CSPAN - Washington Journal 09/17/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 17, 2025 07:00-10:00 - CSPAN

02:59:57

Washington Journal 09/17/2025

Participants

Main

daniella diaz

notus 06:06

jeffrey rosen

24:01

mimi geerges

cspan 27:59

Appearances

antonio guterres

un 01:27

cory booker

sen/d 00:36

effie defrin

00:46

hakeem jeffries

rep/d 00:31

jeff gray

02:07

josh shapiro

d 02:02

kash patel

admin 02:05

marlin stutzman

rep/r 03:22

pete aguilar

rep/d 00:58

Clips

george carlin

00:10

john kennedy

sen/r 00:13

ted gunderson

00:05

waylon ben livingston

00:04

Callers

bill in north carolina [2]

callers 00:18

bob in new york

callers 00:06

mark-2 in texas

callers 00:27

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Marlon Stutzman on the September 30th government funding deadline, political violence, and other congressional news of the day.
		And Axio's chief economic correspondent Neil Irwin previews today's Federal Reserve meeting.
		And later, we continue the discussion about the government funding deadline and political violence with California Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman.
		Washington Journal starts now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Wednesday, September 17th.
		On today's program, we'll have lawmakers and reporters to talk about the government funding deadline at the end of this month, political violence, and today's Federal Reserve meeting, along with other news of the day.
		As always, we'll also take your calls.
		But before we get to all that, today is Constitution Day.
		It was on this day in 1787 that the Constitutional Convention ratified the document.
		And joining us now is Jeffrey Rosen, who is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center located in Philadelphia.
		Jeffrey, welcome to the program.
		Happy Constitution Day.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Happy Constitution Day.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		We've spent the past couple Constitution Days together here on C-SPAN, and it's the most exciting day of the year, and I'm always glad to be here with you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And I'm glad you're starting your day with us.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Tell us about what happened on this day and the significance it is for today's political climate.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		September 17th, 1787, the founders sign the Constitution of the United States.
		It's the end of the Constitutional Convention that began on May 25th.
		And after that famous long, hot summer, the delegates propose a Constitution and sign it, and then it goes to the states to be ratified, and it's ratified the following year.
		So what we're celebrating today is the words that bind us, the ideals that unite us, and the structure of government that ensures the flourishing of the ideals of America.
		Next year is the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
		And think about the big ideas of the Declaration, liberty, equality, and government by consent, the big ideas of the Constitution, separation of powers, federalism, and the Bill of Rights.
		And the Constitution creates a structure of government that ensures that the ideas of the Declaration can flourish.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So tell us what the founders would say about today's political climate.
unidentified		Woof.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		They would say, boy, oh boy.
		Now, they were not strangers to great strife and polarization and partisanship.
		And indeed, they weren't sure that the American experiment would survive.
		And they viewed it as an experiment.
		Benjamin Franklin, at the end of the Constitutional Convention, says, I don't think this document is perfect.
		No document will be, but it's as close to perfection as we can get.
		And he asked that it be unanimous so that all the delegates signal a sense of their own humility, their understanding that they might not be completely right, and that their commitment to civil dialogue and to listening to their opponents was more important than imposing their will.
		That idea that we settle our differences in America by deliberation and dialogue rather than by violence was the centerpiece of the Constitution.
		And for the past 250 years, we've survived by retaining our commitment to that civil dialogue and debate.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we have had political violence in the past, and we do today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is there, I mean, what were the founders thinking about that and any safeguards against it within the Constitution?
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		That's such a crucial question.
		And indeed, it was acts of political violence that inspired the Constitutional Convention itself.
		Think of Shays' Rebellion in western Massachusetts in 1786 and continuing into the following year.
		There are mobs of debtors who can't pay their debts because of inflation after the war.
		Some of them are veterans.
		Daniel Shays is a very dashing former Revolutionary War veteran who has to sell a sword that the Marquis of Lafayette gave him in order to pay his debts.
		And they mob the state courthouses because they want to shut down the bankruptcy courts.
		And they also attack the federal armory, which is where most of the weapons in New England are kept.
		And James Madison and the other founders worry that this explosion of mob violence is going to lead to the undermining of the rule of law and property rights.
		And Madison says, in all large assemblies of any character composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason.
		Even if every Athenian had been Socrates, Athens would still have been a mob.
		So a central goal of the Constitutional Convention is to prevent violent mobs from mobilizing, to slow down deliberation, to ensure that we rule by reason rather than passion.
		And that's why we have the structure that we have, separation of powers.
		We, the people, have the power, but we parcel it out to the president, to Congress, and the judiciary.
		And there's a division of power between the federal government and the states so that passionate mobs can't undermine the rule of law and claim that they alone know the truth.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So were they thinking about mobs, violent mobs, when they thought about political violence, or were they thinking about the lone wolf?
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Well, they were thinking about violent mobs in the sense of Shay's rebellion.
		And then, again, in the case of the Whiskey Rebellion, which happens as soon as the Constitution is ratified, Hamilton's hated whiskey tax, which is the main source of revenue for the federal government, inspires, once again, farmers in western Pennsylvania to rebel against the federal tax collectors.
		They mob them.
		They burn down their houses.
		This poor guy has to keep fleeing because he's being attacked violently.
		And the response to that, Hamilton wants to send in an army with himself at the head.
		Eventually, Washington goes to Carlisle dressed in military garb, the only time in U.S. history a president has led the army into the field.
		Eventually, the mob dissipates and Washington pardons the few people who are convicted under it.
		Jefferson has the opposite reaction.
		He wants to pardon the rebels.
		He thinks that the blood of liberty should be moistened by a little rebellion every now and then.
		It's a kind of chilling endorsement of the violence of the French Revolution.
		But then Jefferson becomes president and he totally switches his position because then there are mobs against his hated embargo.
		And he says, we've got to put down the insurrection.
		Madison says you don't have the authority to do it.
		So he asks for the Insurrection Act of 1807, which authorizes the president to send troops to enforce the law.
		It's become the most important basis for domestic law enforcement in American history.
		And think about the times the Insurrection Act's been invoked.
		Lincoln invokes it before the Civil War to put down secession.
		Grant invokes it after the Civil War to put down the resistance to Reconstruction.
		It's revoked during the civil rights era to prevent resistance to civil rights.
		George H.W. Bush invoked it most recently to put down the Rodney King riots.
		But these are all examples of mobbing armed resistance to federal authority, dating back to Shays' Rebellion.
		And the basic idea is, in America, we resolve our difference just peacefully.
		Now, of course, obviously we come to today, and this most controversial questions are the same ones that began in the founding era.
		Can the president send federal troops to enforce domestic law here in D.C.?
		He hasn't invoked the Insurrection Act.
		He might, but that hasn't happened before in American history of a president sending troops against the desire of a governor, except during the Civil War when he's putting down that kind of resistance.
		And then we come to the question of political violence and targeted assassination.
		And we can just say unequivocally, this is completely unacceptable in America.
		It's the antithesis of our commitment to resolving our differences by reason and deliberation.
		That's why the founders, starting with Jefferson, actually, insist that in America you can only suppress speech if it's intended to and likely to cause imminent violence.
		That was Jefferson's position in his resistance to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Adams had put in place to prevent criticism.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And I want to talk specifically about free speech, but I want to let our callers know that Jeffrey Rosen is our guest.
		If you've got a question for him, give us a call right now.
		You can call on our lines.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans on 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Free speech.
		Attorney General Pam Bondi said this on a podcast.
		She said, there's free speech and then there's hate speech.
		And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.
		We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.
		Now, she did clarify those comments later after getting some blowback here.
		Is The Hill quoting her on X, where she says, hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment.
		It's a crime.
		Talk about that.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Well, that last statement is correct.
		The First Amendment says that speech must be protected unless it's intended to and likely to cause imminent violence.
		That's a very high bar.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So hate speech is protected speech.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Hate speech is the core of protected speech.
		It's the speech we hate, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, that we must listen to in order to preserve our commitment to discovering truth by reason rather than by violence.
		So Pam Bondi's first comment suggesting that hate speech is not protected and we will target you if you're an enemy of the government is the antithesis of the First Amendment position.
		The Wall Street Journal had a very good editorial today saying that Charlie Kirk's central commitment was to the protection of hate speech and to the determination not to suppress speech unless violence is imminent.
		So that line of when violence is imminent is the central line that must be respected.
		But in America we're not supposed to get anywhere close to it.
		And unless speech is literally intended to and likely to cause imminent violence, it must be protected.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to callers.
		David is on the independent line in West Bloomfield, Michigan.
		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, go right ahead.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		David?
unidentified		Yeah.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, you're on the air.
unidentified		I believe that the First Amendment speech should be protected and is the basis of the core values of America.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		You're here.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Beautifully said.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Rich in Marion, Ohio, Republican line.
		Rich, you're on the air.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Wow.
		What a great discussion.
		There's certain places we get questions about we've already on free speech.
		It's come head-on when we dealt with fires and buildings and things like that, that we were not allowed to do certain things to cause bad things to happen.
		How do you do it the right way?
mark-2 in texas ▲ ● ▼		I think what I can't quite figure out is free speech for Russia or China when they decide to use our internet, and we have to just sit there and say, we have free speech, and they use our things to the ultimate, and we can't even say boo to them without, oh my goodness, you interfering with our government.
unidentified		The other thing is, I can't see why we get so confused.
		You're right, my rights stop at your nose, and vice versa.
		And suddenly, someone dies or whatever reason we have that happens to do it.
		And we get confused and waste so much time on that.
		The other thing is trying to think people through and think they're silent a little bit.
		The other one was property taxes when we had property taxes by voting tax for that, which wasn't quite right.
mark-2 in texas ▲ ● ▼		But when you do it the other way, people have no reason to think about the cost and do really ridiculous things.
unidentified		And in our justice system, dollars aren't figured at all.
		In some things, one little word can really may not even be able to be applied in real life without trillions of dollars going out the window and back and forth.
		And they aren't really allowed to think about that.
		I think it's good to think outside the box, but I don't think you can survive economically doing that.
		I'll hang up listening to your answer.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, Rich.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Well, you really put your finger on it when you talked about that fire example.
		That's the test.
		Justice Holmes says you can't cry fire in a crowded theater because that doesn't just protect my rights.
		It infringes everyone else's rights to safety and to life.
		So that's the line.
		Is this speech intended to and likely to cause imminent violence?
		Crying fire is likely to.
		It could cause a riot.
		That's the central line.
		We've got to maintain it.
		Anyone who wants to interfere with that line, Russia or China or any foreign government, of course you can prevent open interference with the spread of truth on the internet in order to ensure that all citizens have a complete, robust, uninhibited ability to speak.
		So very well put.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But our adversaries like Russia and North Korea, they don't have the right to free speech.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		They certainly don't.
		You want to know the difference between America and Russia?
		In America, you can criticize the president all you like and say he's terrible.
		In Russia, if you do that, Putin can put you in jail and call up a judge and tell him to throw away the key.
		Because in Russia and China, the president has all the power, and in America, we, the people, have the power.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask you about the right to criticize.
		There has been reports of companies firing people for being critical or being not sympathetic to Charlie Kirk's assassination.
		What are your thoughts on that?
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Well, the first thing to say is that the First Amendment only binds the government.
		It doesn't bind private companies.
		It says Congress shall make no law.
		It doesn't say Microsoft or Apple shall make no law.
		So companies are within their rights to fire people who say stuff on social media that's controversial.
		It's not commitment, it's not consistent with a commitment to robust exchange of ideas.
		Some companies, though, may choose to not allow political dialogue because they think that their job is serving customers and not encouraging free speech.
		So it's a delicate line to draw.
		And in an age of social media, it makes it all the tougher.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Jesse and Lacey, Washington, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Jesse.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I just want everybody to not forget what amendment means, and that's to change or adjust the Constitution in ways that will better suit us now.
		Like the founders did a very good job at making sure to keep things open so it could change because they realize that, you know, not everything's set in stone.
		It's a good thing, and we can change things, but people think that like the Constitution is set in stone.
		It can never be changed at all.
		It can't make any changes.
		But what amendment means?
		So just everybody should just remind themselves, like, oh yeah, we can change it because it needs to be changed.
		Thank you.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		So true.
		What's the central unalienable right that the founders thought was defined in the Declaration of Independence?
		The right to alter and abolish government.
		Because we form government to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as the Declaration of Independence says.
		Whenever government threatens, rather than securing those rights, the people have the right and the duty to alter and abolish it through the amendment process.
		I should say how excited I am that today, Constitution Day, the National Constitution Center is launching an amazing interactive declaration and civic toolkit for America 250, and I really want everyone to check it out.
		Can I just say a word about it?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I definitely want to, but I want to just let people know that President Trump has just arrived at Windsor Castle in London.
		You can see that on your screen.
		That's Marine 1 that he's just come off of there behind him.
		And walking there, you can see Prince William and his wife, Kate Middleton, with the First Lady, Melania Trump.
		And back to Jeffrey Rosen and what you wanted to tell us.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Well, it is true that today our president is paying tribute to our ally, King Charles III.
		But 250 years ago, the founders were declaring independence from his ancestor, King George III.
		And in the Declaration of Independence, we held these truths to be self-evident and declared independence.
		I was saying that today the National Constitution Center has an amazing interactive Declaration of Independence where you can click on each clause of the Declaration and understand its historical antecedents.
		The whole Declaration has been annotated by the Yale Law School scholar Akila Marr, and it's so exciting to click on those words, all men are created equal, and see its antecedents in John Locke and to see how it developed in the revolutionary era state constitutions of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania written by John Adams and Ben Franklin.
		Then we have America's greatest historians writing about the big ideas of the Declaration and the Constitution.
		Liberty by Robbie George, equality by Danielle Allen, government by consent with the great Gordon Wood, though who taught us so much about democracy.
		And then the big ideas of the Constitution, federalism, separation of powers in the Bill of Rights.
		There are biographies of the signers.
		There are questions for adult reading groups that I want C-SPAN viewers to check out and also for teachers to share with kids for intergenerational learning.
		And it's all free and online at the National Constitution Center.
		It's an incredible honor to be part of the team that put this together, along with our interactive Constitution that brings together America's greatest liberal and conservative scholars to write about every clause of the Constitution.
		This has done the same thing for the Declaration of Independence.
		And I'm just so excited on Constitution Day to share it with you, C-SPAN viewers.
		And you are all lifelong learners.
		I know that because you're listening to this show and you listen so closely to the arguments on all sides.
