurance companies to have less control over the care patients receive.
		All of these pre-approval requirements and afterwards, all of these denials, they have gone up incredibly since 2012.
		It used to be that insurance companies denied about one and a half percent of claims.
		Now it's up to 15%.
		In some companies, 20 or 25%.
		That is unforgivable.
		And we have to pull back a lot of that power from insurance companies.
		If they sell you a plan and say you're covered when you get sick, you ought to be covered.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Betsy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Betsy is in Michigan, Republican.
unidentified		Betsy, Betsy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Betsy, go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I hope you're all doing well.
		I have more of a statement.
		My father went into the emergency room with a urinary tract infection and ended up getting pseudomonas, E. coli, and MRSA.
		Oh.
		While he was in the hospital, and I noticed a lot of things going on with the, I spent up to 12 to 15 hours in the hospital with him.
		And when he was being treated, it was a lot of staff that was coming in and out.
		And with the MRSA, your respiratory therapist came in to change and clean out the trach.
		Meanwhile, her phone rang.
		She reached in her pocket, grabbed her cell phone, started talking about something private and personal with a friend, put her phone back in her pocket, then she went to touch his trach.
		I spent most of my life in the medical field, but I was disabled due to a car accident.
		And so I knew what was going on.
		So I told her not to touch him again, especially because I don't know what was on that film prior to her touching it.
		So that's how a lot of patients are getting sick with things is the staff isn't paying attention.
		Yes.
		So she had actually had to wait several minutes for someone else to come into the room.
		and change her gloved hand because I wouldn't let her touch it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		Well, good for you for standing up for your father.
		I'd like to address this question because this is right up my alley.
		The fact is that almost all hospital infections are preventable.
		And lapses in protocol like the one you just described are a major cause.
		You see doctors and nurses clean their hands with the URL type dispensers on the outside of the room.
		Then they walk in, they reach up, they pull open the privacy curtain to see the next patient.
		And immediately their hands are contaminated before they ever touch that patient.
		We need to train our healthcare personnel better to envision where the bacteria are in the room and how they get on their hands and then eventually to the patient.
		You are so right about the cell phones.
		That's a major cause.
		And let me just point out to everyone who's listening or watching that we at RID have a special brochure.
		It's free.
		You can download it or we'll mail it to you.
		It's called 15 Steps You Can Take to Reduce Your Risk of Infection.
		And the number one step, whenever any healthcare personnel come in the room, you ask them to clean their hands in front of you.
		Don't let them say, I did it before I came in.
		You want to see them clean their hands in front of you just before they touch you.
		And if you're worried about being so pushy, just remember your life is at stake.
		We have 15 steps here.
		Another one that's critically important is when you go to the hospital, bring a little canister of bleach wipes with you and have someone who's with you, your loved one, your friend, wipe the surfaces right around the bed once a day with a Clorox bleach wipe.
		In any brand, it doesn't have to be Clorox, any brand at all.
		It will reduce your risk of getting C. diff, the most numerous infection, by 86%.
		That's per a study by Robert Ornstein at the Mayo Clinic.
		So there is a lot you can do, especially if you have someone with you in the hospital, to protect yourself from these risks.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Cleveland Clinic tells us that amongst the common hospital acquired infections are central line associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, surgical site infections, ventilator-associated pneumonia, what you just mentioned, C. diff, and then murder.
unidentified		Well, I'm talking about the pathogen, not the location.
		There are two ways to describe infections.
		You're talking about where it is, central line, surgical incision.
		I'm talking about what kind of germ it is.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sure, but you would argue that all those are preventable just by practice.
unidentified		That's right.
		They're preventable, almost all of them.
		The one that's less preventable is pneumonia in the elderly.
		But even there, let me show you.
		We have a kit.
		You can get it online.
		And it's a kit we prepare for patients who are going into the hospital.
		And one of the things in this kit, and this is an important tip for you, if you're going into the hospital, you'll notice patients are never asked to clean their teeth.
		They lie there day after day and a bacteria forms inside their mouth on their tongue.
		It's a hard shell of bacteria because nobody's helped the patient brush his teeth or clean his mouth.
		And when that bacteria starts to flake off, the patient aspirates it, breathes it into their lungs, and they get aspirational pneumonia.
		So it's really important to clean your teeth and your mouth when you're in the hospital.
		And in the kit, we have these special wands with a pre-soaked with a mouth cleaner.
		But otherwise, your spouse or your sister or brother, whoever is there with you, can just help you with a regular toothbrush and toothpaste, clean your mouth, and it will go a long way toward protecting you from getting pneumonia.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Kevin.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Kevin is in Washington, D.C. Democrats line.
peter navarro ▲ ● ▼		Hi.
unidentified		Hi.
		I heard Dr. McCarry speak on C-SPAN.
		He talked about his book, Blind Spots.
		He said that COVID was the biggest industrial accident in history.
		But I think it might be also part of an intelligence thing.
		Peter Dasak may have been working for the government like Sidney Gottlieb, the CIA scientist that was in charge of MKUltra and experimented on everybody with the LSD and stuff like that.
		So the reason that they can't say that it was Sidney Gottlieb was because it's a national security thing.
		Same with the Epstein thing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, guess what, Caller, what would you like our guests to address specifically?
unidentified		Specifically, why doesn't the Intelligence Council come up with a new determination that since all the facts have been made public, according to the CDC director, Robert Redfield?
unidentified		He said he has a book that's waiting to come out, but he wants the Intelligence Council to come up with a new determination that acknowledges the facts that are available online at usrighttonode.org.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Caller, thanks.
unidentified		Could you please summarize that question for me?
unidentified		I didn't quite hear it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I think it goes largely to the origins of COVID.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm paraphrasing greatly.
unidentified		Great.
		Well, in fact, we all want to know what the origins of COVID are.
		We got a lot of bad information.
		More and more, the reports coming out of our own government now indicate that COVID did originate in a lab, not in a wet market or in nature, that somehow it was a lab-constructed virus.
		Whether it was intentional or not, I can't comment.
		We haven't seen enough evidence on that.
		But most evidence suggests that it came from a Chinese lab in Wuhan.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. McCoy, may I ask you about the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and how do you think ultimately it impacts Medicare cuts?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Or Medicaid cuts, I should say?
unidentified		I think you're referring to Medicaid.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		The state-federal partnership for health care for those who are disabled or indigent or need help for some other reason.
		And I think there's been a lot of misrepresentation there.
		No pregnant women, no children, no elderly or disabled are going to lose their Medicaid benefits.
		The one thing the Big Beautiful bill does is to say if you are an adult and you have no dependents at home, but you refuse to get off the couch and go to work, you will not be eligible for Medicaid.
		You have to work 20 hours or volunteer or go to school, or if you have an addiction problem, be in an addiction program of some sort.
		That is the requirement in order to be eligible for Medicaid if you're a single adult without dependents.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One of the people we had recently on the show is Democratic Representative Kim Schreier.
		She is a pediatrician by trade.
		She co-chairs the Congressional Doctors Caucus.
		She had this to say about the acts when it comes to overall health care.
		I want to play you what she had to say and get your response to it.
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Again, fundamentally, when it comes to this, I'll call it the big ugly bill.
		Fundamentally, it is a shift from funding that takes care of the people in this country who are most in need, and it transfers it to a gigantic tax cut for the wealthiest people, the Elon Musks in this country.
		And the vast majority of those dollars are actually being sucked out of health care.
		It is taking Medicaid health insurance away, and in total, we'll take health care away from about 17 million Americans and transfer that to the Elon Musks of this world.
		I think that is morally bankrupt.
		And when I think about what that will do to our health care system, writ large, when you have that many people who now have no health insurance, go to the emergency room for their health care, cause long waits in the emergency room, drive up prices for everybody, and send our insurance rates higher, in addition to closing rural hospitals.
		This is going to be catastrophic.
		And again, the point of this is not fiscal responsibility.
		This explodes the debt and it transfers that money to the wealthiest who don't need it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. McCoy, that's her assessment.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How do you respond to that?
unidentified		If that were true, I would totally agree with her.
		But of course, it isn't true.
		The 17 million to which she referred are people, single adults, who, according to the estimates, may decline Medicaid rather than go to work, volunteer, enter a school program, or an addiction program.
		$17 million.
		It does not include any women, women with children, pregnant women, disabled or elderly.
		On the larger issue of the tax cuts, it's really interesting and obvious.
		All you have to do is look at the data.
		These tax cuts, like the first tranche of Trump's tax cuts, it's just renewing them, go to the middle class.
		Actually, many of the wealthiest people pay a little more.
		The big new tax cuts are for people who get tips.
		I don't know of any Elon Musk types who work for tips, but I know a lot of waitresses and car washers and people like that who get tips, and they are very glad they no longer have to pay income tax on the first $25,000 worth of tips.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Chuck.
		Chuck is in Alabama.
		Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		How are y'all doing?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine.
		Thank you.
		You're on.
unidentified		I've got a question.
jimmy in texas ▲ ● ▼		I remember, I don't know, I can't remember the exact number of years, but I remember President Obama standing up and saying, you know, this Affordable Care Act, you're going to be able to reduce all your costs.
donnie in oklahoma ▲ ● ▼		You're going to save, I think it was $1,200 a year.
jimmy in texas ▲ ● ▼		Health care was going to be almost, you know, everybody can afford it.
unidentified		Well, I sure can't afford it now.