		I want you to go to the Interactive Declaration, pick a clause that you want to learn more about, dig in deep, read the arguments on all sides, and let the learning begin.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center conducts a poll every year on how much Americans know about the Constitution.
		And this year, it's the highest it's ever been.
		Here's a headline from the Washington Times.
		Trump policies inspire citizens to brush up on civics knowledge.
		I would imagine you welcome that.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		It's wonderful.
		It's so inspiring to see Americans, starting with C-SPAN viewers, I should say, because the C-SPAN viewer is the model of lifelong learners who want to geek out on the Constitution, learn about American history, learn about the complicated constitutional arguments on all sides of these questions.
		The Constitution has never been more front and center, regardless of where you are politically.
		These Supreme Court cases are inspiring lots of people to learn about the contours of executive power, the unitary executive theory, the non-delegation doctrine.
		All these important technical terms are going to determine the future of America.
		And it is very inspiring to see how committed Americans are to learning about the principles of the Constitution.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Ben in Belafonte, Pennsylvania.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Republican, good morning.
unidentified		Hi, good morning, Mimi, and good morning, Jeffrey.
		Hope you're both doing well today.
		I actually had no idea that September 17th is Constitution Day, and I consider myself pretty knowledgeable on that sort of stuff.
		So I guess you learn something new every day.
		But anyway, I would like to make a very quick comment/slash observation about last week's tragic events, if I may.
		Almost a week later, I'm still struggling to come to terms with what happened in Utah last Wednesday.
		And I just want to say my heart goes out to Mrs. Kirk and her two small children.
		But I don't want to make this tragedy political, although many, many people have.
		I never thought I'd say this, but I was proud, very proud of our mainstream media and how they covered this.
		NBC, ABC, CBS.
		They all adequately and appropriately covered it and referred to it as an assassination from the start, which no doubt that's exactly what it was.
		That's not to say there haven't been some very, very sick and disturbed individuals who have had appalling takes and opinions on the tragedy.
		But overall, our media, even the very obviously left-leaning outlets, covered this with the sincerity that it deserves.
		Thank you both very much for your time this morning.
		Hope you all have a great day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Ben.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And when did we start celebrating Constitution Day?
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		We started in 2004.
		So no fear for not knowing it was Constitution Day.
		It's a pretty recent holiday.
		It started in the 1940s.
		President Roosevelt encouraged Congress to declare I Am an American Day.
		There's a really inspiring moment in 1944 where thousands of people gather in New York to hear Judge Learned Hand give a speech about the spirit of liberty being the spirit that's not too sure that it's right.
		That sort of sums up the need for humility that every citizen has to express, the kind of humility of Ben Franklin, who said, I'm not always sure I'm right.
		I'm going to listen to the other side.
		And then President Truman focused on Citizenship Day in the 50s, and then Citizenship Day and Constitution Day merged in 2004 when Congress, under Senator Byrd's leadership, encouraged the declaring of this national holiday.
		So no trouble that you didn't know this was Constitution Day.
		The date itself is important because it was the date the Constitution was proposed in Philadelphia.
		But I also want to thank you for your very moving expressions of bipartisan appreciation to some in the media.
		And I want to add my appreciation to Governor Spencer Cox of Utah, who has just been a model of bipartisan commitment to civil dialogue in the face of this terrible tragedy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're Sharon in Orangeburg, South Carolina, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Sharon.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Hello.
		I'm just wondering, I'll have a question for the guest.
		Do you think that Constitution Day or the Constitution should be taught in public schools?
		And another question I have is, as far as our leader, I know free speech and people, this is a very sensitive topic for a lot of people.
		But do you think that the leader of this country is setting an example of free speech and just being able to say what he wants to say?
		And it seems like it's okay.
		Do you think that's okay for the leader of this country?
		Or do you think he should set an example for others?
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for that centrally important question.
		And I got no hesitation in answering, yes.
		Yes, I do think the Constitution should be taught in public schools.
		In fact, I think that's the most important thing that public schools should teach are the principles of the Constitution and also the habits of civil dialogue.
		And in fact, those were the two things that George Washington, in one of his last speeches, proposed that should be taught in what he hoped would be a national university where people would come from across the country, set aside their regional differences and geographic prejudices, and learn those two things, the principles of the Constitution and the habits of civil dialogue.
		George Washington thought unless people learn those things in public school, the Republic might fall.
		We might go the way of Greece and Rome.
		So that's how important it is to teach the Constitution.
		That's why I'm so honored to be part of the National Constitution Center, which has online these free resources for students in public school and in all schools and learners of all ages.
		The interactive Constitution, now the Interactive Declaration that we launched today.
		Great, a Constitution 101 course that I'd love C-SPAN viewers to check out on our website or in partnership with Khan Academy.
		There's another great version.
		Also today, I forgot another exciting thing we're launching, a new Constitution 101 course for middle school students.
		Isn't that wonderful?
		Both in public school and in private school and charter schools, now middle school learners can go online and learn the basic principles of the Constitution.
		It's just so meaningful to be part of these great educational initiatives.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Bob in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I like to say I'm not particularly politically affiliated.
		I'm just kind of a voice crying in the wilderness.
		And my question that I'd like to have some clarity on is when we say we have the right to hateful speech and violent speech, are not these two forms of speech the catalyst that leads to violence?
		Generally, violence doesn't start until there is speech that initiates it.
		And so how do we allow violent, hate speech, but expect no violence?
		Another question that confuses me, and then I'll listen, is we say we have the freedom and the right to the Second Amendment.
		And as a result, our society is inundated with weapons, guns.
		And if We expected to have the freedom to own these things, but they will never be used.
		If I may simply quote a religious statement made by Christ, he said, he that lives by the sword shall die by it.
		Would that not apply to weapons also, guns, particularly in our society?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Bob, let's take those up.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you for those two fundamental constitutional questions.
		They're among the most important in the Constitution.
		And you say you're a voice in the wilderness and that those are prophetic questions.
		So I'm glad to answer at least the first because it's a tough one, but it's important.
		The question, as you suggest, is what's the line between hate speech and violent speech?
		And as you suggest, it's a tough line to draw because violence often begins with hateful speech.
		But when can you punish the speech?
		The Supreme Court said only when it's intended to and likely to cause imminent violence.
		So it can't be speech that might possibly cause violence in the future, like resist the draft.
		Maybe someone will, that's illegal, but you don't know whether it's going to happen immediately.
		But go kill someone now.
		That's imminent violence.
		Of course it can be stopped.
		That's an immediate threat.
		And then it's not enough that the speech possibly inadvertently caused violence.
		It has to be intended to cause violence.
		So that's why we limit the category to true threats or a speech that's literally about to cause a riot on the spot.
		I'll give you the most dramatic example that the Supreme Court faced.
		In the 1960s, the Ku Klux Klan was gathering, and there's a Klan rally, and a guy gets up wearing a Klan outfit and says, unless something changes in America, white people are going to take revenge.
		This is a hateful Ku Klux Klan rally.
		The Supreme Court takes that up and it says that speech is hateful, it is despicable, but it's protected by the First Amendment because he's just, he's expressing a political opinion.
		Unless something changes, white people are going to take revenge.
		He's not inciting an immediate riot.
		He's not directing people to violence in the moment.
		That shows how committed we are to free speech.
		And let's remember that example when we talk about punishing our opponents today, because it can be incredibly hateful, but it's got to be on the brink of violence before we can suppress it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Jeffrey, what would you say would be the founders' views on President Trump use of executive power and specifically his use of emergency powers?
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's a big one.
		And let's talk about the Insurrection Act.
		There, we do know that the founders wanted to grant presidents emergency powers to sum up the militias because that was the whole point of responding to Shea's rebellion.
		The governor didn't have that power in Massachusetts, and the Constitution empowers the presidents to respond to domestic and foreign insurrections.
		So President Trump does have the power, if he chooses, to invoke the Insurrection Act and to deploy the National Guard, although historically that's not been done over state governors' objections.
		But then you take emergency powers for something like the tariffs, which the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to consider soon and which lower courts have struck down on the grounds that the possibility of immigration or economic challenges doesn't represent the kind of emergency that Congress had in mind when it authorized the president to create tariffs.
		That was a case where the lower court judges, both liberal and conservative, thought that statutory text was clear and the president was misusing his powers, claiming there was an emergency when, in fact, there wasn't one.
		We'll see what the Supreme Court says there.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Lewis in Colorado, Republican.
		Hi, Lewis.
		You're on the air.
unidentified		Good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
		The founders argued that in order for this to work, we must be governed by men of good moral character.
		They must have known from the beginning that the system was doomed to fail and devolve into a cesspool of corruption, which it has done.
		If I can quote Lincoln, who said, We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.
		Talk about some of the corrupt, immoral characters of the time.
		Thank you.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Beautifully put.
		And I'll just echo your accurate statement that the founders believed that only men of good moral character could rule.
		And of course, women of good moral character came to rule as well over the course of American history.
		Why did they think that was so important?
		They thought that personal self-government was necessary for political self-government.
		Unless our leaders, like our citizens, could be guided by virtues like prudence, temperance, courage, and justice, they would succumb to the vices like anger, jealousy, and fear, and we would descend into partisan factions and we'd be governed by passion rather than reason.
		And that's why their central fear is factions that are governed by all those turbulent, unproductive emotions like anger, jealousy, and fear.
		And that's why George Washington said in his farewell address that the Constitution is made for a good and moral people.
		So you've just stated accurately of the founders' views, and you also accurately state that they recognize that most leaders in history have not been governed by reason and that power corrupts.
		And financial and other temptations like greed and avarice and ambition can undermine the Republic and let us descend into authoritarian leaders like Julius Caesar.
		He's the quintessential example of an unvirtuous man hungry for power who exalts his own self-interest above the public good.
		So you're well versed in ancient and modern history when you state that moral character is important for the Constitution and the founders hoped we would get good leaders.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		John in Great Falls, Virginia, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Good morning, C-Stan.
		Thank you for having me.
		Thank you, Mr. Rosen.
		So I've been seeing a lot of chatter on the internet recently about how the Constitution is a failed document and it should be removed.
		If you're aware of that, has there been another time in our history where there have been such unpopular opinion of the Constitution that it should be removed?
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Yes, there have been.
		I'm really glad you focused on that question because it's at crucial turning points in American history that extremists on the left and the right have called for the Constitution to be removed.
		And those are the times that we've descended into violence.
		What's one of the most disgraceful previous times like this?
		When Southern secessionists led by John Calhoun, Andrew Jackson's, and John Quincy Adams vice president, say that the Declaration of Independence is a self-evident lie and that slavery is a positive good, and that's why they want to secede from the Union, even though the founders and Abraham Lincoln recognize that secession is unconstitutional.
		You never want to be on the side of those who are saying, let's break up with the Constitution and tear down our founding ideals, because whether it comes from the left and the right, it represents a repudiation of our commitment to rule by reason, limited government, separation of powers, and popular sovereignty.
		And that's why it's so important to maintain rather than tear down the ideals of the Constitution.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's get in another call from Iris, South Lyon, Michigan, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning to you both.
		Such a pleasure when you're on.
		It's so refreshing.
		Could you tell us when it came about with all these 401s and these nonprofits?
		How did they creep into the government?
		Was it discussed?
		How do they make their living?
		Who funds them?
		And do they have a right to go into our schools to pontificate on what they want for the future?
		Isn't that taking over the education system and depriving these children from getting the education that they're so entitled to and in many cases are forking out a lot of private money in order to get it?
		Should people be able to go into our businesses, our schools, with their statements, whatever it is, and interfere with the regular flow of business?
		And when did it start?
		I don't recall it when I was in school.
		Can you tell us?
		Thank you.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		That's such a good question.
		Thank you for the nice words.
		And I also treasure my times on C-SPAN on Constitution Day.
		It's so inspiring to listen to all you great citizens who care so much about the Constitution and are asking these hard questions.
		Now, the one you just asked is one I don't know the answer to yet because I haven't geeked out on it.
		I find, you know, I host this We the People podcast every week where I bring together a liberal and a conservative guest, just like on C-SPAN.
		But I've got to really do my homework with the help of the National Constitution Center's constitutional content team to read the arguments on both sides and to answer that really good historical question you asked.
		When did it start?
		I'm sure there is a specific history that I don't know at the moment.
		And exactly how our education system began to be open to it, I would love to learn more about.
		So I'll just take your good question as a homework assignment for myself and the team, and we'll maybe host a podcast on this soon.
		Thanks for asking it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It's Jeffrey Rosen, National Constitution Center President and CEO.
		You can find them at constitutioncenter.org.
		Jeffrey, always nice to see you.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Wonderful to see you.
jeffrey rosen ▲ ● ▼		Happy Constitution Day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You too.
		And later in the program, we'll have Republican Marlon Stutzman.
		He'll talk about efforts to prevent a government shutdown and concerns by some members of Congress about political violence and their personal safety after the death of Charlie Kirk.
		But right now, we're going into open forum.
		You can start calling in now.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		While you're dialing in, we will head back over to England and watch some of the proceedings there with President Trump's visit.
		That is happening right now outside of Windsor Castle in England.
		If you'd like to continue watching that, we have full coverage of that over on C-SPAN too.
		But if not, we are on open forum right now and we will take your calls.
		A quick update on some news items for you.
		Here's CNBC.
		Charlie Kirk, shooting suspect, faces charged with murder, faces possible death penalty.
		It says that Utah prosecutors have charged Tyler Robinson with aggravated murder in the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Cook.
		The Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray said he intends to seek the death penalty against Robin Robinson.
		And here is that attorney count, Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray, talking about that at yesterday's press conference.
jeff gray ▲ ● ▼		Police interviewed Robinson's roommate, a biological male who was involved in a romantic relationship with Robinson.
		The roommate told police that the roommate received messages from Robinson about the shooting and he did provide those messages to police.
		On September 10th, 2025, the roommate received a text message from Robinson which said, drop what you're doing.
		Look under my keyboard.
		The roommate looked under the keyboard and found a note that stated, quote, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it.
		Police found a photograph of this note.
		The following exchange, text exchange, then took place.
		After reading the note, the roommate responded, What?
		You're joking, right?
		Robinson, I am still okay, my love, but I'm stuck in Orem for a little while longer yet.
		Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I got to grab my rifle still.
		To be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age.
		I am sorry to involve you.
		Roommate, you weren't the one who did it, right?
		Robinson, I am, I am, I'm sorry.
		Roommate, I thought they caught the person, Robinson.
		No, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing.
		I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down.
		It's quiet, almost enough to get out, but there's one vehicle lingering.
		Roommate, why?
		Robinson, why did I do it?
		Roommate, yeah.
		Robinson, I had enough of his hatred.
		Some hate can't be negotiated out.
		If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We're in an open forum if you'd like to discuss that.
		There's plenty of other things for you to discuss.
		Our lines are open for you.
		This is Zanthi in Massachusetts, Democrat.
		Did I pronounce that right?
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go right ahead.
unidentified		Hello.