		What is going on?
		And they talk about Trump liab.
		I think that's one of the biggest lies in history.
		Can you talk about that?
		Well, I will talk about that.
		The Affordable Care Act was misnamed.
		It didn't make health care more affordable.
		It did offer health insurance to some people who didn't have it previously.
		But here's the problem.
		It was a one-size-fits-all design.
		And when you require that every health insurance plan be packed with all these costly extras, of course, the price is going to go up.
		One of the problems is that government should let people make more of their own decisions of what kind of health insurance they'd like to buy.
		For example, if you're a single adult and you don't have children, well, then you don't want to pay for pediatric dental care, right?
		It's just obvious.
		But the plans are one size fits all.
		And I'm hoping that at some point, President Trump or any president in the White House will attempt to do what he tried to do in the first term, which is to allow people to make more of their own decisions about the kind of health insurance they want.
		And as I said previously, the most important thing is to tell insurance companies that once they sell you a plan, they can't then require pre-approvals for every treatment and deny as many as 20% of your claims.
		Cannot do it.
		Should be against the law.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		There's a debate on Capitol Hill about the extension of subsidies for the Affordable Care Act.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Where are you on that?
unidentified		Well, I think that one of the reasons the plans are so expensive is the government is picking up the tab for almost everyone.
		So the few people who aren't eligible for subsidies are paying through the nose.
		I think before the government, these subsidies were justified as part of COVID.
		And of course, during COVID, we did want to make sure that everybody had health insurance.
		It was a terrible time in the history of our country.
		But to simply renew without questioning whether the patients, whether the families, and whether the government is getting their money's worth is foolish.
		I would say that there should be no renewal of subsidies until there is a total demand for better practices by the insurance companies.
		No more pre-approvals except for major surgeries, certainly not for medications.
		No more denials of claims except in the most unusual cases.
		We cannot continue to pay insurance companies to take our money, take Uncle Sam's money, which is taxpayer money, and then deny the claims.
		Sorry, that's just not acceptable.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We're joined by Betsy McCoy.
		She's with the Committee to Reduce Infection Death.
		She is their founder and chair.
		She also served as the former New York lieutenant governor, taking your questions.
		Again, if you want to ask her questions when it comes to health-related matters, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		If you are a medical professional and you want to give your comment, 202-748-8003.
		Mark is in Tampa, Florida.
		Mark joins us on our line for Democrats.
		Mark, hello, you're next up.
unidentified		Hi there.
		Yeah, I am 62 years old and I am enrolled in the Affordable Care Act.
		Can you tell me why they did not extend the premium tax credits for myself and 22 other million Americans?
		Because they're not extending that.
		And so that's going to cause my monthly premium to go up $650 per month.
		That's the question we were just discussing.
		We were just discussing that, so I'll just summarize.
		My view is that before the Congress agrees to renew those subsidies which were put into place during COVID, they ought to be asking more from the insurance companies and expressly that they ought to be requiring that insurance companies actually pay the claims once they take the premiums.
		That's a pretty good summary, don't you think?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Paula, do you have a follow-up?
unidentified		Just that it's going to, you know, the fact that They did not extend those.
		It is going to just make it so expensive that I'm not even sure that I'm going to be able to keep my health care coverage.
		And I know there's a lot of millions that are not going to be able to afford it at all.
		So it just seems like, you know, maybe we could have not done as much of the tax cuts for the 1% and allowed people to still keep their health care like myself.
		Let me point out the tax cuts weren't for the 1%.
		They were renewing the tax cuts that President Trump put in previously.
		But I'm not here to defend the tax cuts.
		What I want to explain is that before COVID, the subsidies will go back to exactly what they were before COVID.
		Did you have your plan before COVID, sir?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, he's gone.
unidentified		Oh, okay.
		So they're not eliminating the subsidies.
		They're just saying the special bump that was put into place during COVID will be withdrawn if that's the decision Congress makes.
		They haven't actually made that decision yet.
		But what I'm pointing out is that Uncle Sam ought to be demanding more from the insurance companies in return for that money, specifically reliability.
		Once you have a plan, you shouldn't have to go through all these pre-approvals, which delay your care, and you shouldn't be smacked in the face with all these denials after you submit a claim.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to the cost of health care overall, Ms. McCoy, what's the onus on the health community, the medical community, about controlling costs?
unidentified		Well, I'm smiling because people are always complaining about the cost of health care compared with other things.
		But it's quite amazing what health care provides for us.
		The miraculous treatments for heart disease, for example, the rising cure rates for many types of cancer.
		People complain about the cost of going to their doctor, but they don't seem to complain when they buy fancy new gadgets or fast cars or other things.
		What I'm saying is that I don't think health care is overpriced compared with other things we pay for in our society, considering the enormous benefits that healthcare provides for all of us, and especially the number of years that people study to be a doctor.
		It's easy to attack it because government pays a big part of the tab.
		But in fact, when you compare health care here with other countries, it's not that much more expensive and the access is much better.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		To your topic, which you founded your organization on, we have a viewer who asked the question: ultimately, when it comes to hospital infections while being treated there, does UVC light help with respect to the issue?
unidentified		I'm so glad you raised that question.
		Yes, there are several technologies that could literally guarantee patients an automatically, continuously, non-toxically disinfected room.
		UV light was used for a long time in robots going from room to room.
		It is toxic, so many hospitals don't use it because that room has to be shut down.
		The personnel using the machine have to be specially trained.
		But now there are even better technologies, dry hydrogen peroxide, for example, far UV light, that can be used continuously even when healthcare professionals and patients are in the room.
		And that really should be something that hospitals are aggressively pursuing because these hospital infections are preventable and they're a serious large cause of death in the United States.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mary joins us from Washington State, Independent Line.
		You're on with our guest.
		Go ahead, please.
unidentified		Morning, Pedro.
		Good morning, Ms. McCauley.
		Good morning.
		I have a couple questions between you and Pedro.
		I think you can answer.
		One of the things, and this is probably off key, I just wanted to know, and I've been trying to find out.
		I'm at home because I do have cancer.
		And when I was in the hospital, it's been, I guess, six, eight weeks ago.
		They had put me, well, what I think is with the nurses, where they go from patient to patient and with their uniforms, they have those plastic units like paper, plastic, those extra things that they put over their uniforms or their scrubs or whatever they wear.
		And they use a mask and stuff like when you first come in because they don't know what you have or whatever and they don't want to be infected by it.
		And I think that's a good thing.
		The other thing that I was wondering.
		I'm sorry.
		Oh, my question is, I wanted to know if maybe it has something to do with our water system, because it's been so many years since they've done anything from what I understand.
		My biggest question I have for you is, why did, I can't even imagine $1 trillion, what it looks like.
		What was the $5 trillion in that beautiful bill or whatever they call it?
		What are they going to do with $5 trillion?
		I mean, everything could be fixed and everything could be done.
		I don't know what that was given in the bill for.
		Let's talk about the infection issue first because I can offer some real expertise there.
		The nurses and other personnel who are putting those gowns on over their uniforms were doing it to prevent the spread of infection from one patient to another, not necessarily to protect themselves, but otherwise when a doctor or nurse leans over a patient's bed, perhaps to change a dressing or to examine the patient, and then steps back, the bacteria that's on the patient, that's on the bed rails, that's on the bed linens,
		then on the doctor's or nurses' uniforms, and that gets transmitted from one bedside to the next.
		So those gowns are a good idea, especially if you know a patient is carrying some sort of infection on their skin.
		I was going to encourage you and everyone else to take a look at this brochure.
		Let me tell you some of the things that are in here that are just really practical steps.
		For example, if you're going to the hospital for any reason, don't shave.
		Don't shave your face.
		Don't shave your legs.
		Don't shave anywhere because shaving creates nicks in the skin.
		It's like a welcome mat for bacteria.
		So that's a really good step.
		If you're having surgery, almost any kind of surgery, bathe for three days with a special soap.
		This isn't a brand, it's just a type of soap called HibbaCleanse or Florohexidine soap.
		Florohexidine is the type of soap.
		It's a liquid soap that destroys the bacteria on your own skin so it won't migrate into your surgical incision and cause a bad infection.
		And all the studies show that whether you're getting a hip replacement or a new knee or you're having a heart surgery, if you bathe with that type of soap for three days before your surgery, you're definitely reducing your risk of a surgical site infection.
		So I would encourage you to come to our website and read all 15 steps because it will prepare you well before you go into the hospital.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is from Susan.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Susan is in New York State, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning.
		Good morning, Ms. Macaulay.
		Morning, patriots.
		All right.
		My question, my question is, I just got out of the hospital yesterday, emergency surgery, and I was pretty much shocked and horrified at the condition of our major hospital in Albany, New York.
		I couldn't believe how filthy it was.
		I just, there were soiled linens that were left in my room from the last patient.
		I'm listening to what you're talking about, and my mind is blown.
		There were nurses, the nurses in my area didn't wear masks.
		Aren't they supposed to wear masks?
		I mean, what am I supposed to do about the things that went on?
		We had a shared bath for everybody.
		It wasn't cleaned.
		It was filthy every time I went in there.
		Absolutely filthy.
		It's terrible.
		It's horrifying, and it's very common.
		Let me tell you, if I were governor, I used to be lieutenant governor.
		If I were governor, the state would be inspecting hospitals for cleanliness.
		You know how in many cities across the U.S., restaurants, they get a grade for cleanliness.
		It's right in the window, A, B, C. You don't want to go to a C or D rated restaurant.
		But the fact is, you can stay home and make your own dinner.
		You don't have a choice when you go to the hospital.
		You have to be there.
		You're sick.
		And hospitals should be clean.
		And the fact is they should be inspected for cleanliness and the grade should be right on the front door of the hospital.
		And there are technologies available to make hospitals disinfected and hospitals ought to be using them.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Caller, did you have a chance to talk to your providers about this?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And what was the response if you did?
unidentified		No, I just got in last night.
		But my question also is the final topping on the cake was I was in something called the observation section before my surgery or whatever.
		And then they put me back in there, which was part of the ER.
		And somebody comes rolling in when I'm ready to be discharged.
		I thought she had my discharge papers.
		She says, no, I'm here to let you know that you may or may not be covered for your stay here.
		And I said, wait a minute.
		I said, you go to a hotel and they give you a bill.
		You're expecting a certain amount.
		You couldn't have told me this before you put me in the observation room.
		You wait until I'm leaving to tell me that I may not be covered for all these things.
		You should be outraged about that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Well, let us respond.
		Go ahead, Ms. McCoy.
unidentified		You should be totally outraged about this.
		This is a real scam.
		This observation.
		And hospitals are doing this everywhere now.
		They're putting you in a category called the observation that Medicare, Medicaid, insurance companies don't cover.
		And when somebody says to you you're going into observation, you should say, absolutely not, right?
		Everybody should know this is a total scam.
		It should be outlawed.
		There should be no such thing as observation.
		You're either in the hospital or you're not.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you elaborate on that?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What it means to be an observation and why it's a concern specifically?
unidentified		This category called observation should be illegal.
		There's no coding for observation.
		They can't get paid for it.
		If they're going to admit you, then they should admit you and say you are now a patient and you are covered.
		That's a decision that's made in the EER by the triage people.
		But to put you in this gray area called observation, where you may sit for two days and then get a whopping bill from the hospital, hospitals should not be permitted to bill you for observation.
		That's an underscore.
		I'm saying that absolutely, totally, 100%.
		Nobody should be billed for observation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. McCoy, as we wrap up, as far as where you see health care is going under this administration, What are you hopeful about and what are your concerns going forward?
unidentified		Well, I'm hopeful that these disruptors like Marty Macquery and Jay Bona Terrello will demand more from the public health agencies.
		It's unacceptable that American lifespan is steadily declining despite all these, what the claims all these public health agencies are making.
		That's number one.
		And number two, I hope that we impose reforms on the insurance company so if you have insurance and you go into the hospital, you're not hit later with a claims denial.
		There you have it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our guest website is hospitalinfection.org, Betsy McCoy, the Committee to Reduce Infection Death.
		She is their founder and chair.
		Thanks for your time today.
unidentified		You're quite welcome.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Coming up in the program in about a half hour from now, we'll hear from author, lawyer, and ABC News legal contributor Kim Whaley.
		She'll talk about actions by the Trump administration and President Trump himself, which she feels tests the checks and balances established in the Constitution.
		But first, open forum.
		And if you want to participate, it's 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202748-8002.
		Make those calls for open forum.
		We'll take them, and Washington Journal continues.
unidentified		In a nation divided, a rare moment of unity.
		This fall, C-SPAN presents Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
		In a town where partisan fighting prevails.
		One table, two leaders, one goal, to find common ground.
		This fall, ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Mike said before, I happened to listen to him.
unidentified		He was on C-SPAN 1.
		That's a big upgrade, right?
		But I've read about it in the history books.
		I've seen the C-SPAN footage.
		If it's a really good idea, present it in public view on C-SPAN.
rachel maddow ▲ ● ▼		Every single time I tuned in on TikTok or C-SPAN or YouTube or anything, there were tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people watching.
unidentified		I went home after the speech and I turned on C-SPAN.
unidentified		I was on C-SPAN just this week.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		To the American people, now is the time to tune in to C-SPAN.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		They had something $2.50 a gallon.
unidentified		I saw television a little while ago in between my watching my great friends on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN is televising this right now live.
		So we are not just speaking to Los Angeles.
		We are speaking to the country.
		C-SPANshop.org is C-SPAN's online store.
		Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, this is Open Forum, and how you can participate is by calling us on the lines, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		As always, you can post your thoughts on topics of the show on our social media sites and follow us on our various platforms on our various networks, our app and the .org.
		That's where you can follow a lot of what's going on today on our network.
		C-SPAN 3.
		We told you about it a little bit earlier, but in Texas, the Texas Senate there holding several redistricting hearings concerning the topic of possible changes there.
		And if you want to see what comes out of that, It's on C-SPAN 3 at 10 o'clock.
		You can follow along on our app at C-SPANNOW and c-span.org.
		Later on at 12 noon Eastern Time, a discussion on the trade war between the United States and Canada.
		I'll talk about the current U.S. tariffs of Canada standing at 25%, possible additional tariffs on certain supplies.
		Scholars will talk about that, and you can follow along.
		On our main network, C-SPAN, the app and the .org as well.
		And then this afternoon, a law establishing marketing standards when it comes to grains and oil seeds set to expire at the end of September.
		You can see how that could affect those who make and grow those things.
		C-SPAN is where you can find that hearing or that topic, 3 o'clock this afternoon, as well as the app and the .org.
		This is Open Forum.
		Let's start with Trina.
		Trina joins us from New York, Republican Line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
		Good morning.
		I've just had a question.
		It was so refreshing to have your previous guests on.
		There was very excited about that.
		I'm just curious as to how C-SPAN chooses the topics that they're going to talk about because I can only usually, typically watch the early shows of Washington Journal, which I really enjoy.
		But it does seem like there's been at least six episodes related to Epstein.
		Like, who cares?
		Can we, like, talking about your health care?
		People care about that.
		Talking about, you know, your dollar to raise your family.
		People care about that, those kinds of things.
		So I'm curious as to how you select your topics, if that's a question that I might ask.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sometimes it's driven by what's in the news cycle.
		Sometimes it's driven by interest and continuing interest in topics like Jeffrey Epstein.
		Sometimes it's driven by other factors.
		There's no, it's art and science.
		I think it's a combination is the best way to put it.
		Let's go to Jackie.
		Jackie in Florida, Democrats line.
		Good morning.
		You're next.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
unidentified		Thank you for C-SPAN.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		I just went to the hospital.
		I had cancer on my left ear.
		I went to the hospital because I went to my doctor's office and they wouldn't do anything about it because you have to go back to the surgeon, the person that done the surgery on it.
		And I was having it infected.
		So they sent me to the Lakeland General Hospital.
		They admitted me in the hospital.
		And after they set me up on the IV and everything else in the hospital, then they told me they couldn't do anything with me after they already admitted me there.
		So they told me that I had to go back to the VA again.
		But they charged me for this.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Angela in Washington, D.C., Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi, Pedro.
		I just wanted to comment on your previous guest.
		Some of the information she gave was good, but it seemed like she was overly political.
		And I felt like that got in the way of the conversation, especially since she seems to be biased in favor of the Trump administration.
		You know, I guess the other thing I wanted to say is that when gifts come on, they also talk about the United States, but they don't say the continental United States.
		He didn't say anything about any of the territories and the thousands of veterans in the territories.
		So I just would like people to specify that the United States does not stop with the 50 states.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Angela there in Washington, D.C. Michael is up next.
		Michael's in New York, New York State, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
unidentified		I am exhausted and I am just so fatigued by the news media and Jeffrey Epstein on all networks.
		Now, what bothered me as an African-American, I supported Trump.
		There was a trade deal by the EU.
		There's a trade deal with Britain.
		Trade deals, I think, $500 to $600 billion of buying natural gas here from the United States and combination of trade deals with Saudi Arabia, et cetera.
		Inflation is low.
		Unemployment is low.
		The price of food is low.
		Triple A said the gas price is at the lowest level in four years, triple A.
		And the country is doing great.
		And now the Democrats have no answer but a Marxist in New York or to try to find something to get off methods.
		You know, they try this Madison Avenue, Teflon, Trump stuff.
		Now it's the Epstein case.
		The question is to the viewers here is that Joe Biden had this information about Epstein and Merrick Gallin, who did everything possible, sending number three down to New York to help Elvin Bragg and Patricia James to arrest Trump.
		They had this information.
		I can't even conceive how they would not use this information against Trump during the Camela, the October surprise.
		There was no information there.
		So now they're stretching this thing like, I don't know what, you know, because they can't talk about the issues.
		You know, and here's the last question, Pedro, that I want your viewers to answer if they can.
		If you are an able-bodied young person or middle-aged person and you're able-bodied, you have no drug problem, no alcohol problem, no mental health problem.
		What's the problem with you volunteering working 20 hours a week?