		And this is a Constitution question.
		Hi, Jeff.
		How are you?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I'm sorry, Zanthy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He's gone.
unidentified		Oh, he is?
		Oh, I'm sorry.
		I called right when he was talking.
		Okay, I do apologize.
		This is for the Charlie Kirk.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Oh, okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go right ahead.
unidentified		Yep.
		I just wanted to state that as a Democrat, I don't find this at all okay.
		We should never resort to violence.
		But I did have a question or maybe just a comment on, I get, you know, lowering the map, you know, the flag half-mask, but I don't know if we ever did it for the senators or the Congress members that were shot and killed in, I think it was Michigan.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		In Minnesota?
unidentified		Are you talking about the flags being lowered at half-staff?
unidentified		And I just wanted to kind of see why that was.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here's Joseph in Texas Independent Line.
		Good morning, Joseph.
unidentified		Well, Hadding, I was calling that girl before me apparently wanted to talk about the Constitution, and I hope to say something before that man got all fair.
		But anyhow, I got into study.
		I was raised by a cop, worked for the government, majority of my working career.
		And I mean, I was just really distraught.
		I got in, you know, kind of late in life.
		I got into studying the Constitution and court rulings.
		And it's my honest belief, they're nothing but a waste of ink and paper because you try to exercise rights.
		And it's unimaginable how much problems you get into, even though there's Supreme Court ruling.
		You cannot be penalized for exercising rights.
		We're more about the right to travel, right to assemble, right to be let alone, right to speak.
		And something I just recently came across: the majority of the public service got the duty to intervene.
		I wish the heck I'd have known about that ages ago.
		I think I could have used that to make a heck of a change.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Duty to intervene and what, Joseph?
unidentified		Well, I wish I had known about that.
		The majority of public servants have a duty to intervene.
		Go out cops, sheriffs, judges, lawyers, whatever they witness, somebody being done wrong by a fellow public servant.
		It is their duty to get them reprimanded.
		And from what I understand, failure to intervene is a horrendous offense.
		You know, I've done studying research, but then again, I read it's unreal how many higher court rulings I've read that stated more or less minimum deprivation of rights caused irreparable injury and/or irreparable harm.
		There's one court ruling that's got irreparable injury and irreparable harm twice on the Constitution.
		I mean, like I said, there's fabulous Supreme Court rulings, but the way I said it's like they're a waste of ink and paper.
		Because you try to live according to that and exercise rights.
		And these, what I call double PS, pathetically stupid public servants make you, you know, commit irreparable harm and irreparable injury on you on a continuous basis.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, and staying in Texas in San Antonio, this is Gloria, Republican line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Gloria, you're on the air.
unidentified		Yes, thank you.
		I'm a little tired of listening to all of this hate being spewed back and forth.
		And as far as I'm concerned, Charlie was just another loudmouth spewing his hate along with so many other people on the internet and on radio.
		And I really think that people need to just think for themselves and stop this hate.
		It's divided our country.
		And the worst perpetrator of all is Trump.
		We've got to stop this.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here is Ron Orford, New Hampshire Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Ron, you're on Open Forum.
unidentified		Yes, Mimi.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I'm calling about the taxes, but I wanted to make a quick comment on what Jeffrey Rosened said about targeted assassinations.
		I'm so glad to hear him come out so strongly against targeted assassinations.
		I don't know if he mentioned it, but more than 990 people have been assassinated by the CIA and the Department of Defense since they passed that law in 2003.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You mean overseas?
unidentified		I called, no, including U.S. citizens and Americans, you know, it's with no due process.
		So that's glad he came out against that.
		Anyway, I was calling about taxes.
		There's an upcoming Supreme Court case, a constitutional case, about the president making these taxes against imports from various countries.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes, tariffs.
unidentified		The president can't do that.
unidentified		I'm sorry, what did you say?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I was going to say tariffs.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So people know what you're talking about.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Tariffs, yeah.
		A tariff is a tax.
		In the Constitution, if you've got your Constitution there handy, Section 1, I'm sorry, Article 1, Section 7, if you read what it says there, it says only the House of Representatives can make a tax, period.
		And the Senate has to concur with it.
		That's what it says.
		It doesn't say anything about the President being able to do that or anything.
		The Congress can't even make law to allow the President to do that because that process is hard-coded in the Constitution.
		The only way to change that is with an amendment.
		And there's a case that's going to the Supreme Court.
		I forget the name of it right now, but it's about the tariffs.
		And that is my litmus test.
		If the Supreme Court says that that part of the Constitution is not valid and that the President can unilaterally make taxes, then that's it.
		We should do anything possible to take down this regime if they do that.
		That means the Supreme Court itself is not even following the Constitution at that point.
		So that's the litmus test for me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here's Holly in Pickney, Michigan, Democrat.
		Good morning, Holly.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		You know, the Charlie Kirk scenario is a very sad scenario, but we're just hearing so much about the suspect from the media, and We're not hearing about the actual nuances of the actual crime, but they are trying to pick him as a left, but he may be a possible griper right people.
		And I think people need to learn a little bit more about some of these alternative political views from people.
		So thank you for taking my call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Earl in Albion, Idaho, Independent Line.
unidentified		Yes, Mamie.
		I had one question.
		And has there been a report of the bullet that took Charlie Kurt's life?
		Has it been recovered and any specifics to that bullet that took his life?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Why do you ask, Earl?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Why are you interested in it?
unidentified		Because I haven't heard anything about that yet.
		And I thought I'd ask it and bring it up because I'm pretty well out in the country, farm here and ranch.
		And that's a serious question to me to be answered.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Earl.
		And a couple of things for your schedule.
		Later today, the House comes in at 10 here on C-SPAN.
		The Senate will also be in.
		But over on C-SPAN 3 at 10 a.m., so after this program, the former director of the CDC, Susan Menares, will testify about her recent departure from the agency, along with other senior CDC staff.
		This comes after the CDC made changes to its vaccine policy, and that's the Senate Health Education Labor Pensions Committee starting at 10 a.m. on C-SPAN 3.
		Then at 2.30, we've got Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.
		He'll be holding a news conference on the U.S. economy following a Board of Governors meeting where officials will decide whether to cut interest rates and if so, by how much.
		That's also on C-SPAN 3.
		That's at 2.30.
		You can watch both those programs on our app, C-SPANNOW, or online at c-span.org.
		Here's Diana in Connecticut, Republican line.
		Diana, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, I have a question that has been bothering me, just listening to people.
		They keep mentioning hate speech.
		He is filled with hate speech.
		I've listened to some of his speeches.
		He references Jesus, the Bible, and he has a conservative opinion.
		So my question is, from the people calling in who are Democrats or anti, you know, they're atheists, is it the fact that their opinion doesn't match his, so his opinion is hateful because he's not talking the same language as they are?
		In other words, their opinions don't match.
		They're not respecting his views.
		So that's hate speech when you do that, when you don't agree with the other person.
		I've listened to his speeches and I don't understand where the hate is coming from, except for the difference of opinion.
		He was a conservative.
		And he talked a lot about the Bible.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Diana.
		And yesterday there was a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and FBI Director Kash Patel sparred with New Jersey Senator Corey Booker after Mr. Booker criticized him for making the country less safe.
		Here's that exchange.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		No matter how truly bad you are, you can't undermine the legacy of agents who fight every day to keep us safe, but you can tarnish the integrity of the agency and undermine the agency's capacity.
		I believe you're failing as a leader, and that your failure does have serious implications for the safety and security of Americans and our families.
		We're more vulnerable to domestic and foreign attack because of your failures of leadership.
unidentified		I don't think you're fit to be in the Bureau.
cory booker ▲ ● ▼		But here's the thing, Mr. Patel.
		I think you're not going to be around long.
		I think this might be your last oversight hearing.
		Because as much as you supplicate yourself to the will of Donald Trump and not the Constitution of the United States of America, Donald Trump has shown us in his first term and in this term, he is not loyal to people like you.
unidentified		He will cut you loose.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		This may be the last time I have a hearing with you because I don't think you're long for your job.
cory booker ▲ ● ▼		But I'm going to tell you this: I pray for you.
cory booker ▲ ● ▼		I pray for you that you can step up and defend your oath, defend the Constitution, and do a much better job of defending this country.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Do you want to say anything?
		Yes, sir.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		That rant of false information does not bring this country together.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		If you want to work on bringing this country, it's my time, not yours.
unidentified		My God.
		My God.
		If you want to talk about falsehoods, you should try all you've been in this country.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		It's my time.
unidentified		For one time, sir, you're in your time.
		The people in New Jersey tell me what my time is.
		You can't lecture me.
		You can tell me my time is over.
		You may be the charge of the body.
		I'm not sure if I am not afraid of you.
		Mr. Chairman.
		I'm not afraid of you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that was a portion of that hearing.
		You can hear the whole thing if you'd like, or if you missed it, it's on our website, c-span.org, in our video library, and you can peruse points of interest.
		Phones now.
		Ron is in North Carolina, Democrat.
		Hi, Ron.
unidentified		Good morning.
		They have a display on the Constitution of America in D.C.
		And I think all the Republican people need to go and see it.
		Read it.
		Trump especially.
		But President Steve Miller is the one running the country.
		So therefore, they need to get theirself together.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Why do you think Steve Miller is running the country, Ron?
unidentified		Because he is the one who is president.
		He is the one who's running this country.
		Because Trump is senile.
		He doesn't understand.
		He doesn't know anything.
		You ever been to New York when Trump was before he got in president to be running for president on a dollar bet?
		Steve Miller is running.
		Okay.
		So there.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Al Watertown, Tennessee, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Al.
unidentified		Thanks for taking my call.
		The Constitution works and the country works with freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and that's so the voters can make informed decisions.
		And right now, we've got a divided country.
		You know, some people think it's left versus right, Republican, Democrat.
		But I believe it's those who believe the hoaxes and those who don't believe the hoaxes.
		And the most recent one was Monday when the leftists at all the newspapers, the CNN, MSNBC, filters into C-SPAN because you guys put the newspapers out and take articles off.
		The latest was the narrative that there's equal violence from the right as it is from the left.
		And the example was Gabby Giffords being shot.
		She was a Congresslady.
		And then they tried Mark Kelly out, her husband, on the Sunday shows to explain why it's equal violence left and right.
		But the absurdity is the person that shot Gabby Giffords was a paranoid schizophrenic, and he was declared incompetent to stand trial.
		It had nothing to do.
		Her shooting had nothing to do with political violence.
		And when C-SPAN takes a newspaper such as the New York Times and reads Gabby Giffords as the example, then that is what helps promote the hoaxes.
		And we end up with a divided country because some people believe the nation-state-level propaganda that is foisted upon them, and some people don't believe it.
		And it goes back to the Russian collusion deal, everything about the vaccine.
		They had to change what the definition of a vaccine is.
		So that's the problem.
		Hoax believers and people that don't believe the hoaxes, and the freedom of the press is so important so people can make accurate voting decisions.
		So I wish C-SPAN was a little more circumspect about the articles they read, but I know that's never going to happen.
		We've been talking, people have been talking about that at C-SPAN for years, and it's just not going to happen.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, and here's Mary, Alpena, Michigan, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Mary.
unidentified		Hi, Mimi.
		I'm a retired nurse, and I had a question for your first guest, but I'll just, I was doing home care, and this was four or five years ago.
		And the lady was a widow.
		Her husband was a minister, and her son was a minister.
		And we were listening to it.
		We listened to a lot of books.
		It was an autobiography by James Madison, the father of the Constitution.
		And I wrote this down, what he, one of his quotes, and it's the separation of church and state are to keep forever from these shores the constant strife that soaks Europe's, has soaked Europe's soil in blood.
		And I was always taught that that was one of the reasons for the separation of church and state was, and that our forefathers, most of them came here because of religious persecution.
		It was kind of ironic.
		She was married to a minister for 60 years.
		The day we put him in the ground, she never went to church again.
		Her son was not very happy about it or whatever.
		But I had a question about, you know, the separation of church and state, what his feelings were, because I think we're going way far into so much religion into our government right now.
		And the one other thing I wanted to say, I watch a lot of court TV, and ironically, I've been called for jury duty four times.
		I don't understand how Kash Patel and that Don Dan Borgino, they're, you know, the top people in the FBI, how they can be, they don't recruit themselves from this case with this young man because, you know, the lawyers, judges, and all that, you can't have any, you know, with the victim or the perpetrator.
		You can't have any knowledge.
		And I just think he's allowed a defense.
		You know, this is our country.
		You're allowed a lawyer.
		But how can they be so involved with knowing the victim?
		I just think it's going to come back when his trial.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure what you mean about Kash Patel knowing the victim, not the alleged perpetrator.
unidentified		So involved with Charlie Kirk.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Because you feel like they were like friends, and so that they would need to kind of step back from that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's your point?
unidentified		Yeah.
		Got it.
		We live in kind of a small town in that, and I've been called for jury duty four times.
		And let me tell you, I know everybody because I've worked as a nurse for 45 years.
		It seems like I know everybody.
		And I always never got called for jury duty because I knew either the victim or they knew the family or I knew the Mary, we got to go, but I got your point.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Next up, after a short break, Indiana Republican Marlon Stutzman joins us to discuss the September 30th government funding deadline, concerns about political violence, and congressional news of the day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Stay with us.
cory booker ▲ ● ▼		And past president, why are you doing this?
unidentified		This is outrageous.
		This is a kangaroo corpse.
		This fall, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity, ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
		Join Political Playbook Chief Correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns as host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue to find common ground.
		ceasefire this fall on the network that doesn't take sides only on c-span this fall c-span invites you on a powerful journey through the stories that define a nation From the halls of our nation's most iconic libraries comes America's Book Club, a bold, original series where ideas, history, and democracy meet.
		Hosted by renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein, each week features in-depth conversations with the thinkers shaping our national story.
		Among this season's remarkable guests, John Grisham, master storyteller of the American justice system.
		Justice Amy Coney Barrett, exploring the Constitution, the court, and the role of law in American life.
		Famed chef and global relief entrepreneur Jose Andres, reimagining food.
		Henry Louis Gates, chronicler of race, identity, and the American experience.
		The books, the voices, the places that preserve our past and spark the ideas that will shape our future.
		America's Book Club, premiering this fall, Sundays at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		Joining us is Representative Marlon Stutzman.
		He's a Republican of Indiana, a member of the Budget and Financial Services Committee and also a Freedom Caucus member.
		Congressman, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Great to be with you this morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		As a member of the Budget Committee and of the Freedom Caucus, you said earlier this week that you would support a continuing resolution.
unidentified		Yes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that is to extend current funding for 45 days.
		That's up until November 21st.
		Is that still the case?
		Are you still supporting that?
unidentified		I am, yes.
		And part of the reason is because the appropriations process is still working its way through.
		It's been a challenge.
		But at the same time, we need to make sure that there's stability for the economy, that people know the government's not going to shut down and give them more time to work.
		The par part, the hurdle to get over is going to be over in the Senate because they have the 60-vote threshold for cloture votes.
		And I don't believe that Democrats would support a Republican budget.
		And so that's the hurdle that's hard to get passed on the Senate side.