		I don't see no problem with that.
		And as a taxpayer, I do not want my tax money going to snap benefits for those that are here illegally.
		I don't want my money paying these bills.
		What in the world is wrong with that?
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Michael there in New York.
		Yesterday, it's several announcements about those intending to run for office, particularly for the Senate and the House.
		Some of them include Roy Cooper.
		This is from North Carolina out of Raleigh saying the former Democratic governor of North Carolina will run for Senate in 2026.
		He made the announcement on X on Monday morning saying, I have thought about it, prayed about it, and I've decided I'm running to be the next U.S. Senator from North Carolina.
		Cooper, who was term limited after finishing eight years as governor at the end of 2024, is widely popular in the state and has never lost a race for more than 30 years in state politics for state senate, attorney general, and governor.
		He won most of those races in years when Republicans carried the state in presidential elections.
		As part of his announcement, a video from his campaign talking about his intentions.
		Here's a portion of it.
unidentified		I prosecuted criminals and took on scammers, big banks, and drug companies.
		When you made me your governor, we balanced the state budget every year and worked with Republicans to raise teacher pay, recruit thousands of better paying jobs, and expand Medicaid to more than 650,000 working North Carolinians.
		But right now, our country's facing a moment as fragile as any I can remember.
		And the decisions we make in the next election will determine if we even have a middle class in America anymore.
		I never really wanted to go to Washington.
		I just wanted to serve the people of North Carolina right here, where I've lived all my life.
		But these are not ordinary times.
		Politicians in D.C. are running up our debt, ripping away our health care, disrespecting our veterans, cutting help for the poor, and even putting Medicare and Social Security at risk just to give tax breaks to billionaires.
		That's wrong, and I've had enough.
		I've thought on it and prayed about it, and I've decided I want to serve as your next United States Senator.
		Because even now, I still believe our best days are ahead of us.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That was yesterday, also announced yesterday.
		This from the Associated Press out of Atlanta, Georgia Republican Mike Collins saying that he joined the field challenging Democratic U.S. Senator John Osoff and the state.
		The GOP has named their top target to add a Senate seat in 2026.
		A second-term member of Congress from a district east of Atlanta, Collins became the newest Republican to get into the primary race.
		Representative's Buddy Carter is already running while State Insurance Commissioner John King dropped out.
		Also expected to run is former University of Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley.
		But here's the announcement of the video coming from Mike Collins yesterday.
unidentified		In trucking, you got a grip.
		I'm Mike Collins, and that's why we drove home Trump's big, beautiful bill.
		We killed woke DEI garbage and banned boys from playing girls' sports.
mike collins ▲ ● ▼		When Biden's open border got Lake and Riley tragically murdered by a criminal illegal alien in my district, I took matters into my own hands.
unidentified		I wrote the Lake and Riley Act so we can deport criminal illegals wherever they are, making sure this never happens again.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Mike Collins, Mike, you were fantastic.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		He loves his state and they took this very personally.
mike collins ▲ ● ▼		We need a senator who works for Georgia, not the California crazies or New York head jobs.
unidentified		I don't know who John Osoff really works for, but it sure as heck is in Georgia.
		Mike Collins from Senate.
		It's time to send a trucker to the U.S. Senate to steamroll the radical left, deliver on President Trump's America First Agenda, and put the people of Georgia back in the driver's seat.
		I'm Mike Collins, and I approve this message.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Also announced yesterday, Paul Danz, the architect of Project 2025, launching a Senate bid in South Carolina to Alice Lindsey Graham, NBC reporting this.
		He's set to announce his Republican primary bid with a formal launch tomorrow.
		Let's hear from Betty in Texas Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
unidentified		Hello.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hello, you're on.
unidentified		Yeah, I'm OCSAN.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yes, you're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Well, I was just calling to tell y'all that I don't believe a thing that anybody says is voting for Donald Trump.
		And it's a shame.
		I'm an 80-year-old lady, black lady.
		I've seen a lot.
		I know a lot.
		And I know a bunch of stuff that they're saying.
		It's not true.
		It's lies.
		And do you know the Lord's word says, a liar shall not tarry in his sight.
		There's no Christians up there.
		Because if it was, it wouldn't be messed with Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
		I used to do Medicaid for them.
		I couldn't do them there because there's so much mess in them.
		But do any of y'all realize that you got to give an account of what you do?
		And if you were Christian, you would not be taking from the poor and harming people.
		You go in the hospital, it's just like going to a circus.
		And it's not because of Medicaid.
		I used to do Medicaid for them.
		I took care of people that their kids were working.
		They had a little Medicaid to take care of their kids.
		The Medicaid is messed up because the companies that sell medical equipment, they're all over town.
		When they first come out, Medicaid first kind of paid 100%.
		They don't pay it.
		We had one medical supply, and that was Milton Clarks.
		They are everywhere now.
		It's because the richest cheating people.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Betty there in Texas.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Robert in Maryland, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
unidentified		How are you doing?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Okay, so I want to make a statement, a few statements.
		So like everybody else in this country, or most people in this country, I have a hard time.
		You know, just existing day to day, I went to the drugstore last week, got four bags of groceries, no meat products involved.
		It was $157.
		That's, I don't know how people want to fix the income are making in this country.
		But the way I see it, you know, I listen to Bloomberg a lot in the economics.
		Everybody thinks this is a big rosy picture we got going on.
		But there's a, we're like on this tight panic getting to an iceberg, man.
		And the iceberg has got deficit on it.
		And, you know, we're going to hit that down thing sometime this year when all this terror stuff hits us.
		And, you know, we're going to be at a hard time.
		We're going to be heading down a drain.
		And people don't realize this.
		I don't understand why nobody seems to be worried about this.
		You know, back in the 80s and 90s, there'll have been protests in D.C. about hundreds of thousands of people.
		I don't know whatever happened to that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, yeah, you're going to have to watch that.
		So let's go to Ron.
		Ron in Vermont, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi there.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I'd like to say one thing, a couple things.
		I mean, one is Republicans get on there and they start lying all the time saying food prices are low and everything the lowest and all that.
		That is so untrue.
		Anybody who shops knows better than that.
		But there is a white light at the end of the tunnel for Democrats coming up here soon.
		When Trump tries to run a third term, he better watch what he wants there because when that happens, Obama will run against him and he'll find a real defeat in him.
		So that's all I have to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats line, this is from Ann Ann in North Carolina.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Yes.
		Hi.
		Good morning.
		I am calling in response to that caller from New Yorker who's saying the Democrats are not facing the issues are coming on the Epstein file.
		I just like to say to him that Trump is the one who is trying to distract from the Epstein file by bringing up stuff about what Obama did with the Russia incident.
		And also he was just doing a whole lot of distractions saying he's going to want to rename the Washington Redskins back to, I mean, the Washington Commanders back to the Redskins and plenty of other distractions.
		He'll just all of a sudden come out of his head and say to distract us from the Epstein file.
		He always does this when issues come up and he wants to divert our attention away from that real issue, which is a real issue, the Epstein file.
		If there's nothing to hide, then go ahead and release the files.
		If they fear that innocent people in the files will be exposed, then there's a way to release it without calling out the names of exposing those innocent girls in that file.
		It's a way of doing it without having to release who they are.
		And secondly, I would like to say, people calling in about immigrants, immigrants, immigrants.
		Well, if you're not a Native American, everybody here else here is an immigrant.
		And speaking of immigrants, we have to realize Mexican is a nationality.
		Most Mexicans here, their descendants were Native Americans, okay?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		That's Anne there in North Carolina, 202-748-8000.
		For Democrats, Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		It was yesterday on the latter part of the President's trip to Scotland, Time magazine, others reporting that the President Monday appeared to break with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Yetanahu over his claim that there's no starvation in Gaza, calling the images of malnourished children real and announcing that the United States will establish, quote, food centers inside Gaza to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis amid Israel's aid blockade.
		You can see aspects of the president's trip on our app and our website.
		But here's a portion from the president's statements about Gaza from yesterday.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We also discussed, obviously, Gaza.
		And I think before we get to phase two, which is, you know, what's going to happen afterwards, we want to get the children fed.
		We made a contribution a week ago of $60 million all going into food.
		We only hope the food goes to the people that need it because so much, as you know, when you do something there, it gets taken by Hamas or somebody, but it gets taken.
		And we're prepared to help.
		We want to help.
		It's a terrible situation.
		The whole thing is terrible.
		It's been bad for many years.
		But it's great to hear you feel the same way that I do.
		We have to help on a humanitarian basis before we do anything.
		We have to get the kids fed.
		So we've been sending in a lot of food.
		A lot of the food that's been going there has been sent by the United States.
		I spoke yesterday with the President of the European Union, Ursula, who was terrific also on the subject, and she's going to play a big role also in helping us.
		So we have a good group of countries that are going to help with the humanitarian needs, which is food, sanitation, and some other things.
		It's very difficult to deal with Hamas, as I said.
		You know, we got a tremendous amount of hostages out, but it would take place in drips and drabs.
		You'd get 10, you'd get five, you'd get two, you'd get ten, twelve, we get twelve one time.
		Many of them would come to the White House, and they were so thankful.
		But I always said when you get down to the final 10 or 20, you're not going to be able to make a deal with these people because they use them as a shield.
		And when they give them up, they no longer have a shield.
		And the people of Israel feel so strongly about the hostages.
		Some people would take a different view, but they feel so strongly about the hostages.
		So that's an ongoing process.
		Hamas has become very difficult to deal with in the last couple of days because they don't want to give up these last 20 because they think as long as we have them, they have them, they have protection.
		But I don't think it can work that way.
		So I'm speaking to PBNet and Yahoo, and we are coming up with various plans.
		We're going to say it's a very difficult situation.
		If they didn't have the hostages, things would go very quickly.
		But they do, and we know where they have them in some cases.
		And you don't want to go riding roughshod over that area because that means those hostages will be killed.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Brenda.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Brenda is in Arkansas, Independent Line.
unidentified		I'm just sorry.
		I understand that there's hostages.
		But I just saw CFAN stating that Medicaid is now going to be able to be given to Eon Les and people that have a lot of money.
		And I have to live on $2, $1,200.
		And that's it.
		Yes.
		My name is Brenda.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		No, we heard that portion, Brenda.
		Go ahead with your comment.
		Go ahead while you were continue on.
unidentified		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Carla, we're going to have to let me pause you there.
		And a reminder to those of you waiting, if you would just mute the television only because there's a delay between when we say things here to when you hear it there.
		That may complicate the conversation as it goes forward.
		So if you can mute your TV or turn down the volume, we appreciate it.
		Corey in Wisconsin, Republican line.
		Hi.
unidentified		I actually am the party, not of any of the three.
unidentified		I think I'm the party of the fair.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Carla, are you a registered Republican or not?
unidentified		I am registered as independent.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you're calling in on the wrong line.
		I apologize.
		I invite you to call back on our independent line.
		Again, that's 202748-8002.
		If you do that for us, and then Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		Republicans, 202748-8001.
		Ruth in Pennsylvania, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hi.
		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		I would just do, good morning.
		I would just like to make a comment about talking points that are made by mainly the Republicans, but it's almost like they're puppets that have, you know, a box has been inserted into them.
		No matter how you listen to them, you pull the string.
		They all say the same thing.
		Like, it's really, it's really pathetic.
		The American people are not stupid.
		And also, I would like to comment on food prices.
		You know, I shop all the time.
		I went again the other day, and I can promise you that everything has gone up significantly.
		Every week it goes up a little bit more.
		And I really wish the media would pay more attention to that and bring it to the forefront because it's really hurting the American people.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ruth in Pennsylvania there.
		We were on C-SPAN.
		You may have recalled seeing on June the 14th the Army's 250th parade and celebration that took place and brought it to you on C-SPAN.
		You can still watch it at our website at c-span.org if you want.
		The cost for that being reported today by USA Today saying the 250th anniversary under the headline costing about 30 million, according to officials, saying the money covered the cost of hauling dozens of tanks and armored vehicles by train and truck from military bases in Texas to the nation's capital.
		About 7,000 soldiers also converged on Washington for the occasion.
		The story also adding that the Army's final tabulation does not include the cost for the parade's significant security requirements, including the Secret Service, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and local police.
		Again, you can still see all those events when you go to our website at c-span.org as part of the Army's 250th anniversary.
		Let's go to Kate.
		Kate in Missouri, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hello.
		What I have isn't so much a question as it is a suggestion.
		What I would like to hear is perhaps a psychologist talk about childhood sexual abuse.
amanda in florida ▲ ● ▼		And because there's a lot of research out there on that topic regarding, and it would be nice to give background information as far as what's going on with Epstein and the Epstein files and trafficking and all that.
unidentified		They probably will not, he she probably will not talk so much about politics as simply giving facts, figures, research about research findings about the basics of childhood sexual abuse.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		It's Kate there in Missouri.
		Let's hear from Linda.
		Linda joins us from New York, Republican Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		I would like to advocate for increased funding by Congress for the National Aeronautic and Space Administration and also for Space Force, being that there are now stories in television that I have watched where we are tracking an asteroid the size of a football field that has been said at one point it would hit Earth, but now they say it will hit the moon.
		And it has bypassed Jupiter's field.
		It has gone past both asteroid fields for Jupiter and Mars.
		It is now on the other side of the sun.
		We can't get adequate a look at it.
		At one point, there should have been volunteers also looking for it.
		But if it enters our gravity, well, we are in big trouble because the last asteroid was only the size of a bus and it did a number on Russia and previously on Russian Forest Street near the North Pole.
		At one point, a large asteroid took out the dinosaurs.
		So I really believe that we should keep our eye on this story and also check that Congress is adequately funding in the future budget for anything having to do with eye on the sky.
		That's all I have to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Linda, New York, and what she brought up, if you go to weather.com, here's the story that was posted 15 hours ago.
		City killer, as it's described, asteroid won't hit Earth, but what happens if it slams into the moon?
		And it tells you a little bit more there.
		You can go to weather.com if you want to see more of that story.
		Let's hear from Mark.
		Mark in Illinois, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi, this is Mark.
		And I just wanted to say our national debt is, what, $36 trillion.
		And after the, you add on the next five from this administration and his last $8.2 trillion, almost a third of the debt will be all Donald Trump regime.
		And the other thing that I have to say is we have on the news every night somebody bombed somewhere in this Benny Dad, Gaza, this Benny Dad, Israel had this Benny Dad, Ukraine.
		When we bombed over there at Nuclear Place, nothing about any human loss at all.
		You know there's people there.
		How come we don't hear how many we killed?
		That's it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mark in Illinois.
		We'll go to Philadelphia next.
		Independent Line.
		That's where Audrey is.
		Hi.
unidentified		Good morning, and thank you.
		My daughter is transgender, and I want to say that she is kind, intelligent, hardworking, and patriotic.
		She has a good job.
		She owns her own home.
		She started two small businesses and she's working on a graduate degree and I couldn't be more proud of her.
		She has zero interest in invading women's locker rooms.
		And I want to say that research shows that male-to-female transition people lose muscle mass.
		And there is no instance of a transgender athlete winning an elite competition.
		Of 510,000 college athletes, only 10 are transgender.
		People say that there are male and female, and that's it.
		But I have a degree in biology with a genetics emphasis.
		And I can tell you that human sexuality is not that simple.
		That some people are born with extra chromosomes.
		Some people are born with the characteristics of both male and female organs.
		So people react with fear and hostility toward things they don't understand.
		But that's the way we treated blacks in the 1950s and gays in the 1960s.
		And someday, when transgender people are accepted, there's going to be some other group that we vilify.
		So I would like to finish by saying that we are not going to make America great again by waiting for Donald Trump to hand it to us.
		We're going to make America great by each of us contributing to a better country.
		And that people who say that they're Christian, don't just say it, act it.
		Be kind, be tolerant, reject violence, help each other.
		That's how we're going to be a better country.
		And I just think it's horrible that people hate my daughter without even knowing what a wonderful person she is.
		And I hope you all have a wonderful day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Audrey in Philadelphia.
		They'll go next to Scott.
		He's in Georgia, Republican line.
unidentified		Hey, bud, thanks for taking my call.
		I've just got something that's been weighing on me for a while.
		Number one is they've talked about Obama and his third election.
		He wanted to be president.
		Well, they got that by Biden, bribing Biden.
		Another thing is that to the Democrats, I would like to know how many voted and how many just sat there and called and complained.
		And now, well, if you didn't vote, or you did vote, I know you voted for.
		But if you didn't vote, you ain't got no, you should just sit back like the Republicans did, sit back and enjoy your ride.
		Because this man has done a lot for this country in six months than what Biden did in six years.
		And I think that I thank the good Lord.
		I am a proud Republican.
		I would thank the good Lord for putting Trump back in the presidency.
		I thank for surviving, and nobody brings this up.
		Thanks for surviving the assassination attempt on his life.
		That millimeters, this man could have died.
		And for what?
		For the hatred that had been spawned by the Democrats.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Scott there in Georgia.
		Finishing off this open forum, thanks to those of you who participated.
		Our next guest, a recent piece of hers, takes a look at the presidency of Donald Trump and how she believes it tests the checks and balances that are established in the Constitution.
		Kim Whaley from the University of Baltimore, also an ABC News legal contributor, joining us next for that conversation on Washington Journal.
unidentified		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to c-SPAN.org slash radio on SiriusXM radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN radio.
		Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day, catch Washington today, weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
		America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment.
		From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments.
		Only on the C-SPAN networks.
		Nonfiction book lovers, C-SPAN has a number of podcasts for you.
		Listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the Afterwords podcast and on Q ⁇ A. Hear wide-ranging conversations with the non-fiction authors and others who are making things happen.
		And BookNotes Plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics.
		Find all of our podcasts by downloading the free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org slash podcasts.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our final guest of the morning, Kim Whaley of the University of Baltimore School of Law.
		She's a professor there and ABC News legal contributor, also the author of the book, How to Read the Constitution and Why.
		Kim Whaley, welcome back to Washington Journal.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Most recently, and I'll just give you the headline on the website Zatteo that you write under the headline that the president's revealed a gaping hole in the Constitution.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's start with what that hole is.
unidentified		The hole is that so much of it is based on a handshake agreement and on deference to the branches of government other than the presidency.