		We could probably get it done in the House, but knowing that the Senate would probably not get that done is just a reason that a CR makes sense for me.
		And I believe that also, you know, it freezes spending.
		It's one of the things that I'm, as a budget hawk, believe that we need to reduce our debt and deficit.
		$37 trillion is, I believe, the greatest threat to our country.
		We're paying a trillion dollars in interest.
		So that's why I think this is the right move.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So if it were to pass, what do you think needs to happen, policy-wise, budget-wise, after that?
unidentified		Well, I think the Appropriations Committee continues to do their work.
		We passed the defense authorization bill last week.
		We'll likely pass the CR this week, but it gives the Appropriations Committee the time to finish up their work.
		And then we'll see where we're at in 45 days to see if there's any chance of moving those bills through the Senate and onto the President's desk as some sort of larger package.
		But if not, then it looks like we'll probably have to do another CR.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		A key point of contention is the ACA health insurance subsidies.
		That's Obamacare, that are set to expire.
		Where are you on that?
		And do you think that they should be extended?
unidentified		Well, I don't.
		I mean, we're going to have to figure out health care altogether again.
		I mean, I come from the private sector.
		I was in Congress and out for eight years.
		And we just continue to see the cost of health care and health insurance going through the roof.
		You know, employees are depending on companies to provide the benefits for health care.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		But then when they get the premiums and the businesses see what the cost of health care is, the insurance, it's enormous.
unidentified		And talking to health care providers, the cost continues to go up.
		This is a challenge that our country is going to have to deal with because it's one of our largest budget items in the federal budget.
		And so I think that we're going to have to start taking some sort of measures to say, look, we've got to rein in the cost of health care because then that'll bring down the cost of insurance.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Critics, though, are saying that people are going to lose their health insurance if these aren't extended.
unidentified		I don't believe that's.
		I think what will happen, because we're seeing a lot of waste and fraud and abuse, more fraud and abuse, I believe, with the health insurance programs.
		There's too many hands in the cookie jar.
		And we're not thinking about the patients and the doctors at the end of the day.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		I mean, you know, you've got large administrations that are having to manage all of these pieces of what is the price of health care.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		And I think that's where we need to address those pieces where we kind of get back to the basics and making sure that our patients get the care that they need, that they can go to the doctor that they want to.
unidentified		I mean, my wife asked me, you know, oftentimes she's like, I'm going to go to the doctor.
		Do we have insurance?
		It's like, yes, we have insurance, but we're always paying out of pocket because our deductibles are so high.
		So this is going to have to be...
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So with the expiration of those subsidies, do you think that that would actually get better?
		That you're paying out of pocket would be less?
		Or would it put health care out of reach for certain people?
unidentified		For my constituents and for in Northeast Indiana, we've got one health care system that's one of the most expensive in the country.
		And I think the only way that you force them to get their costs under control is to just, the money is not going to be there.
		If the money is there, they're going to always take it.
		And they're always going to spend it.
		And so that's why I think they're going to have to find another way to provide the services with.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The insurance companies would bring down their rates here.
unidentified		Correct.
		Yes.
		And which that's going to force the health care providers to bring their costs down as well and find more efficient ways.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		I mean, this is so abnormal because, I mean, I remember growing up, you know, how when my mom would go to the doctor, you know, she would pay some of the bill, turn it into insurance, and it was covered.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		At this point, you know, most people are having to pay out of pocket because their deductibles are so high.
unidentified		And then the premiums are just as much as a mortgage anymore.
unidentified		So something's wrong in the system.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Our guest is Marlon Stutzman.
		He is a Republican from Indiana, and he is with us.
		And we'll take your calls, so you can go ahead and start calling in now if you'd like to talk to him.
		It's Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		I want to turn to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
		There had been reports that a lot of lawmakers are afraid for their personal safety in the wake of that killing.
		What do you think of that?
		And how do you feel specifically?
unidentified		You know, I was in the state house for eight years and had multiple death threats for a variety of reasons.
		You know, I always would always turn those over to the state police.
		And of course, I've had death threats from here in Washington as well, turn those over to the Capitol Police.
		And, you know, those are often very concerning times.
		But, you know, I know that people's emotions get high and they say things that are not acceptable and that you have to take every one of them seriously.
		But my hope is that we come together, Republicans and Democrats, and dial down the rhetoric and say, look, at the end of the day, we're all Americans.
		I mean, an assassination attempt or an assassination like what happened to Charlie Kirk and an assassination attempt that happened to President Trump, we think of those in countries like Syria or other parts of the world, but it's happening right here.
		And I think that there's a mental health aspect that we really need to address and focus on.
		From what it appears, this assassin was very involved in the dark web and was in chat rooms and places that people he didn't even know, but there's information that he's getting that's affecting him.
		I think the text thread between him and his boyfriend is very telling about who he was.
		And so I think that it's concerning to me.
		And I think not only do we need to address the physical health of Americans, but we also need to address the mental health as well.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And I just want to play for you at a press conference yesterday.
		Here's Democratic Caucus Chair, Representative Pete Aguilar, speaking about this, and then I'll get your response.
unidentified		Sure.
pete aguilar ▲ ● ▼		All of us have an obligation to reduce the tensions here.
		I understand the moment that we're in.
		Vice Chair and I were sworn in the same day.
		And in 2015, we've been here 10 years.
		He gave a litany of the political violence that we've seen.
		I'd also call your attention.
		Over 10 years ago, Dylan Roof killed nine innocent people in a church.
		Democrats, and his sole intent was to start a race war, is what he said.
		Democrats didn't blame Republicans.
		They didn't try to go after Republican organizations when that came to light.
		We did everything we could to bring people together.
		President Obama, legislative leaders denounced all that, legislative leaders on every side of this, just like we're seeing now.
		Legislative leaders have denounced this political violence.
		There's no place for it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Anything to add there?
unidentified		Well, I agree with a lot of the things that he said.
		And I would say that most members of Congress are following that advice, but there are some members of Congress that are inciting even higher emotions.
		And I think that that's what needs to be called out as well.
		And I always, my mom and dad raised me that we look at ourselves first.
		And what did I, am I wrong here in some sort of situation before pointing the finger at somebody else?
		But I think that at the same time, we do have to call people out that are inciting violence and celebrating a man's death.
		I mean, at the end of the day, there's no room in this country to celebrate the death of anyone.
		I mean, I remember when, you know, President Biden announced that he had cancer.
		We put out a statement, you know, that our thoughts and prayers are with the Biden family because he's facing cancer, which was obviously something that could cause death.
		We just don't celebrate that at all.
		I mean, the murders up in Minnesota of state legislators, I mean, I was a state legislator.
		It would be the nightmare to all of us to open up our front door and somebody is there standing there with a gun to shoot us.
		I mean, no one should ever celebrate death in America.
		We should always celebrate life.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		And so my belief is that whoever out there on the internet that is pushing any sort of rhetoric related to celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk needs to stop.
unidentified		I mean, and you know what?
		There's no room for violence on either side.
		Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal.
		At the end of the day, we're Americans, and we need to remember that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think this will have a chilling effect on who's willing to run for public office?
unidentified		It may.
		You know, we are actually doing a celebration of life for Charlie Kirk's life in my district next week.
		And we already have over 1,500 people that have RSVP'd.
		It's like people are wanting to be together in this moment where the graphic images of Charlie Kirk's death is seared in so many minds, people's minds that saw the video and the heartbreak.
		You know, if you're a human being and you can't identify somehow and have a sadness about seeing a man's life taken right in front of the country, something's wrong.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		And but not only mentally, but I think we also need to have a spiritual check as well in all of us that we just say, you know what, we're created in God's image and that we should never celebrate someone's death in this way.
unidentified		And so, yes, I think that there will be some people that say, I'm not sure that I would want to do that because of the danger that comes with it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to callers.
		We'll start with Patrick in Florida, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Patrick.
unidentified		Well, thanks for taking my call.
		Three quick things, Congressman.
		The Brady Bonds had to bail out the banks in the 80s.
		Then we had long-term capital, Thai bot, Russian ruble crisis with the federal government, and then the ECHO collapse in 2009.
		There's talk about deregulating the banks more.
		I don't think that's going to work out.
		Two, Richard Nixon wanted to do the blue money policy.
		I don't know if you heard about that, but it was to break the bank financially of the international drug dealer where blue money, American blue money, was outside the USA, green money inside the USA.
		And let me just say that Muhammad Ali, I noticed a lot of these Charlie Kirks and Coulter run the college campuses.
george carlin ▲ ● ▼		I heard Muhammad Ali say one time, a man in his 50s still thinks like he is in his 20s, has learned nothing.
unidentified		And one last thing, if you don't mind, you talked about political violence.
		The Speaker of the House, Johnson, said Gavin Newsom should be tarred in feather.
		I don't think that's pleasant.
		I think that's kind of a violent act.
		Thanks for taking my call, C-SPAN.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go right ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, you know, I mean, I think what we all need to remember in America, we're still the greatest country in the world.
		I mean, you know, I know there's a lot of concern about banks and Federal Reserve and government.
		Obviously, they're very powerful.
		We live in the most powerful nation in the world.
		But at the same time, I can attest, being a young boy who grew up on a farm in northern Indiana, the opportunities in America are by far greater than anywhere else in the world.
		I'm doing some work over in Syria right now with the new government in Syria.
		And to see what the Syrian people lived under in a regime that brutally killed millions, I mean, over a million people in Syria, it was just political assassinations.
		It was political genocide because if you disagreed with the dictator, he would kill you.
		And so we have so much, we're so blessed in America.
		It's not easy.
		You have to go out and work hard.
		And I always tell young people two things, build relationships, friendships, and if you get a chance to travel the world, travel outside of the United States so that we can see how much we have here in America.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Kurt sent you this on X.
		He said about you.
		He said he's a budget hawk, but voted for the stupidly named bill giving millions to rich donors while trashing the debt and deficit.
		He's talking about the Big Beautiful Bill.
unidentified		Yeah.
		I disagree with him when it comes to giving millions of dollars to donors.
		I mean, this is the working families tax cut, you know, formerly called the Big Beautiful Bill.
		And the reason we called it the Big Beautiful Bill, we didn't know all was going to be in it because it being a larger bill, you know, my concern is the debt and deficit.
		And he's right in that sense.
		But, you know, at the same time, we could either raise taxes to fill that gap, I mean, which is a large gap, which would hurt the economy.
		We gave the federal government the ability to borrow.
		President Trump's tariff policy has brought in additional revenue.
		We've actually had the first month where we had more revenue than we had expenses.
		So we had since 2005, that hasn't happened for several for over a decade, two decades.
		And so I think that it's going to take some time to turn this ship back around.
		But we need a growing economy.
		If we don't have a growing economy, you can't pay your bills.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned the tariffs and being against taxes, although many economists consider tariffs a tax because that money that is coming into the Treasury is being paid by American consumers.
unidentified		Yes, yeah.
		Well, I mean, you know, my focus is what is the government spending?
		I mean, we're spending, you know, almost a trillion dollars, two trillion dollars more than what we're taking in.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		I mean, the numbers are getting to be so difficult to even comprehend anymore.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		When I was first elected in 2010, the debt was right at $10 trillion, and today we're at almost $37 trillion.
unidentified		You know, the problem is our spending problem.
		We have the largest economy in the world.
		We have a growing economy.
		But part of the problem over time is that we have regulated our economy to slow, it has slowed down economically.
		The growth has, typically we're used to a 3% growth.
		Well, we were down around 1.7 at one time.
		So that's a lot of money that's not coming into the federal treasury because of a slow economy.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		And so that's why you need an economy that has good growth, then the revenues come in, and then that can help cover those gaps.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Willie in Little Rock, Arkansas.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Hello.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, go ahead, Willie.
unidentified		Well, I've been listening to the gentleman about tariffs and revenue that the tariffs are bringing in.
		What the dude don't seem to realize is tariffs is a tax.
		And regardless of what kind of revenue it's bringing in, it's a tax on everything that we get imported from other parts of the world.
		And we got to pay the tariffs.
		And I don't give a damn how you look at it.
		A tariff is a tax.
		And it taxes everybody.
		Not the one society.
		It taxes the whole society.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And I mean, do you believe that President Trump is usurping the role of Congress in levying those tariffs?
unidentified		I think that's a question the Supreme Court's going to give us an answer on.
		I mean, you know, there's a bit of challenge.
		You know, I think that there needs to be cooperation between the administration and Congress.
		You know, taxes start in Congress, usually in the House of Representatives.
		But I support President Trump's policies on tariffs.
		You know, I understand what the gentleman is saying, that it is a tax, but everybody's promoting taxes.
		They just want somebody else to pay the taxes.
		And the taxes were going to go up if we didn't pass the big beautiful bill, now the Working Family Tax Cut Act.
		Taxes were going to go up on all Americans.
		And so I think that everybody says, look, I don't want to pay more in taxes, but we also have to address the debt.
		We don't want tariffs.
		Well, somebody's, then we have to stop spending then.
		You can't just keep spending if you don't want to somehow have the revenue coming in to pay for the spending.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Melissa is in Otto North Carolina Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		My question is, does the government subsidize large corporations, health insurance?
		And then the other question was if he thinks just cutting out the subsidies for the Obamacare would just make the insurance companies reduce the price and then the constituents just suffer until they get the message.
		And I'll take my answer offline.
		I think people are suffering now.
		I mean, that's what I hear every day, and I see it.
		You know, the cost of health insurance is unaffordable.
		I mean, the cost of everything has gone up over the last five years.
		Inflation has driven the price up.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		You know, I was talking to the CBO the other day, and they were raising their budget from around $50 million to almost $70 million.
unidentified		And I asked him, why are you raising your budget $20 million?
		This is a government office, the Congressional Budget Office that gives us our numbers for the budget.
		And the answer for Mr. Sweigo was, well, inflation is causing us to have to increase our budget.
		So where does that extra $20 million come from?
		It comes from taxpayers.
		And so government is growing faster than the private sector.
		So I would just encourage people to understand that we've got to fix our health care system.
		I mean, it is too expensive.
		The cost of it is too expensive.
		We've got to get the middleman out of the way and really get back to focusing on patients and doctors and health care providers rather than insurance companies taking all these profits out of the middle.
		So I think that's going to be something President Trump addresses at some point.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're on the Financial Services Committee that oversees the Fed.
		They are having a meeting today.
		What do you want to see come out of that meeting?
unidentified		Lower interest rates.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		By how much?
unidentified		Well, whatever they decide, I mean, anything is going to be helpful because the housing market is flat.
		I mean, again, I understand what your callers are saying this morning that they're frustrated because the cost of life is higher than it has ever been.
		The cost of food, the cost of rent, insurance costs are going up.
		So, you know, the only thing that's really come down is our energy costs.
		Those have maintained and even come down.
		But at the same time, when you get the bills in the mail, you're just like everything goes up.
		Utility prices are going up.
		So I want to see them lower the interest rates because auto loans are costly to Americans.
		It's hard to even buy a new car anymore.