		So we talk a lot about how Congress has the power of the purse, but the president has the checkbook.
		So Congress has the power to declare war, but the president has the power over the military.
		So really, the president is supposed to kind of circle back and follow the instructions of the other two branches of government.
		And that's worked for 238 years.
		It's just sort of an understanding that even though there's not really an obvious way to enforce the powers of Congress as compared to the president, presidents prior to Donald Trump just did that because they understood that's what their obligation was under the law.
		And particularly with this administration, the second Trump administration, he's just coming in and saying, I don't care.
		I don't care what the law says.
		I don't care what appropriations, you know, what Congress has, how Congress has told me to spend the money.
		I don't care really that there's a due process clause and there are all these restraints.
		I'm going to do what I want because actually I was given all this power as president.
		So the hole in it is really, with the exception of impeachment, There isn't an obvious workable mechanism to force a president to abide by his oath of office and the restraints that the Constitution really imposes with the understanding that you just do it.
		You do it as a good president, as a good citizen.
		And, you know, this president was elected in part because he doesn't adhere to rules.
		He smashes things, and he's going ahead and doing that.
		And many voters probably like that for him, that he does that.
		But as a practical matter, it really means the erosion in serious, serious ways of the Constitution because there's no way for the Constitution to kind of grow arms and legs and enforce itself.
		And Congress is standing down to a large degree, and the Supreme Court is standing down to a large degree in terms of enforcing the Constitution as against Donald Trump himself.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Is it because when it comes, say, to Congress, because both houses are controlled by Republicans, would you say that hole existed, or does the same exist when Democrats ruled the White House as well as both houses of Congress?
unidentified		Well, you know, the hole has always been there, is what I would argue.
		It's just that we've never been in this crisis inflection point because presidents just went along with what the law says.
		You know, if a statute was enacted that creates an agency, for example, Department of Education or USAID, the presidents just followed the law of the statute that Congress created.
		And if they wanted a different law, they'd go back to Congress and try to get supermajorities or majorities to get the legislation passed because they sort of operated under the understanding that they were bound by the law because they are.
		This president is basically said, I don't care.
		So that's really, I think, what's novel here is just his willingness to ignore the law and say, I'm going to do what I want.
		Make me do it.
		Make me comply with the law.
		And then we, of course, I think have, you know, we have both houses of Congress that are controlled by one party.
		That's not new.
		That's happened before.
		But this Congress, this particular Republican Party, also seems comfortable or willing at least with allowing the Constitution itself to go unenforced, including its own powers.
		I mean, James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, one of the founding fathers in Federalist 51, that the expectation was that pretty much everybody likes their power, right?
		So Congress will push back on the president in ways because they want to keep their prerogative.
		They want to make sure their appropriations power, their power of the purse, for example, stays alive and well, because people like to keep power.
		But with this particular Congress, things have been happening that are really intruding on Congress's authority.
		For example, closing agencies.
		Presidents don't have a constitutional power to close an agency.
		That's up to Congress because Congress makes the agency.
		But this Congress is sitting back and saying, well, if it's Donald Trump, we're okay with it.
		But then the problem with that is now that power is in the presidency period.
		So whether it's Donald Trump or it's Kamala Harris or whoever it is in the future, that president now, because Congress has given up the power over money, that president's moving forward, there's a precedent now to just ignore the law and do whatever they want with agencies hiring and firing people regardless of what the law says, spending money they don't have or refusing to spend money that Congress said they should spend.
		All of these things, it's almost like an example I use in the, I'm a mom, teenagers, the example I use in the piece is like, you know, if you give, you can give two teenagers a credit card and you can say to both of them, listen, this is for you to use in an emergency, but you've got to call me or text me before you use it to get my permission.
		Don't buy a Starbucks without my advance permission.
		One teenager will dutifully call mom and make sure mom is okay with it.
		The next teenager will go out and buy her friends whatever they want and just deal with the consequences later.
		Every president, I would argue, before Trump, with some rare exceptions in certain issues, is teenager number one.
		Said, listen, we want to make sure Congress is okay with this.
		We better go to Congress and try to get the votes to do what the White House wants to do.
		This is teenager number two.
		I'm going to use the credit card however I want, and I'm the one that has the police force.
		I'm the one that has all the power.
		So what are you going to do about it?
		And I think right now, America in general is sort of frozen.
		People are a little paralyzed, not knowing what to do with this particular teenager who's using the credit card however he wants and daring the other branches, daring protesters, daring media companies, daring universities, daring other people to stop him.
		And the parents aren't home.
		The parents are kind of checked out, really, in a lot of ways.
		So we're seeing so much power concentrated not only in one office, but in one person.
		And we've never seen that in this way before.
		And that's why me and many others now, I mean me for a long time, would say we're in a constitutional crisis because the Constitution isn't really operating to constrain the actions in the White House to make sure they comply with the rule of law.
		And I argue in the piece, it's because there's really an understanding up until now, you just do it.
		You do it because that's the right thing to do when you take an oath to uphold the Constitution, meaning you follow the rules, even if there's nobody to force you necessarily to follow the rules if you breach the rules.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Kim Whaley with us, and if you want to ask her questions about the topics related to the piece that we've been referencing, you can do so on the lines: 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents 202748-8002.
		Text us your thoughts at 202-748-8003.
		Kim Whaley, how does the judiciary fit as far as the checks and balance systems are concerned related to this president?
unidentified		Right.
		So Congress makes the law.
		The president is supposed to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
		Don't get to optionally ignore laws.
		And then you've got the judiciary that if the president does violate the law, you can file a lawsuit.
		So there is that third branch.
		But the judiciary doesn't have an army or police force any more than Congress does.
		So what we're seeing is in the judicial branch, we've seen some instances where this president, for example, migrants get due process.
		Maybe people think they shouldn't get due process, but they get due process under the Fifth Amendment and under Supreme Court precedent.
		And he has said, well, I'm going to send them, I'm going to send them, you know, to third countries without due process anyway, even though courts have said that.
		So again, we've got the teenager saying, I don't care that mom says I'm supposed to follow the rules.
		I'm going to go buy all my friends a beer.
		It doesn't matter.
		What are they going to do to me, right?
		So we do have the lower courts, lots and lots of lawsuits.
		The wrinkle here also, I think, that is pretty unprecedented, very unprecedented, is for some of these cases, the lower judges are saying, no, you can't do that.
		I mean, the law applies to everybody, including presidents.
		You've got to abide by the law.
		I'm going to issue an order saying abide by the law.
		In some instances, the Trump administration has gone along with the law, presumably.
		In some instances, they've ignored the law.
		In some instances, they've gone up to the Supreme Court and said, listen, this lower judge told me to abide by the law.
		And we've seen many times where the majority on the Supreme Court have just reversed the lower court with no explanation and said, we're just going to lift that injunction telling him to comply with the law.
		We're not going to explain why we think it's okay to ignore the law.
		We're just going to reverse the injunction in a one-paragraph order.
		That's really, really unprecedented for a couple reasons.
		And I think it's really outside the, it's beyond the boundaries of what the Supreme Court should be doing.
		The first reason is that one thing about law and judges and lawyers is that they explain stuff.
		I mean, you see these long, long opinions with dissents.
		The idea is the law is really squishy, and there's always arguments on both sides.
		So the court's job under Marbury versus Madison 1803 is to say what the law is.
		And that means you've got to say it and explain why you are letting Donald Trump do this.
		Tell us.
		And the second piece is that that's especially important when what they're doing is overruling long-standing precedents.
		So for example, for certain agency heads, the head of the National Labor Relations Board, for example, Congress says, you know, you can't fire this person unless you've got cause, unless you have a good reason.
		That's been in place for the most part since for 90 years, that rule that Congress can limit the president's ability to fire certain people on the idea that you want some independence.
		You don't want all political actors in the executive branch.
		Now, again, people can disbate whether that's a good idea, but that's been the law since Humphrey's executor.
		The Supreme Court basically let Donald Trump fire the head of the National Labor Relations Board and didn't really explain why they're ignoring Humphrey's executor, which has been around for 90 years.
		This is really, really, really unusual.
		And it's really bad because not only do people not get an ability to weigh in on why it's maybe a good or a bad idea to overrule effectively Humphrey's executor, but then judges in the future and Congress and they pass new statutes, they don't know what's right and what's wrong because the Supreme Court hasn't explained it.
		So they don't know: are we allowed now to make an agency and limit the president's ability to fire them for cause?
		Because they let them do it with the NLRB, even though that was a constitutional statute for years and years and years.
		So we're seeing the U.S. Congress kind of like cave and not do their job, and we're seeing the Supreme Court majority cave and not do their job.
		And the other big issue, which is I'm so appreciative to have the opportunity to talk on a show like this, is this isn't being discussed.
		I mean, most Americans don't have the expertise to understand these nuances, and this is why I'm here.
		But also, you know, the media isn't really covering it in the kind of forealarm fire they should be covering it because it goes to, again, the roadmap for government, which is the Constitution, which is about limiting the power of a bullying government.
		It's about limiting the government from bullying Democrats.
		It's about limiting the government's ability to bully Republicans.