		If you buy a car, you used to maybe have a $250 payment to a $500 payment.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		Now that's anywhere between $500 and $1,000 because of interest rates.
unidentified		And I think that the Fed has made a mistake by not moving quicker.
unidentified		The economy is getting pretty flat and stagnant because they're just not willing to make big moves because of interest rates.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Linda in Corning, New York, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I remember in President Trump's first term, he came out when he was running and saying he would have a health care system so good you'd want to get sick.
		He has not done anything.
		And he's not going to.
		And he said, oh, I think Trump will deal with some of the health care issues.
		No.
		He didn't then, and he's not going to now.
		And as far as a lot of the rhetoric that's coming down to separating Americans, it's coming from the top at the president's level.
		And he did that the first term.
		He's doing that now.
		Always, just like with Charlie Kirk getting killed.
		He comes out and says, it's that radical left.
		They're the only ones that are the problem.
		And he knows that's not true.
		Democrats have been killed.
		Shapiro house burnt.
		You know, we need a president that will come out.
		And as this man said, we are all Americans.
		And to come out and to be the chief, the comforter, and the one who heals.
		And that is not ever going to happen with this man.
		And for all these Republicans that just stick up, stick up, stick up for everything he says.
		Many Americans are just tired of it.
		We know the truth.
		We know what's in front of us.
		We know January 6th.
		We know that he pardoned all those people.
		It's not normal.
		He's not normal.
		The whole president right now is not normal.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Linda.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Well, you know, again, I mean, I understand her concern, but again, you know, politics is a tough business.
		We've known that.
		We've seen that for years.
		I mean, this is not the first time that a politician has said something about another politician.
		But the fact is, is that you have to draw a line.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		You know, you can have verbal jabs, but you don't cross the lines of physical assault.
unidentified		You don't cross the lines of, obviously, an assassination attempt.
		I mean, look at, I mean, President Trump was nearly assassinated.
		That's what I think people need to remember is that this man was within an inch of his life.
		And that would have been an even horrible day.
		It was bad enough.
		But if President Trump would have been assassinated, I hate to know where the United States would be today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Linda specifically mentioned his response to the Charlie Kirk killing and saying that he immediately blamed the radical left.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that that crossed a line rhetorically?
unidentified		No, I don't.
		I mean, I think the evidence is already pointing that direction because, I mean, you think about this.
		This man is 22 years old.
		He drove three hours to a point in his home state planning.
		I mean, this was such a premeditated murder that how did this young man get to that point?
		I mean, he apparently grew up in a Christian home, a Republican home, but something radicalized him.
		And I believe it was through the gaming part of his life, to these chat rooms, that he was talking to people who radicalized him.
		Obviously, what he was telling his boyfriend and text threads, I think we'll find out even more evidence.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		But there are people out there, and not just in the United States, there's people around the world that have access to our young children through the internet that want to create division and want them to cause harm to other Americans to weaken America.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Tim in Maryland, Independent Line, you're on the air.
unidentified		Yes, I was going to say one thing about that big, beautiful bill, but I'm going to go back to the Charlie Kirk shooting.
		I don't think that boy was radicalized.
		He came from a Utah conservative family.
		I think it was his depression and anxiety got in.
		Dylan.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Tim, did we lose you?
unidentified		I'm going to finish.
		Yes.
		Like his person said in Charlotte Cook talk about homophobia.
		She'll be shot and stuff like that.
		I think the boy just got depressed.
		He couldn't come out and tell Stanley that the boy was gay or anything like that.
		You know, coming from a conservative state, this boy had this.
		This boy had problems.
		It wasn't no radicalization or nothing like that.
		The boy was just in love with another guy, had depression problems, and he just couldn't take the fact that some of them are saying all the homophobes, people that was gay should be shot or killed.
		And about this terror thing, this people must think we were pool.
		10% amount of tax.
		And that big tax cut he said all Americans get.
		We're paying for that right back.
		But school supplies, the grocery show bills are high.
		There's nothing working out for the middle class or the poor.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Anything you'd like to respond to there?
unidentified		When the boy was radicalized.
unidentified		I mean, it's a radical thing to shoot someone else.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Eva in Columbia, Mississippi, Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Yes, I'm listening to all this.
		They talk about his boyfriend and this and that.
		Everyone has their own relation and they have put this young man down.
		But they're riding the one that he killed.
		No one should have died like that before their family.
		But to put the other one down is very sorry for America.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Eva, we got that.
		And I want to bring this in from Colleen in Pensacola, Florida.
		Where does the senator, you just got a demotion?
		You just got a demotion.
		Where do you stand on term or age limits for Congress?
unidentified		I do support term limits.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		And I think they need to be reasonable, anywhere between 12 and 18 years.
unidentified		I mean, you know, once you're, there's 435 members of the House, there's 100 members of the Senate.
		I think that, you know, a length of time is important compared to the president, you know, for eight years.
		To work your way up through seniority in the House of Representatives takes a lot of time.
		But I do think there's a point in time where we all need to say, you know what, I've served long enough.
		It's time for somebody else to step in.
		So I do support term limits.
		Age limits are a little harder.
		And so I'd be hesitant there.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And I want to ask you about redistricting because you're the first federal official in Indiana's delegation to back redrawing of Indiana's map.
		And this is what you said on X. Quote, Democrats have proven they will use every tool available to them to gain and keep power.
		For years, Republicans have idly stood by while the left has weaponized government against us.
		Can you be specific about what Democrats have done that Republicans have not?
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, look at the maps of Illinois versus Indiana.
		We're two states right side by side, you know, similar size in geographic, you know, the land is geographically similar, but you look at the population of Illinois versus Indiana, we're different.
		But the maps, there's 17 congressional districts in Illinois, and we have nine in Indiana, so about half of Illinois.
unidentified		And you look at how the maps are drawn, you know, we always talk about gerrymandering.
		Their maps are gerrymandered.
		I mean, you've got some sort of a little like snake that's sweeping through.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Republicans have done that as well.
unidentified		But not in Indiana.
		And so for Indiana, we're not a sanctuary state.
		And Illinois is.
		California is.
		And so it's a reaction to what Illinois and California have already done.
		And they drew their maps to favor Democrats, to gain more power.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Texas is doing it.
unidentified		Yes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And you want Indiana to do it.
unidentified		Yes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Does this stop?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Are we just going to continue this tit for tat on redistricting?
unidentified		It's going to happen because if that's how one team is going to play, they're going to play rules by the rules that favor themselves.
		And we all know it.
		There's roughly 12 million illegal non-citizens in the country.
		California counts them in their census.
		And that goes towards their house seats proportion.
		So apportionment.
		So we don't do that in Indiana.
		We're not a sanctuary state.
		So Hoosiers are at a disadvantage compared to the census because our policy says no, we're not going to be here giving out benefits to illegals like California does.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		So that's why I think, in fact, 100,000 Illinois have moved from Illinois to Indiana in the last five years because they're wanting to get away from the Chicago policies.
unidentified		They're wanting to get away from the taxes.
unidentified		I think that's the other answer to a lot of this about taxes is watch where people are moving because they're moving away from the high-tax states.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Michelle in Sheridan, Michigan Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Michelle.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I have a question.
		It's about health care.
		That was a topic earlier.
		I want to know why the largest Medicare fraud scheme in United States history, this couple stole $205 million from 2002 to 2010.
		Their last name is Vel Ree.
		They are from Florida, I believe.
		And Trump commuted their sentence.
		And I want to know why, when it comes to dollar crimes or fraud, President Trump thinks that's okay and he pardons these people, just like the Chrizlis who are on TV again, who were sentenced to prison for their fraud.
		And President Trump has no problem letting people who commit crimes of that nature, he signs pardons and lets them free.
		And I want to know why you think or why the Republicans back this kind of stuff when they're taking and robbing money from the American people.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		I don't know about that particular case, but I do know that the Justice Department did arrest almost 300 people who are abusing and defrauding the American people through these programs.
unidentified		I mean, we have, I mean, I'm glad she brought that up.
		I don't know that that's the circumstances, and I would want to find out more details if that's, if President Trump actually did pardon somebody like that.
		But I know that's been an emphasis with this administration that we're going to go after those who are defrauding the American people through Medicare, Medicaid.
		There are professional fraudsters, as she mentioned, that know how to abuse the system.
		And I think that's one of the things that needs to be fixed immediately.
		And I know Dr. Oz has focused on that.
marlin stutzman ▲ ● ▼		Robert Kennedy has focused on that because there's been no accountability over years.
		In fact, when Elon Musk was the head of Doge, he came in and was talking about how payments are being made that we don't even know where the money's going.
		And so Washington, the federal government needs a big cleanup.
		And I don't believe that President Trump would pardon somebody who's defrauded the American people, but I would definitely look, I'll definitely look into that case.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's Representative Marlon Stutzman.
		He's a Republican from Indiana, member of the Freedom Caucus, and on the Budget and Financial Services Committee.
		Thanks so much for joining us today.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		Good to be with you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we will continue our program in open forum.
		Plenty of time for you to call in and share your thoughts.
		Anything on your mind, as long as it's related to public policy, Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		It's 202-748-8001 if you're a Republican, and it's 202-748-8002 if you're an independent.
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 Tune-In 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.
		High school students join C-SPAN as we celebrate America's 250th anniversary during our 2026 C-SPAN Student Cam Video Documentary Competition.
		This year's theme is exploring the American story through the Declaration of Independence.
		We're asking students to create a five- to six-minute documentary that answers one of two questions.
		What's the Declaration's influence on a key moment from America's 250-year history?
		Or how have its values touched on a contemporary issue that's impacting you or your community?
		We encourage all students to participate, regardless of prior filmmaking experience.
		Consider interviewing topical experts and explore a variety of viewpoints around your chosen issue.
		Students should also include clips of related C-SPAN footage, which are easy to download on our website, studentcam.org.
		C-SPAN Student Cam competition awards $100,000 in total cash prizes to students and teachers and $5,000 for the grand prize winner.
		Entries must be received before January 20th, 2026.
		For competition rules, tips, or just how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org.
		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.
		Have been watching C-SPAN Washington Journal for over 10 years now.
		This is a great format that C-SPAN offers.
		You're doing a great job.
		I enjoy hearing everybody's opinion.
		I'm a huge C-SPAN fan.
		I listen every morning on the way to work.
		I think C-SPAN should be required viewing for all three branches of government.
		First of all, if you say hello, C-SPAN, and how you'll cover the hearings.
		Thank you everyone at C-SPAN for allowing this interaction with everyday citizens.
		It's an amazing show to get real opinions from real people.
		Appreciate you guys' non-biased coverage.
		I love politics and I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
		You and C-SPAN show the truth.
		Spectacular year verse for C-SPAN.
		It's the one essential news network.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		We are in open forum, but we will just take a brief pause to speak to Daniela Diaz.
		She is a congressional reporter for Notice to talk about the spending bill.
		Daniela, welcome to the program.
daniella diaz ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, so tell us what's going on with the continuing resolution.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Just a quick update about what it means for spending and what's being discussed right now.
daniella diaz ▲ ● ▼		Mimi, we saw House Republican leadership reveal a seven-week week continuing resolution text, basically an effort to continue funding the government at its current levels, at least through November 21st.
		They revealed that text yesterday afternoon after a lot of lead up about what it could look like without a lot of details from House Republican leadership about what their plans were.
		And to be clear, it was very standard, no surprises in the text.
		It would continue funding the government at its current levels in an effort to buy time for the appropriators.
		That's who we call the lawmakers that figure out spending levels and at what levels the government needs to be funded, because they have not been able to pass all of the appropriations bills that set those levels.
		So they're hoping that with this stopgap measure, they will be able to keep the government open, prevent a shutdown, and continue working on those appropriations bills that, to be clear, Democrats say they want as well.
		The problem here being that after that text was revealed yesterday, Democratic leadership on both sides in the House and the Senate came out and said they do not support this measure.
		And something that we need to make clear to, of course, people across the country is that Republicans can't actually pass any government funding bills on their own, specifically in the Senate where they would need some Democratic help.
		So it's unclear right now what is going to happen in the coming days before this potential government shutdown if Democrats are going to get on the Republican side on the CR text.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So going back to what's being proposed, why are Democrats opposed to it?
daniella diaz ▲ ● ▼		It's interesting, Mimi.
		I talked to Democrats yesterday on Capitol Hill, and their biggest critique is that it does not address the expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year, that they want to continue to pass legislation, policy legislation to keep funded.
		They say that this is a priority for Democrats and that they won't support anything that does not address this.
		Now, Republicans were saying since they expire at the end of the year, they don't have to address this issue until the end of the year.
		And this stopgap measure specifically funds the government through November 21st.
		Essentially, they're arguing they have time to address this issue.
		And this is just to buy more time for that issue.
		So Democrats are actually planning to propose their own continuing resolution text that addresses Affordable Care Act subsidies and other health care provisions.
		It seems that through people I've talked to, they also want to try to add funding for Medicaid that was cut in that quote-unquote one big beautiful bill that was passed during the summer by Republicans.
		So it is the fight of what can be funded and Democrats can't do this alone either.
		So it's unclear where leadership on both sides go from here in this VR fight that has begun.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now this would go to November 21st, which is a few days before Thanksgiving.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Was that intentional to put it right up against a holiday?
daniella diaz ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely, Mimi.
		I've been covering Congress, you know, on and off for eight years, and I've covered at this point, dozens of government funding fights.
		And I've learned through this process that having those deadlines against holidays really gets the lawmakers working quickly to reach some sort of resolution so they can leave town and be with their families.
		So that November 21st deadline is intentional.
		They know Thanksgiving is right after that.
		And they think that with that pressure of keeping lawmakers through Thanksgiving, we'll have lawmakers actually reach agreements to be able to make decisions and fund the government as quickly as possible.
		If there's one thing I've learned about covering Congress, it's that they love to procrastinate and they wait until the last moment and having a deadline really gets them moving on certain decisions.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what's in the package regarding security concerns for members following the death of Charlie Kirk?
daniella diaz ▲ ● ▼		Mimi, after the death of Charlie Kirk, his assassination, members expressed on both sides, to be clear, not just Republican members, but Democratic members, concerns of security.
		Look, he was a political figure.
		They get death threats, especially more high-profile members, like, for example, Alexandria Ogasi-Cortez, Marjorie Taylor Greene, both sides.
		And they felt the need to have more funding to be able to provide security for members so that they feel safe in their homes.
		They feel safe doing town halls being out in public.
		So as a result, leadership heard those concerns because they feel those concerns as well.
		So they tacked on $30 million in mutual aid, essentially a bank account that members can tap into in their districts that would pay for local police, local security.
		Now, it depends on who you ask, whether that's enough.
		Some members think that Republican leadership with this proposition should have gone farther and figured out a better way to provide more funds for security for members.
		Other members feel that this was a fantastic way to address their needs.
		So this at least is something that Republicans can tell members that they're doing to try to help them in the meantime, at least for this stopgap measure, the next couple of weeks, for them to have additional funds for security.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So what's your sense, Danielle, about the likelihood of a government shutdown come October 1st?
daniella diaz ▲ ● ▼		I've been wrong so many times, Mimi.
		I've tried to predict the outcome of what Congress is doing many, many times.
		So I'm not actually in the prediction market anymore.
		But I do think that this clean CR is that Republicans proposed is short enough where maybe we could see some Democratic senators sign on at the very last minute to get it across the finish line to prevent a shutdown.
		But we saw what happened in March, just to flashback.
		Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer actually voted to advance a bill, a funding bill, a clean CR essentially, in March and have some of his Senate Democrats vote for it as well.
		And that led to an onslaught of disapproval and criticism from people in the Democratic Party.
		So from my understanding, Schumer is not eager for that.
		Seems Democrats are willing to put up a fight.
		And that's what we're probably going to see in the next two weeks leading up to a potential shutdown.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		That's Daniela Diaz, a congressional reporter for NOTICE.
		You can find her work at NOTICE.
		That's N-O-T-U-S.org.
		Thanks so much for joining us.
daniella diaz ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We're an open forum.
		We're taking your calls about anything that's on your mind related to public policy, politics, things happening around the world.
		Let's hear from Charles in DeBoard, Kentucky, Republican.
unidentified		Hello.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Clarence.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're on the air.
unidentified		Hey.
		Yeah.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I'm sure you'll get a lot of calls regarding this today.
		The Charlie Kirk.
		That's really unfortunate and sad.
		And the world is at a loss because of it.
		His wife got on TV in that speech so soon after this happened, that was very brave of her.
		I'll say this.
		These far-left people, they are dangerous.
		My opinion, I think a lot of America thinks this too.
		They are hell-bent, hell-bent on destroying this country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Clarence, what did you like about Charlie Kirk?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What did you admire about him?
unidentified		Well, okay, I'm 61 years old.
		I've seen him before.
		But now that this happened, he's got my attention more now.
		I think there's going to be an explosion of people following this now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So did you say you hadn't heard of him before?
unidentified		No, I have watched him.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Oh, you have?
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		He mostly appealed to young people.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That is correct.
unidentified		I mean, I've seen him.
		I know who he is.
		I just listened to him.
		Didn't pay a lot of mind, but I do now.
		These people, I want to say this.
		This is kind of the reason I called.
		Because I noticed it when this first happened.
		And I dare say, all of America or a lot of people was thinking the same thing.
		And then when Tyrus on the Greg Gutfield show, he said it well, it needed to be said.
		There wasn't no rioting.
		No buildings were on fire.
		People weren't being kicked around, literally.
		These people are evil.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Michelle in Lake Worth, Florida, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Michelle.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I'm a first-time caller.
		I'm sorry to hear that gentleman thinks everyone on the far left is hell-bent on destroying the country.
		I don't believe everyone, I don't believe in broad strokes like that.
		They're good people on both sides, probably, and obviously.
		But the reason for my call was earlier, someone had talked about the census.
		Excuse me.
		And I just wanted to clarify that, you know, when it comes to the census, it's a federal census.
		They were talking about how California, I think even the gentleman who was on, was talking about California and how they count immigrants and other states don't.
		And it's my understanding that it's a federal census and every whole number of persons living in a state that includes citizens, lawful permanent residents, temporary visa holders, and undocumented immigrants are supposed to be legally counted and not asked about their legal status.
		So I think that's a federal situation.
		And if certain states are not counting everyone, that's maybe a detriment to their state because they won't receive funding here in Florida.
		And I know that things have changed when it comes to counting every whole person.
		And when that happens, then your city social services don't get the funding that they need that they would need, especially for EMT services or hospital services or what have you.
		So I do think it's important to count everyone, no matter what their status is.
		And I do believe that is what the Constitution states.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Michelle.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Samuel, South Pasadena, California, Republican, you're on the air.
unidentified		Well, good morning, Mimi.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Yeah, I was thinking about Charlie Kirk.
		I've been watching him for about 10 years now, and great man, and just a terrible thing that happened to him.
		And I don't know why things have to happen this way, but that man was radicalized, and they know it, and he'll get where he's outcome, and they're not going to let him off the hook that easy.
		It's a bad thing, and I'm glad that I'm happy that his parents turned him in and everything, because let me tell you, son, this is America.
		We're not going to let this go by.
		Thank you, Mimi, for taking my call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Joseph, Silver Spring, Maryland, Line for Democrats.
unidentified		Hello.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Joseph.
unidentified		Hi.
		Sorry, I missed the congressman from Indiana because he was saying how one man's violent death shouldn't be celebrated.
		And I agree with him 100%.
		Unfortunately, there's a giant group of people around the world that celebrate one man's violent death every Sunday.
		They're called Christians.
		Okay.
		So, you know, maybe we should be taxing churches.
		Maybe we should take a look at somebody like Joel Olstein, the business that he's running, and tax that.
		It's ridiculous.
		I mean, Christians actually symbolize the apparatus that Jesus was killed on.
		Okay, so that's a violent death, and it's celebrated every Sunday all around the world.
		Okay, so he should really kind of think about that.
		And these conservatives, they're 500 years behind the time.
		Conservatives, stop worrying about counting money and some alternate universe where all this religious stuff takes place and pick up a science book and start learning how the world actually works.
		And you know what?
		You might start having a harder time doing all this religious stuff that you're into.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Joseph.
		And here's what CNN is reporting.
		Israel says Gaza City ground offensive has begun as UN Commission concludes Israel is committing genocide.
		Let's hear from UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who was at a press conference in New York yesterday talking about the conditions in Gaza.
antonio guterres ▲ ● ▼		What happens in Gaza today is horrendous.
		We are seeing massive destruction of neighborhoods, now the systematic destruction of Gaza City.
		We are seeing massive killing of civilians in a way that I do not remember in any conflict since I am Secretary General.
		And we are seeing dramatic obstacles to the distribution of invading aid.
		At a certain moment, it's completely stopped.
		With the consequences that the Palestinian people is suffering an horrendous situation with famine, with no access to any kind of health support, and with continued displacement and the imminent risk of losing their lives at any moment.
		So this is something we cannot forget.
		Independently of the names that are given, the truth is that this is something that it is morally, politically, and legally intolerable.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was yesterday in New York, and this is Lee in New Orleans, Louisiana.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Republican, good morning, Lee.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call and make it short and sweet.
		After Butler happened and we almost lost our president, I can't understand why we didn't have FBI agents on top of every roof when Charlie Kirk spoke.
		I think this whole thing could have been avoided.
		It's just common sense.
		And I miss Charlie Kirk's common sense in his love for this country.
		And he was a patriot.
		That's all I have to say.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Brenda in Maryland, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Brenda.
unidentified		Hi, how are you this morning?
		Good.
		I hope I wish I had gotten in with the person that was on before.
		He was talking about, he's on the budget committee.
		And I guess what my thing is, is that the president has turned a rose garden into a park almost, and now he's doing this ballroom.
		We're talking about waste, fraud, and abuse.
		Where is that money coming from?
		That money could have been used for a lot of different things that will actually help people.
		It's also very sad about the death, but we're talking about how the guy was radicalized.
		I believe that a lot of the radicalization is coming from a lot of our leaders, including the President of the United States.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Brenda, about that, the White House, sorry, the Washington Post reports yesterday that construction has started on that ballroom.
		The headline is Trump starts construction on long-held dream, a White House ballroom.
		Crews have begun cutting down trees and removing shrubs to prepare the site for construction.
		Details remain shrouded.
		That's at the post if you'd like to see that.
		And this is Tim, New York, Independent Line.
		Tim, you're on Open Forum.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning, Mimi.
		Good morning.
		I just have a quick pet team about some of your callers who feel the need to call in and berate you and some of the other hosts.
		It's really not necessary, and they should try to resist doing that.
		My other point was about the shooter, and they're labeling it as a political assassination.
		And I believe it had more to do with the fact that he was involved in a relationship with somebody who was transitioning.
		And what Charlie Kirk was saying was very hateful about gays and lesbians and other people.
		So I mourn deeply for his family.
		But he was not, you know, the loving person that a lot of people foretelled he was.
		So thank you for that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Tim.
		And following what we showed you from the press conference in New York yesterday about Israel, a spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, the IDF, posted a video on X talking about their new operation in Gaza City and their efforts to protect civilians.
		Here it is.
unidentified		Gaza City is the central hub of Hamas's military and governing power.
		The remaining stronghold.
		Hamas has turned Gaza City into the largest human shield in history.
effie defrin ▲ ● ▼		Beneath the streets runs a vast network of tunnels connecting command centers, rocket launchers, and weapon storage facilities, all deliberately hidden under civilians and civilian infrastructure.
effie defrin ▲ ● ▼		We continue to urge civilians to distance themselves away from the combat zones in Gaza City so they can reach safer areas.
unidentified		In recent weeks, the IDF expanded humanitarian efforts in Gaza, setting up a humanitarian area in the south.
unidentified		This area provides greater access to food, water, medical care, and shelter.
effie defrin ▲ ● ▼		And while Israel walks to open corridors for civilians to move south, such as the Rashid corridor, Hamas is actively trying to block them, forcing families to turn back and remain in harm's way in order to shield Hamas fighters and preserve its power.
unidentified		Hamas continues to hold dozens of our hostages in inhuman conditions.
unidentified		Their safe return is at the forefront of our mission.
effie defrin ▲ ● ▼		They are the reason we continue our fight.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Jack, Tallahassee, Florida, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jack.
unidentified		Good morning, Mami.
		Good morning, C-SPAN.
		In 2021, January the 6th, I remember it wasn't the Liberal Democrats doing what they were doing.
		I remember they were also calling for the lynching of the vice president that was not the Liberal Democrats.
		The Pelosis that was not the Liberal Democrats.
		The Sudi in Minnesota that was not the Liberal Democrats.
		And I can hear the President of the United States degrading the Democrats.
		And it's very disgusting.
		And I get beside myself.
		It's just amazing how this country's really gone down.
		And there's chaos and confusion in the United States.
		And there's going to be chaos and confusion in the world.
		And I just want to cry.
		I honestly want to cry.
		What do you think is that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Jack, what do you think is the solution?
unidentified		I have no answer for that.
unidentified		When you elect a person of the president's caliber, when I was growing up, you did not associate with him because it brought shame upon your name, your family name, and it's a disgrace.
waylon ben livingston ▲ ● ▼		That's how I was brought up in the 1900s.
unidentified		And I'll be 80, I'll be 88 next month.
		And it just wants to make me cry.
		Really does because there is no solution that I can see because nobody will stand up to what's wrong.
		It's the leaders, it's the leaders of this country that's ruined it because the president can do no wrong.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, and this is Tim Coffeyville, Alabama, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Tim.
unidentified		Well, correct me, my name's Ken Bale from Coffeeville, Alabama.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		From what, Alabama?
unidentified		Coffeeville.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		There's no coffee grown in Alabama, is there?
unidentified		No, ma'am.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so how did it get that name?
unidentified		Please don't distract me.
unidentified		This is town in Alabama.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, I just thought it was interesting.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But you go ahead with your comment.
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
		Okay, y'all keep saying this political violence.
		It is not.
		Politicians on all sides are trying to exalt themselves.
ted gunderson ▲ ● ▼		The young man that did the shooting was offended by the word of God.
unidentified		He killed Charles Kirk because he preached the word of God.
		That's pretty simple.
		It's biblical violence.
		Keep the politics out of it.
		All politicians is a Caesar.
		You've won to Caesar things that are Caesar's and unto God things that are God.
		What the young men did, they put a crown of martyr on Charlie Kirk's head.
		And God listens to the martyrs.
		If people just read the Bible, it tells you that Charles Kirk is the reason that there is no violence right now.
		He wasn't a man of God.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Tim.
		Let's hear from Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.
		He spoke about the political violence and the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's death.
		Take a look.
josh shapiro ▲ ● ▼		We need to address the hate that is spreading online and give our children the tools to be able to address it.
		I want you to know as parents, this is especially important to Lori and me.
		In fact, Lori had the idea of asking the Pennsylvania Department of Education to create a digital literacy toolkit that teachers and parents can use to help our children navigate online.
		I don't care whether our kids take a position on the political left or on the political right, but I do care that they're able to discern fact from fiction online.
		But despite that meaningful progress that we are making here in Pennsylvania, there's a deeper issue at the root of this dangerous rise of political violence.
		Too many people don't believe that our institutions and the people in them can solve problems anymore.
		They feel alone, ignored, shut out by a government that isn't working for them.
		This is particularly true of younger Americans.
		They feel unseen.
		They feel unheard.
		They feel unheard in the halls of government.
		They feel unheard in our elections, in the media, in our nonprofits, our businesses, and within the law.
		Frustrated by a lack of progress and consumed by this feeling of hopelessness, they find refuge often in the dark corners of the internet where righteous frustration is taken advantage of and used to foment hate.
		It leads to a belief among some that the only way they can address their problems is through violence.
		They find online those who glorify violence and urge it on.
		What starts with cowardice keystrokes too often ends up with a trigger being pulled in our communities.
		That is dangerous for our democracy, and we need to turn the tide.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania yesterday.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Christina in DeCoin, Illinois, Independent Line, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Well, I'm having a big problem with the terminologies that are used today.
		I mean, I consider myself left of center.
		No one believes that there's any moderance left anymore.
		And it's wrong to lump everybody into one category or the other.
		You're either a radical left or you're a radical right.
		If the rhetoric could be toned down, if Trump would not have released the criminals that murdered people on January 6th, you know, and then, you know, then, you know, they want to put anyone that killed someone on the opposite side.
		They want to lock them up forever.
		Even if they haven't killed anyone, they just have another opinion.
		Lock them up.
		Just lock them all up.
		They disagree with me.
		Lock them up.
		And I'm just about frustrated with that.
		And I thank you very much for taking my call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Christina.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Ephraim in San Antonio, Texas, Democrat.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning, and thank you for getting me in the room to speak.
		Talk about Charlie Cook.
		I only heard about him after his death.
		And I'm going to hear more and more what he said about black, about the former First Lady, Michelle Obama, about Katanji Brown Jackson.
		And I feel so irritated.
		It is bad for anybody to go up and spring such hate.
		So you spew hate, you cannot expect love.
		Now, the Republicans are very fond of holding the Bible, some of them, upside down and preaching the word of God.
		And I don't know where in the Bible it says you should not welcome people who are homeless.
		It says, whatsoever you do to the list of my brothers, that is doing to me.
		That's what Christ said in the Bible.
		But whatever some of these things they do are just opposite to that.
		So tell me, are we not just sanitizing evil here?
		Talking about Charlie Cook in the preached evil.
		He preached bad things about black people, about minorities, about the gay, and so on.
		So this is the sanitization of evil.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Martha in Hampstead, North Carolina, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Martha.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution requires us to have a federal census every 10 years.
		And Amendment 14, Section 2 states representatives shall be appointed among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.
		I believe the gentleman from Indiana was wrong in stating that they don't count people who they consider illegal.