		It's about limiting the government's ability to bully migrants.
		It's about limiting the government's ability to bully MAGA supporters.
		I mean, wherever you are in America, if you give government too much power, it can turn against you.
		And you want rights.
		You want to be able to hold the government accountable when you're the one that the government decides to bully, whether it's this administration or five years or 10 years or 20 years.
		This is why it's an issue that goes across party lines.
		It's not red, blue, what your citizens status is, whether you're LGBTQ, whatever it is.
		It's for everybody.
		And right now, it's really not functioning in the way that the framers designed it to function because no one has dared to violate so many parts of it.
		And the other branches aren't standing up to Donald Trump and saying you got to stop.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We have a lot of those Americans ready to ask you questions about the topics that you're bringing up.
		Let's start with Derek, Dereks and Marilyn, Independent Line.
		You're on with Kim Whaley.
		Go ahead, Derek.
unidentified		Oh, hi, yeah.
		Thank you.
		I'm also an attorney, Ivy League educated, also as a faculty member in a law school.
		I think it appreciates the discussion.
		However, your guest is extremely partisan, and it would be in full disclosure, she should also disclose who she voted for and which party she usually supports and everything like that.
		And that would give context to some of her opinions.
		You know, she states things are this is the law, this is the law.
		Not really.
		You know, was she upset when Barack Obama said, I have a pen and I have a phone and did DACA without any congressional authority?
		Was she upset when Joe Biden decided to forgive billions and billions of student loans without congressional authority?
		Was she upset when the Biden administration put all these DEI and transgender policies in place without congressional authority?
		I mean, this is so much, so much of this is what she's saying is hyperbole, particularly if you just listen to the way she talks.
		I've done just as much constitutional stuff as you have, probably.
		Everybody knows it's a, you know, the independent agencies, where are independent agencies in the Constitution, right?
		Where are they?
		They're not in there.
		And Chevron, thank God, was overturned.
		Thank God some of this other stuff was overturned.
		And the Supreme Court does issue opinions.
		I mean, you know, and you are not the arbiter of what the law is.
		The Supreme Court is and Congress and everything like that.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, Derek, we'll let her respond to your points.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Whaley.
unidentified		Well, I'm certainly not going to respond to the accusations that I'm partisan and that other people know more.
		I mean, certainly other people do.
		I'm really interested in debating the merits of those things.
		And I am happy to go through all of those.
		DACA was about executive enforcement policy.
		That is, can the president decide not to enforce the law as to children that were brought here by their parents?
		I mean, enforcement authority is classic executive branch authority.
		If you're a police officer, you don't have to pull everybody over who is speeding.
		You can pick and choose who you pull over, who's speeding.
		Independent agencies, of course it's not in the Constitution.
		There's lots of things that aren't in the Constitution.
		There's actually, with the exception of the Department of the Treasury, there's no agencies in the Constitution.
		Congress creates those agencies.
		So that law does need to be upheld until Congress amends the law.
		So, you know, you mentioned Chevron was reversed.
		We can have a debate as to whether it was a good or bad idea, but there's the Supreme Court actually taking oral argument, having briefing, and issuing a long opinion explaining why Chevron was reversed.
		Joe Biden's student loan program, there was statutory authority for that.
		There was a disagreement as to whether that statutory authority actually covered it.
		The Supreme Court found that there wasn't.
		Sure, there's ambiguity in the law sometimes, and that's how it's always gone with presidents.
		And, you know, politically, I actually worked for Ken Starr investigating Bill Clinton in the Whitewater investigation.
		So, you know, I'm an equal opportunity accountability holder when it comes to presidents.
		I think every president should abide by the law.
		But the caller is actually blurring some complex legal issues into some kind of umbrella that it's all politics, and it really is.
		And I've been teaching constitutional law and writing on it, scholarly articles and now four books for about 20 years.
		And I'm happy to debate people on the merits, but not based on ad hominem attacks around my politics.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats line from Stephen and Maryland.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Hello.
		I was just reading an article about 3,400 civil rights cases being dismissed between March and June by the Department of Education and just the wholesale destruction of these various agencies is really concerning to me.
		I'm just wondering what your thoughts were in terms of the unions having the ability to confront like federal employee unions confronting the destruction of their own jobs, you know, the mass firing and layoffs.
		You mentioned it a little bit before, but is there anything that you see in the future for them to be able to do to protect their own jobs?
		Thanks.
		Yeah, well, I mean, there's always lawsuits, like I said.
		I mean, that's an important component of our system of government, our separation of powers, is that if the government does something that is illegal in a union, the benefit of a union is if you join a union, you have the, you know, safety in numbers.
		It's not like just you suing for your job.
		The union sues on behalf of the workers, and then the workers have more leverage with respect to the employer than an individual.
		That's the idea behind union.
		It's actually very empowering for just regular workers, as again, against the government.
		When it comes to the Department of Education, one of these cases I mentioned where the Supreme Court is rubber stamping some of the things that are happening out of the Trump administration, the Department of Education is one of those.
		It was in the last couple of weeks, the Trump administration has been firing people en masse.
		And that went up on an emergency motion because a lower federal court judge put an injunction in place that no, we need to keep the Department of Education intact until this is litigated.
		The Supreme Court reversed that injunction, sided with Donald Trump.
		And so we're going to see mass cuts to, we have already seen it to the Department of Education, including could impact the 7 million kids who are special needs and have support through the Department of Education to have their educational needs met consistent with federal law.
		For people who want to get into the sort of the legal arguments, I really encourage folks to look up some of the dissenting opinions because as much as the majority in some of these cases isn't explaining why it's doing what it's doing, the dissenting justices, Justice Jackson primarily, but also Justice Sadomayor and sometimes Justice Kagan, they will kind of give an explanation for what's going on.
		So if people want to inform themselves, not listen to me, you know, or other experts, so to speak, but read it yourself.
		It's all online on the Supreme Court's website.
		And I encourage people to look at those things with an open mind, again, about the broader question of government, not Trump, not Biden, not particular presidents, but government itself, because it's really there to protect all of us, the regular people that don't have the power that the government has.
		That's what it's for.
		And that's what, if I'm partisan towards anything, it's partisan towards regular people to have their rights protected against, you know, a government that has law enforcement power, has military power, all the things that we've given our government through the Constitution and federal law.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Matt, who joins us from New York State.
		He's on our line for Republicans.
		Matt, you're next up.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I find her to be quite entertaining, although the first person that called in, the lawyer, sort of stole my thunder.
		What she said about DACA as being something that's like a traffic cop, I can remember seeing on TV the clip of Obama before he did it saying, I know this is unconstitutional and I shouldn't do it.
		And he did it anyway.
		And as far as some other things, you know, she cherry-picked Trump, Trump, Trump.
		Was she so apoplectic about, you know, I think it's U.S. law says if somebody enters this country illegally, they're supposed to be returned immediately to where they came from.
		But yet instead, we've had millions come in here in the last four years.
		And it's something that you were showing earlier.
		She also is a legal news contributor to ABC News, or otherwise known as George Stopanepolis.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, then to call all those things aside, what would you like to have her address specifically?
unidentified		I just think that not specifically, but I think it seems more like I'm here in Trump derangement syndrome or like she likes to claim that it's the government, the government.
		But all I want to know is, was she so apoplectic about what Paris climate accords that should have been ratified by Congress?
		And like Obama went right around Congress and did that anyway.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Matt in New York.
		Thank you.
		Ms. Whaley.
unidentified		Well, I don't know how to respond to that.
		I don't think whataboutism is a particularly persuasive argument.
		And we really, you know, people can disagree with me.
		You know, and I'm quite confident in terms of if you look at the checks and balances in this moment, they are not being enforced in a way that historically has never happened.
		So there might have been, or there have been certainly moments, you know, Nixon, President Nixon, did not abide by appropriations.
		He impounded funds and Congress backed, came back after him and passed a law making really clear that the appropriations power belongs to the United States Congress through a statute.
		I mean, this is the give and take.
		There's just no, there's no push and pull in this moment.
		And again, I'm really more interested in talking about the merits than personal attacks on my integrity and professionalism.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, let me interrupt you.
		I apologize.
		I want to read you a little bit.
		There's a professor at the University of Minnesota, Elon Wurman.
		He recently wrote about the connection between the courts and the president in a piece for City Journal.
		We're showing our folks the website for that now, but he wrote and portioned this saying the president may not defy a lawful court order simply because he disagrees with it, but neither must he treat every judicial pronouncement as an internal and universal command.
		A court's ruling settles a dispute before.
		It does not bind the executive branch in every future context or override its duty to interpret and execute the law.
		The president's obligation to follow the law includes respecting judicial decisions, but it also exercising independent judgment where the courts have not spoken or their jurisdiction does not reach.
		What do you think about that assessment?
unidentified		I think it's a little bit, could be misleading or misunderstood.
		I think what he's saying is, you know, the difference between laws passed by Congress and judicial decisions are laws are forward thinking.
		They apply to the future and they apply to everybody, right?
		So, you know, you can't go over 65 miles an hour on that street.
		It's for everyone who's driving on that street.
		A judge takes a question as to whether one party, whether the defendant, it could be an individual private person, it could be the government, violated a law and adjudicates it as to that one party, saying you did or you did not violate the speed limit.