		And I don't understand how we are allowing gerrymandering mid-census, because that's the main reason for the census is to reapportion uh the House OF Representatives.
		Anyway, I would love to see C-span do a you know 30-minute section educating uh American public on the census.
		There's quite a bit about it that um, Most of us are ignorant about.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Martha.
		Appreciate the suggestion.
		Mary, a Republican in Indianapolis, Indiana.
		Go ahead, Mary.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I am a longtime Democrat and have turned Republican.
		I am so tired.
		I am 61 years of age, and the Democratic Party has turned nothing into beyond unbelievable.
		They don't stand for the middle class people.
		They stand for themselves.
		They're selfish.
		They are definitely violent.
		And I will never, ever understand how anyone could vote Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Mary, when was it that you switched to the Republican Party?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And was there a specific incident or policy that made you make that switch?
unidentified		Yes, I switched when Biden took office, allowing So had you voted?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Had you voted for former President Biden?
unidentified		Yes.
		And everything that the Democrats had stood for went straight down the toilet.
		He has made this country racist, anti-American, anti-faith, anti-education.
		He has destroyed this country.
		He has destroyed it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Jack in Maryland, line for Democrats.
unidentified		Good morning.
		The previous caller, what Republicans often do is project their own shortcomings onto others.
		But in any case, I'm calling to call out the fake and selective outrage by the right over the horrific killing of Charlie Kirk.
		If everyone remembers when the state congressperson from Minnesota and her husband were killed and two other individuals were shot and fortunately survived the shooting, a sitting senator, ironically from Utah, Mike Lee, posted an image of the actual murderer on the doorstep right before he committed the act of murder.
		And he captioned the image, Nightmare on Wall Street.
		And no one said anything.
		There was no outrage.
		He doubled down on it.
		He didn't apologize.
		And I think he was confronted by one of his colleagues in the Senate from Minnesota.
		And to this day, he still hasn't apologized for it.
		No one said anything.
		So when these things happen to politicians on the left, it becomes a punchline, a joke.
		They don't take it seriously.
		So that tells me they don't take political violence seriously.
		Not even when it happens to them.
		It's really just an opportunity to leverage the unfortunate assassination of Charlie Kirk.
		And that's what they're doing now.
		And it's unfortunate.
		But it's selective outrage.
		They don't have any real concern for political violence other than how it benefits them.
		Otherwise, they don't care.
		And again, several callers have pointed out January 6th And his punchline with Paul Pelosi and what happened to him, he made a joke about it.
		His son made a joke about it, tweeting it last year for Halloween.
		He tweeted an image of a pair of underwear and a hammer saying that's his Paul Pelosi costume.
		These people don't care about violence.
		They really don't.
		They don't care about what happened to Charlie Kirk.
		I really believe that.
		They only care in how it can benefit them going forward.
		So please stop with selective and Jack.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Just to get everybody up to date on what you were talking about, this is the Associated Press.
		It says Mike Lee's posts about the Minnesota shootings incensed fellow senators.
		They refused to let it go.
		It says that Mike Lee has in recent years become one of the Senate's most prolific social media posters.
		His presence seen in thousands of posts, often late at night about politics.
		Fellow senators have grown accustomed to the Utah Republicans' pugnacious online persona, mostly brushing it off in the name of collegiality.
		That is until this past week.
		This article is from June 21st of this year.
		It says his posts after the June 14th fatal shooting of Minnesota lawmaker and her husband incensed Lee's colleagues, particularly senators who were friends with the victims.
		It all added to the charged atmosphere in the Capitol as lawmakers once more confronted political violence in America.
		And this is Ken in Boyceville, New York, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you.
		And hello to C-SPAN.
		I'm calling in regard to the congressman that was on before saying he didn't know anything about Trump commuting the sentence of someone down there who was found guilty of $205 million fraud.
		Well, it's right here on the Miami Herald.
		The caption reads, Trump commutes sentence of Miami healthcare exec convicted of Medicaid, Medicare fraud.
		His name is Lawrence Duran.
		His girlfriend was also found convicted.
		It was part of a larger scheme.
		Mr. Duran defrauded Medicare out of $87 million, was sentenced to 50 years in prison, and Trump commuted him.
		This article is from June 2nd, 2025.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep, Ken, I've got it right here, and I'm going to just put it on the screen.
		As Ken said, the Miami Herald from June 2nd, Trump commutes sentence of Miami Healthcare exec convicted of Medicare fraud.
		Yeah.
		And did you want to finish what you were saying, Ken?
unidentified		That's all I wanted to bring forward.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		John in Mooresville, North Carolina, Republican.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I wanted to see if I understand that President Biden gave Stacey Abrams of Georgia a $2 billion allotment from the taxpayers' funds to run her NGO.
		And I don't know what the protocol is for determining or watching, I can't find anywhere where it shows how she's spending that money.
		And I agree that this kind of thing breeds mistrust and that Donald Trump commuting those sentences does the same thing.
		So both sides are guilty.
		There's no doubt about it.
		And I don't know how we get away from that other than it's just by political gameplay or something.
		But in the meantime, the whole taxpayer out here is taking it on the chin.
		So, you know, if C-Fan could find a way to get Stacey Abrams on and let her explain to people where that money's going, maybe it's a perfectly good situation.
		I don't know.
		But see, that's just it.
		I don't know.
		And nobody else does, apparently.
		So, anyway, thank you very much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, John, John, before you hang up, so I was, while you were talking, just trying to look for some more information for you on that.
		And PolitiFact does have a fact check on that.
		It says that the claim is the Trump administration identified $1.9 billion in federal dollars going to a, quote, decarbonization of homes group that Stacey Abrams headed up.
		So I think that's what you are talking about.
		That has been rated false by PolitiFact.
		They are giving more information about that here.
		If you want to take a look at that, it's on PolitiFact about that specific claim.
		Tony in Villa Rica, Georgia, Independent Line.
unidentified		Yes, thank you, C-SPAN.
		First-time caller.
		I wanted to talk about the tone down of rhetoric and disrespect towards others.
		You know, I do not condone violence.
		And I understand and I watch, I see where others say things towards the president that he doesn't like.
		And it's like a one-sided thing.
		You know, he tells the news media to shut up or get out or sit down.
		And that's, to me, it's just wrong and disrespect.
		But when someone criticizes what he says and does to others, Republicans get upset about that.
		Even though it's one-sided.
		I don't understand.
		What can the American people do to get the president to be equal to all sides and respectful to others?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Tony, and George is calling from Downingtown, Pennsylvania.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat?
unidentified		Yeah.
		I was, you know, in the same spirit that the last caller was talking about.
		I watched Patel yesterday, and, you know, everybody was crossing him, cross-referencing him, and giving him an opportunity to speak.
		And he was withholding information and just said he just wasn't going to do it.
		And the big fat elephant in the room was, it's all perpetuated all this hate and stuff that everybody's conscious of it now.
		But I don't see the difference between one life to another.
		And they're getting a lot of press, and we already went over this stuff.
		Some people are getting oppressed, some aren't.
		But a life is a life.
		And then the big fat elephant in the room is that our leadership perpetuates hate and criticizes.
		I've never seen it before, calling people names, having nicknames for people, and going after people after you become into power where, you know, you're going to go after them because it's retribution.
		They didn't go along with your plan.
		We're going to lock them up, get rid of them, get rid of all these people that aren't going along with the plan.
		There's a spirit.
		I'm going to say this.
		You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
		The facts are the facts.
		And the big fat elephant in the room is that the leadership is perpetuating division and hate all the time.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, we got that point.
		And let's take a look at that hearing that George was just talking about.
		So this is Kash Patel.
		He's the director of the FBI.
		And Louisiana Republican Senator John Kennedy was asking him about whether Jeffrey Epstein trafficked any girls or women to anyone else but himself.
john kennedy ▲ ● ▼		You've seen most of the files.
john kennedy ▲ ● ▼		Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young women to besides himself?
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Himself.
		There is no credible information.
		None.
		If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals.
		And the information we have, again, is limited.
john kennedy ▲ ● ▼		So the answer is no one.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		For the information that we have.
john kennedy ▲ ● ▼		In the files.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		In the case file.
john kennedy ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		What exists in the Epstein case files was a direct result of the limited search warrants from 2006 and 7, which hamstrung future investigations because of the non-prosecution agreement.
		And multiple administrations had the opportunity to look at the entirety of that case file and recommend prosecutions against anyone that was trafficked under Mr. Epstein and anyone that participated in that trafficking.
		And the only person to bring charges was the prior administration against Mr. Epstein.
		Now, I am not saying that others were not trafficked and others were not involved.
		What I am telling you is that based on the information we have, and we have continuously publicly asked for the public to come forward with more information.
		If there is, we'll look at it.
		But based on credible information, we have released all credible information.
		And the information that the Department of Justice and the FBI never releases is information on investigations that are not credible.
		And we don't release the names of victims who weren't credible.
		But at the same time, we don't release the names of victims who were credible.
		And so the information, that's by law.
		And so the information we are releasing now is historic.
		And it is also to the maximum capacity that the law allows.
		And I know that's not going to satisfy many, many, many people.
		But if they wanted it done right, then the investigation from its origination should have been done right.
		And he should not have been given a get out of jail free card to do jail on the weekends for 12 hours a day.
		And he should have been investigated fully for the entirety of his crime and criminal enterprise, not just from 1997 to 2001.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Back to your calls.
		This is Shannon in Weird, West Virginia, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Shannon.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I thank you for honoring Charlie Kirk's death by promoting free speech.
		I'd like to just say that Kirk used the Bible as justification for his hate.
		That is ungodly.
		And I challenge his Christian followers to really think about that.
		Jesus advocated love and acceptance with his own words, not hate.
		Jesus taught humanity and forgiveness.
		Kirk repeated the sentiment many times that the absolute most qualified Supreme Justice on the bench was the EI, aka Black.
		I challenge his supporters to look up her resume.
		Kirk also said, quote, boy, if a pilot was black, that he'd say, boy, I hope he is qualified.
		He said that MLK is awful.
		He's not a good person.
		He said, black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously.
		He said, you have to go steal a white person's slot.
		He said, black, excuse me, he said, happening all of the time in urban America.
		Prowling blacks go around for fun to target white people.
		That's a fact, he said.
		It's happening more and more.
		This hateful rhetoric I shared here only talks about black and brown people.
		He used the same horrific sentiments against all marginalized communities.
		So for every marginalized community group, there are many deplorable statements like these.
		Kirk pushed the same old white supremacy tropes by wrapping them in a pretty package using cherry-picked Bible verses with a pretty bow around them.
		This kind of kind of Christians who feel the same as Kirk are the very people who turned me away from my Christian faith.
		I cannot support this kind of hateful rhetoric.
		As an atheist, I now feel free to love everyone, not just those who look and think like me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Shannon, this is Tony Kokomo, Indiana Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Tony, you're on the air.
unidentified		Yes, I've got two subjects I'd like to speak on a little bit here.
		And one is the attacks coming from supposedly the left.
		The Oklahoma City bombings, the Minnesota murders, the attacks during the Biden and Obama administration, the attacks on clinics and synagogues.
		The right wing commit violence 20 to one times more than the left.
		Trump and the Republicans are the number one hate party there is.
		And about the Congress, no budgets, not doing their job, turning everything over to Trump.
		The terrorist, that's the largest tax increase against the American people in history while they give the billionaires the biggest tax cuts in history.
		The Congress people speak in Heritage Foundation language.
		And it's twisted, you know, it's lying as much as Trump, and they do it just as easily.
		And, you know, above it all, you know, the January 6 attacks, those people attacked our Congress.
		They went in there and they tried to stop an election and overthrow it.
		And then Donald Trump gets elected and pardons every one of them for serious crimes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, Tony.
		And we will just pause on the calls.
		We will come back to Open Forum, but we're going to talk now to Neil Irwin.
		He's joining us, and Axios Chief Economic Correspondent.
		Neil, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So there is a Federal Reserve meeting later today.
		President Trump has been calling for interest rate cuts for quite a while.
		Potentially, what are you hearing about how, will there be a cut and how much if there is?
unidentified		Yeah, it looks like the Federal Reserve is going to cut interest rates by about a quarter point at this meeting.
		The announcement is 2 p.m. today Eastern Time.
		Chair Powell has a press conference at 2.30.
		So that will be the most likely outcome of this meeting, bringing the target federal funds rate down from a little under 4.5% to more like 4.25%.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what's the potential impact of that rate cut?
unidentified		Well, it's already gotten priced into financial markets, so it's already reflected in stock prices and bond prices, but it will flow through to slightly lower returns for savers who keep money in a money market mutual fund or things like that.
		It does mean slightly lower borrowing costs for borrowers.
		So if you have credit card debt taking out a car loan, it should help down the margins, make that a little more manageable.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And the Senate has confirmed Stephen Myron, I believe is his name, how it's pronounced.
		That was this week.
		Can you tell us about him and what his background is?
unidentified		Yeah, so Steve Myron has been the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors since the start of the Trump administration, and President Trump has appointed him for a vacant governor seat that's only a term that expires in January, but he has put kind of a loyalist, a White House economist in place as a governor for this next few months at least.
		Steve Myron is a, you know, he's worked in both financial markets, he is an economist.
		So we're really curious to see what kind of role he ends up playing on the Federal Market Committee, which is the decision-making committee of the Fed.
		Does he embrace the president's pursuit of much lower interest rates, not just this little quarter-point rate cut they're going to do today, but a substantially lower interest rate path is what the president wants.
		We'll see if that's what Steve Myron advocates for.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And he is, in fact, keeping his White House position, just maybe going on leave from that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is that correct?
unidentified		That's right.
		So it's a very novel situation.
		For people who care about central bank independence and the idea that the Fed should stay separate from the political branches, the White House, they really do not like this situation.
		Myron is going on unpaid leave of absence from the Council of Economic Advisors from the White House while serving as a Fed governor.
		So he essentially still has President Trump as his boss, even though he's on leave, as he's serving the Fed.
		That's why all Democrats voted against him in the Senate, and that's why a lot of independent economists have worries about what this means for the idea of an independent central bank.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And the court has ruled that President Trump cannot fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook ahead of this meeting today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Why does the President want her off the board?
unidentified		So the stated reason is that she had some mortgage applications where she, within a few weeks of each other, applied for two different mortgages on two different properties, described both as being her primary residence.
		You know, more broadly, so the allegation is that some form of mortgage fraud.
		She's not really had any kind of formal opportunity to respond to those accusations, and there has not really been much process around that.
		It's more of an attack that's been lobbed.
		Ultimately, the president sees this as this is a Biden appointee who is confirmed for a 14-year term.
		If allowed to stay, she can serve until 2038.
		And the president would rather have that slot for himself.
		He clearly would like to see new leadership at the Federal Reserve and sees this as a way to get it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And about the allegations of mortgage fraud, have you been able to look at any of the documents that would either support that or refute that allegation?
unidentified		Well, what's been shared is accusations from Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency head.
		This is the kind of federal mortgage regulator.
		And that's really all we have, right?
		There's not been a full defense by Lisa Cook's legal team.
		There's not been any kind of independent investigation.
		There's merely the fact of these two mortgage applications and no other kind of countervailing information.
		There has been some reporting.
		So Reuters reported that on separate documents involving her credit union, she did describe one of those as a vacation property, which would seem to be at least somewhat exculpatory.
		But again, this is a situation where we don't really have all the information.
		This has not been through any kind of vetting or legal process to adjudicate whether she was in the wrong in these mortgage applications.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what are you going to be listening for specifically from Chairman Powell at today's news conference?
unidentified		So the big question is not what they do today, but what they do next.
		And I think what we're going to be paying attention to is how much signal do they send for where interest rates are going in the future?
		Is this a one-off rate adjustment or the beginning of a real easing in monetary policy?
		How much are they still worried about tariffs causing higher inflation?
		And this is one of these meetings.
		Four times a year, the Fed releases, it's called the Statement of Economic Projections.
		So all 19 policymakers around that table submit what they think the path of interest rates is going to be, inflation, unemployment, GDP, and write those down for the next few years.
		So we'll be getting that at 2 p.m.
		And that will shed light on how much the consensus among Fed officials is that, you know, the job market is not looking hot.
		It's not looking as good as we thought.
		We are going to cut rates significantly in the months and years ahead.
		Exactly what that path looks like is what we'll learn from those.
		It's called the dot plot.
		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's Neil Irwin, Chief Economic Correspondent at Axios.
		His work is at axios.com.
		Thanks so much, Neil, for joining us.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Back to the phones to Kip in Herbert City, Utah, Republican line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Kip.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just had to take exception to my Democrat friend's comments about Christians celebrating the violent death of Jesus Christ every Sunday.
		I don't believe that Christians do celebrate his violent death.
		I believe they celebrate the reason that he laid down his life for mankind, and that being for the infinite atonement for our sins and for our eternal lives.
		So I just wanted to state that as a person from Utah, I am so deeply saddened by the death of Charlie Kirk.
		He was a person of faith.
		He was a person of principle.
		And I believe that he realized that Jesus Christ was the one and only way that mankind actually could have the opportunity to become better than the natural man truly is.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Kip, this is Barbara Tallahassee, Florida, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Barbara.
unidentified		Hey, Mimi, how are you this morning?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I'm doing okay.
unidentified		Good.
		I just want to say that I did not know who Charlie Kirk was.
		I had never heard of him.
		That does not mean that I'm one of these awful, as the Republicans put out there, awful Democratic people that, you know, I'm a moderate and I am so sick of what is going on in this country.
		I can't get up any day of the week and not see Donald Trump blasting something new that he's taking over of what he's going to do.
		And yesterday morning, I was watching, and he just lambasted Jonathan Carl from ABC, who is a wonderful reporter.
		And he just was awful to him.
		I don't understand why he has to be awful all the time.
		I'm tired of it.
		I'm tired of him.
		I'm tired of the Republican Party just trying to paint this country.
		Just watch yourselves because it's coming.
		And I've mentioned it before a long time ago when I talked to you that martial law is coming.
		That's what we're going to have if we don't turn it around now.
		Thank you very much for listening to me.
		Have a good day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You too, Barbara, Ned in Maryland, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're on Open Forum, Ned.
unidentified		Oh, yes.
		Yeah, I served in the Marine Corps, and I was willing to give my life for this country.
		But I realized when Jesus Christ died, like the Carla Carlton earlier, Jesus Christ died.
		We don't celebrate, we worship him because he gave his life so that we could have opportunity to reconnect with God.
		And this left, right, and all stuff that everybody talks about, we all children of God.
		He said we should love him with all our heart, mind, and soul.
		And if you love your neighbor like you love yourself, those are supposed to be the first two commandments.
		And everybody's against each other instead of first loving God and trying to love your neighbor.
		Everybody is your neighbor, whether they are cross seas or next to you or standing right next to you in a mall or on a bus.
		You should love everybody unconditionally.
		And if the world had that type of temperature, we wouldn't have the problems that we have now.
		And he said, if my people who are called by my name would humble themselves and pray, I would hear from heaven and I would heal the land.
		So if we really want America and this world and all these wars to stop, we need to get together, stop all this name-calling, you know, saying be role models to our children.
		I'm 61 years old.
		How can you tell somebody to stop killing if all you see is the adults acting like kids, you know, fighting like school kids in the playground?
		If we want things to stop and change, we need to change ourselves.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		So, all right, we got your point.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep, we got it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Richard in Sparta, New Jersey, Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		A few days ago, you had a program on about socialism versus free market capitalism, and it was very good.
		However, you left out a few isms, I'm afraid.
		The country with the most population on this planet is China.
		And the only thing communist about China is the name of the party.
		30 years ago, they went on the capitalist road.
		The difference is the government is involved in all the businesses and in everybody's businesses, as a matter of fact.
		They've used 1984 as a book for good government, apparently.
		And it is more fascist than even Italy was back in the 30s.
		So I think we should include fascism in those surveys.
		I am sure there are any number of people in this country, and they seem to be working for fascism right now.
		And it's not a dirty word.
		It's just another ism.
		It's just a system of economics and society.
		It's just another ism, and it should be included.
		And this is, you know, and it was in Germany, they called it national socialism, okay?
		And that is where, again, it was oligarchs, it was the corporations with the dictator who ran the country.
		Okay.
		And when Trump is buying pieces of companies and he wants to do more, that's kind of like national socialism.
		And I don't think we need that.
		So please, next time we can see a survey.
		And also ask people if they'd like a dictatorship, by the way.
		I think there are plenty of people in this country who would love that.
		So please include those in some of the surveys.
		Certainly fascism is prevalent, is definitely in the world today.
		And it's very significant and should be included in these surveys, I think.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it, Richard.
		And Kate is an independent in Adrian, Michigan.
		Hi, Kate.
unidentified		Good morning.
		So it's starting to feel like the Washington Journal is turning into church.
		And I follow more of a Daoist path.
		And this is my morning meditation.
		And it's make peace, not war.
		Victory at war is not beautiful.
		It is the same as celebrating a funeral.
		The man who loves war should not reign.
		A Daoist ruler chooses peace and quiet.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Lauren in Alexandria, Minnesota, Republican.
unidentified		Good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
unidentified		I guess I can try these Democrats complaining about that January 6th.
		Trump had a nice peaceful message, and they were going to record for him so that they thought that would one way they get rid of Trump.
		Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats, and the FBI staged that thing.
		They're the ones that should be punished for it.
		All right, thanks.
		Bye.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Janice in San Diego, California, a Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Janice.
unidentified		Good morning.
		The first thing I'd like to say is for the callers, I mean, my goodness, how many times did they have to tell you guys to turn the TV down?
		Everybody has the mute button.
		Mute your TV.
		Gracious, it's so annoying.
		Secondly, I listen to these Democrats all talking about how awful Trump is and all the negative things Trump says.
		Biden was not much better.
		I remember his national address and when he called all Republicans garbage, he wasn't too concerned about bringing the country together.
		As far as the Minnesota murders are concerned, that man who killed those politicians worked for Tim Volks.
		He was on Tim Boltz register.
		It has yet to come out if he's even a right-winger.
		As for the young man that killed Kirk, Charlie Kirk, he killed that man in front of his children, in front of his babies.
		And yet they are getting money to get his defense.
		His father received a million dollars from the GO funding for his son's defense.
		And you know what he did?
		He donated it to Turning Point.
		That's what he did.
		And when you talk about the violence on both sides, yeah, there's violence from the right side as well as the left side, but it's so disproportionate.
		I'd like for anyone to tell me what politician on the right have you ever heard tell their constituents to get out there and get in their face.
		How many Republicans do you see cursing on the streets, on the steps, acting fools, disregarding laws, calling for protest?
		And please miss me with the January 6th because Trump said peacefully and patriotically protest.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You people are so unbelievably Rollingsville, Colorado, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Good morning, Amy.
unidentified		Rollinsville, Colorado.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What did I say?
unidentified		This addresses Patel's testimony yesterday.
		Senator Smith quoted a YouGov poll, which your closed captions, by the way, call a yuke, yuke of.
		Just to get that straight, I assume he's talking about the British firm YouGov.
		I got on their page.
		I can't find anything about that survey.
		He claims that the left is way disproportionately responsible for political violence.
bill in north carolina [2] ▲ ● ▼		I had just read a thing that ADL put out, Anti-defamation League, that right-wing extremists are responsible for the great majority, 76 percent.
unidentified		Right-wing extremism, four percent left-wing extremism, eighteen percent.
		Domestic Islamic extremism, other miscellaneous one percent.
		So can you look into that?
		You gov poll please?
		That is my request.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, All right, and here's Harold in Mesquite, Nevada, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Harold.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		I'm a retired government shipyard worker.
bob in new york ▲ ● ▼		And after the war, World War II, we had a lot of ships and material, tanks, and what have you.
unidentified		And we gave a lot of stuff away and scrapped it.
		And some went for the A-bomb tests, left a lot of questions.
		And you had a question about training students lately.
		Anyway, we tested a lot of those ships during the A-bomb test.
		Let's see if we could protect our Navy, the ships, and the crews.
		The test ships had animals on them and people too.
		I'm hoping that the crews were away during the test, along with the cameramen, reporters, and observers.
		The government started to close a lot of the government shipyards and airplane bases in the 1950s and 60s.
		The downsides.
		They moved a lot of those work to private shipyard and private air forces, what have you, bases.
		Then to save money, they took the work overseas to save money.
		But we lost American jobs.
		They don't care.
		But the government saved money.
		Jobs didn't matter.
		Steel mills closed, coal mines closed, the port companies closed.
		Then to save money, they moved to the ships and the airbase overseas to save money.
		The jobs didn't matter.
		Then they moved to families to save the crews from bringing the ships back and forth.
		And of course, they lost their jobs.
		They can't go overseas.
		They can't get a job.
		They're not allowed to.
		So all this is to save money.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Harold.
		And we are going to go now to Brad Sherman.
		He's a Democrat from California representing California.
		He's also on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and he's on the Financial Services Capital Markets Subcommittee.
		He's the ranking member there.
		Congressman Sherman, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Good to be with you, and good to be talking to the early morning risers in the San Fernando Valley on the West Side.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's start with the potential for the government to run out of funding if Congress doesn't act.
		One thing that's in front of you in the House is an extension until November 21st.
		I'm assuming you're against it.
		Tell me why.
unidentified		Well, they're calling it a clean CR, but they're asking us to deliver it to the dirtiest hands that have ever been in the White House.
		Once we provide that money all the way through November, who knows whether the president will spend the money on programs Democrats support or impound the money and not use it at all or divert it to things that he wants, like even more expanded ICE raids.
		So to give him money all the way through the middle of November without knowing whether he's going to follow the law seems to be a fool's errand.
		If this was a two-week CR, I think we'd be in a stronger position.
		But we'd be much better if as part of this package we prevented the Republicans from taking health care away from millions of Americans who will lose it this year if we don't get concessions.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And explain that, that you believe that Americans will lose their health care if these ACA subsidies were to expire.
unidentified		People are having a tough time affording just food and rent.
		And if you increase the cost of Obamacare to millions of Americans, millions of Americans will not have health insurance.
		And that, of course, is terrible, especially if they have a health need.
		So we need to remedy that.
		If we can't remedy that in the next two weeks and there was a two-week CR, that would make some sense.
		But to kick the can down the road to November, get nothing to protect health care, and just trust Trump to follow the law that Congress has agreed on, I think that's asking a lot.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask you about the Charlie Kirk murder.
		Attorney General Pam Bondi has clarified remarks that she had made on a podcast where she said that hate speech would be prosecuted under the law.
		President Trump has said that left-leaning groups would be and are being investigated after Charlie Kirk's shooting, though he didn't offer very many details about that.
		What are your thoughts on that?
		And what do you think those left-leaning groups should do if they are opposed to the beliefs of Charlie Kirk and those like him?
unidentified		You know, one of your earlier speakers talked about World War II and the courage of that generation.
		We have to have the courage to speak our minds no matter what Trump is trying to do.
		And the idea that you're going to prosecute people for hate speech, watch an hour of your own show and see if one of your callers doesn't seem to hate one side or the other, at least in the view of the other side.
		Because not only is Trump saying prosecute hate speech, he's saying prosecute hate speech as he defines it.
		So anybody that doesn't think that his marriage with Melania is the model of loving marriages that we should all follow gets prosecuted.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what do you think should be done about that?
unidentified		We should have a First Amendment.
		We should have a court that will enforce it.
		We should elect a president who respects it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Turning to the Federal Reserve meeting that is happening today, a rate cut is expected.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you make of where interest rates are and where you would hope that they would go?
unidentified		I think a quarter-point rate cut makes a lot of sense, but Trump has put us in a terrible position.
		On the one hand, we need a rate cut because there's a slowdown in jobs.
		And at the same time, we have the higher prices caused by his tariffs.
		And so he wants to be blaming the Federal Reserve when you have the massive deficit spending caused by the big, beautiful bill, if that's what they want to call it, and you have the tariffs, you've got a situation where there is no perfect interest rate.
		And we're going to suffer from both inflation and from fewer jobs and fewer raises than we'd want to see.
		We need fiscal responsibility from Congress and the president.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And regarding the attempt by President Trump to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, that has been in the court system.
		It continues to go through the court system.
		What's your message on that?
unidentified		It's an outrageous attempt to interfere.
		This is not part of an attempt to look at everybody's mortgage application.
		It's an attempt to intimidate the Fed.
		And what's interesting is that in Financial Services Tomorrow, Republicans will put forward the idea that the Fed should look only at prices and not at unemployment and jobs in setting rates, which means if we followed that, that we would have higher interest rates because higher interest rates reduce inflation, but lower interest rates produce jobs and economic growth.
		And so who knows?
		Maybe the president would regard that the Republican position tomorrow at financial services as hate speech as they seem to hate his approach toward just lowering interest rates as low as they can go.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what do you see as the impact to markets overseas?
		There are some economists who have been saying that this kind of disruption in the American economy and uncertainty around the Fed and the independence of the Fed is impacting their markets.
		What do you make of that?
		Do you think that that would in turn affect us?
unidentified		It affects us already.
		Our interest rates are higher.
		Our investment in our economy is lower than it would be if we could present a face to the world that this is where you want to invest.
		And we have that investment not because we have low interest, not because we have low labor costs.
		We have that because we are the most powerful, safest, strongest rule of law country in the history of the world.
		And every day Trump chips away at that, whether it's the rule of law, whether it's stability and predictability, and whether it is an essential element of any modern economy, which is an independent central bank.
		So, look, the American people are incredibly hardworking, incredibly creative.
		It takes a really bad government to mess up an economy made up of such spectacular people.
		And so I think that our economy may grow a little bit, but boy, it could do a lot better under a different president.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Turning to overseas now, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, was in Israel and New York Times reporting that he said that a diplomatic solution to Gaza war may not be possible.
		That seems to contradict President Trump's belief that a diplomatic solution is possible.
		Where do you come down on that?
unidentified		A diplomatic solution is how every war ends virtually.
		We need to have Hamas be willing to depart the area and to turn over security to an Egyptian army, a Gulf peacekeeping force.
		And of course, we need to free all the hostages.
		I hope we can get there.
		At the same time, we need to tell some of the extremist elements in the Israeli government that Gaza will continue to be inhabited by Palestinians.
		It's not a place for Israelis to move.
		And those Palestinians should have security taken care of by a force that speaks their language.

▲