		So I think what this writer is saying is when the judge does that, it doesn't really function like a law in the same way Congress does.
		There might be new circumstances where it's pouring rain or it's a hurricane or there are circumstances where you could argue, listen, it was impossible to abide by the law.
		So he's saying that presidents are going to exercise discretion when it's not clear as a bell that they have certain obligations.
		When it comes to you know, there are expedited removal procedures, but when it comes to sending, for example, people to third-party countries where they're not from, they've come to the United States from country X, they get sent to country Y.
		The law is very clear that you can't send somebody to country Y unless they get a hearing before a judge and the government has demonstrated that it's okay and they've met the criteria to be sent to country Y. That's not optional.
		And I think that's where I hope me and this writer would agree that there are certain boundaries that judges establish, even for presidents, that cannot be breached unless you get either Congress to change the law, you amend the Constitution, or you get the Supreme Court to reverse itself.
		Then after that, you can take a different action.
		But before that, you're supposed to abide by the rules.
		And again, that does protect all of us.
		And I don't endorse violations of the Constitution by Democratic presidents any more than I endorse violations of the Constitution by Republican presidents.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is from Eva.
		She's an Oakland Democrats line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on with our guest.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I have a question about the law.
		If we feel that our civil rights have been violated and the Department of Justice and other people in government that are supposed to protect the people, if they are also the president's lawyer, isn't that a conflict of interest?
		Yeah, it is a conflict of interest.
		This happened again with Richard Nixon, where he was being investigated, and so he started firing people in the Department of Justice so that the investigation wouldn't go forward.
		And you probably heard about Watergate.
		And that sort of using or making direction to prosecutors for his own personal benefit ultimately led to his political downfall for a lot of reasons, right?
		He resigned before he was impeached.
		And then after that, Congress passed the Ethics and Government Act.
		I mentioned I worked for Ken Starr.
		That was a statute that created an independent prosecutor so that presidents could not fire prosecutors down the line that are making sure they comply with the law.
		And in addition, after that, there was kind of, again, a handshake agreement within the Justice Department with the president that presidents weren't going to talk to the Attorney General.
		The presidents weren't going to call up the Attorney General and say, you should investigate this person.
		You should not investigate that person.
		This was not in a law.
		This, again, was, per my article, just sort of a handshake agreement that this is best for the American people.
		You know, Donald Trump and this administration came in promising to not do that, to use the Justice Department as his, you know, as really his personal lawyers.
		And Matt Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, has said as much that that's what she believes her job to be.
		This is dangerous.
		This is dangerous precedent.
		So long as you're on the good side of the Justice Department, politically, you're okay.
		But if you're not, maybe you're not.
		And that puts everybody at risk.
		Again, it's a structural thing.
		Imagine you have an ice cream shop and you hire the best people.
		You're still going to have checks and balances to make sure that at the end of the day, somebody counts what's in the cash register.
		That's my argument.
		It protects everyone.
		And right now, the Justice Department is politicized, and it's a problem.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Before we run out of time, I do want to briefly reference another article you wrote because you mentioned the topic of free speech.
		You talked in the bulwark recently about the president's lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal.
		Can you elaborate?
unidentified		Yeah, so the Wall Street Journal published an image of what it claims was a drawing that Donald Trump made around a poem that was included with other stories or other notes in Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday card book by Gilan Maxwell, that she compiled all of these things.
		And the actual image was not published, just a story about the image.
		And Donald Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal for, I think, $10 billion.
		You know, one thing we haven't had a chance to talk about, and maybe call us or disagree with it, is free speech, is how using the massive power of the presidency is now being directed around messages around speech that this White House doesn't like.
		That case will go forward, and I think the Wall Street Journal likely has very, very good evidence and reporting to ensure that the story was accurate.
		But to be clear, if you're a public figure like a president or if you're George Clooney or you're famous, it's very, very hard to win these defamation lawsuits because you have to actually show that there was actual malice, that the Wall Street Journal not only maybe got it wrong, but that they did it on purpose in sort of a nefarious way.
		So this lawsuit should fail, but we've seen this before, and the Supreme Court for many years has confirmed this.
		Free speech is almost less about who wins the lawsuit and more about does this send a message to journalists to be careful what they say about the government.
		And that's bad for regular people because we want to know what's actually happening so we can vote and we can hold our government accountable.
		So that defamation lawsuit filed against a leading journalistic outlet by a president while he's a sitting president is also unprecedented.
		I mean, people might like it, but it's unprecedented and it sets a new precedent around free speech that is, I believe, is damaging and dangerous, whether it's a Democrat or Republican that takes office moving forward.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Aaron in Michigan, Independent Line.
unidentified		Yes, I just would first like to state that Ms. Kimberly Will, I'm a big fan.
		I've been following your work for some time to clear up this Trump derangement syndrome.
		It's a little caller, watch the language.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Watch the language, but keep going, please.
unidentified		Yeah, for Ms. Crimson Lee Wellen, is the fact that it's quite clear and evident that he has the Supreme Court pack.
		I was watching an episode yesterday with Justice Kagan before she had took her vacation and a bunch of her sticking points throughout the Supreme Court on a lot of these issues.
		And I can quite say I didn't agree whatsoever.
		And there's quite only two of them that are speaking on the behalf of the American people out of those nine.
		So at the end of the day, my question is, where's our checks and balances on the Supreme Court?
		Thank you, Colin.
		I mean, I've been very outspoken on the Supreme Court.
		I mean, I'm, you know, critical of the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court is also bound by the Constitution.
		The Constitution creates the Supreme Court.
		It does not exist without the Constitution.
		It doesn't have to have nine justices.
		The Constitution just says one Supreme Court.
		In theory, it could have one person.
		It's been five justices.
		It's been 11.
		It's now nine justices.
		But these justices, you know, they're bound by the plain language of the Constitution, just like Donald Trump, just like the United States Congress.
		And, you know, I think given it, kind of like right now the presidency, there's no real checks and balances on the Supreme Court.
		They're going outside their lane and allowing things that, you know, any sober lawyer, Republican, Democrat, wherever you are, reading the established law and how they're handling what's happening with this Trump administration.
		I know in my 20 years of doing this, I've never seen such workarounds to the Constitution without an explanation.
		I would just like them to have to justify why they're doing that.
		That's part of their job.
		That's why our taxpayer monies are going to pay their salaries so they explain what they're doing, why they're doing it.
		And in this moment, there's just been some major, major rulings with very, very little explanation, if any.
		And that's really a problem for democracy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Peter is in Maryland, Independent Line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Peter, we're coming up to the top of the hour, but go ahead with your question or comment, please.
unidentified		Well, I would like to thank her for being on.
		I would like to make a basic statement that we should all go back and read our Declaration of Independence.
		We should all go back and read the preamble to our Constitution and recognize that we're supposed to be working together, not against each other.
		And I see people yelling at each other, refusing to listen to the other side, condemning the other side for exactly what they're doing themselves.
		We need to respect each other.
		Democrats need to respect that Republicans think they're patriots.
		Republicans need to respect that Democrats think they're the ones who are the true patriots and that the Republicans are violating everything our Constitution stands for.
		And if we can sit down and not get mad, but actually listen to the other side's argument, we will be doing what Thomas Jefferson and the preamble of our Constitution asked us to do, which is to be respectful of those we disagree with.
		That is what democracy is.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Peter and Marilyn, thank you.
unidentified		It's a great point to end on, and I think that is the path forward is that we do start finding common ground and listening to each other.
		You know, the innovation of the Constitution and our Republic government is to, you know, if the monarchy was a triangle with the king at the top, it was flipped.
		So now the people are at the top and the power trickles down.
		You know, in the preamble, we the people, in order to form a more perfect union, we the people, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, our children, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States.
		That is the idea.
		We are, we the people, not the government, not we the government, we the people.
		And because it's a pluralistic society and there's all different kinds of points of view, I completely agree and it's a great note to end on.
		We have to come together and see common ground if we are going to continue to enjoy the freedoms and liberties that come with limited government, where everyone in government's power is checked.
		Nobody gets all the power.
		Because once that happens, we're no longer a democracy.
		We look more like a monarchy, which is what our ancestors, some of us, fought against to kick out of the United States.
		I mean, we had a lot of problems back then with slavery and other things, but that's a foundational shift that I believe we should all hold hands and fight to protect.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The book of our guests, one of the latest How to Read the Constitution and Why, Kim Whaley, Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore, ABC News legal contributor.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Thank you so much for being on our program.
unidentified		Great to be with you.
unidentified		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's it for the program today.
		Another edition of Washington Journal comes your way tomorrow at 7 a.m.
		We'll see you then.
unidentified		Here's a look at our live coverage today on C-SPAN.
		At noon, we hear from former Canadian Trade Minister Edward Fast on trade negotiations between the U.S. and Canada.
		That's hosted by the Hudson Institute here in Washington.
		At 2 p.m., State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce briefs reporters on President Trump's foreign policy agenda.
		Then at 3 p.m., the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee holds a hearing on reauthorizing the U.S. Grain Standards Act, a law that allows the federal government to set marketing standards for grains and oilseed, which will expire at the end of September.

▲