You take a padlock, you throw it in the sock, and a lot of rough justice goes on like that.
unidentified
White House trade advisor and author Peter Navarro, Sunday night at 8 Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q ⁇ A wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
Former Vice President Mike Pence spoke about the current state of politics and the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
The former Vice President also discussed the events of January 6th, 2021, when Trump supporters threatened his life.
This interview took place at the Atlantic Festival in New York City.
I want to start, obviously, with the Charlie Kirk assassination.
You know, following the shooting last week, President Trump had been given several opportunities to call for healing and to bring down the temperature.
But instead, he largely responded by blaming the quote-unquote radical left and basically blaming the left for all that ails the country, including political violence.
And I don't know if you were surprised by that, necessarily by his response, but were you bothered by it?
I spoke yesterday to Governor Spencer Cox, who I think really distinguished himself in the thoughtful way that he articulated the efforts of Utah law enforcement working with federal officials to be able to apprehend the perpetrator of the crime within 33 hours.
It was a great credit to law enforcement at every level, but also a great credit to the good people of Utah who responded quickly and admirably.
And while, with this rising tide of political violence that we've seen on both sides of the aisle, I understand the deep concern.
I don't think we ever want to lose sight of the fact of personal responsibility and the need for every American to focus on holding those accountable who would perpetrate this violence in the name of politics or for any other reason.
Now, all that being said, it's you know Charlie Kirk probably had some differences with people in this room.
But he took that case, that conservative youth case, to campuses everywhere.
He was in a very real sense he was a champion for the freedom of speech.
And I truly do believe that we need to make sure that part of his legacy is a continuation of the vitality of freedom of speech for every American for years to come.
unidentified
Well, let's talk about freedom of speech, Mr. Vice President.
I'm sure you saw the news last night that Jimmy Kimmel's ABC show was pulled indefinitely after the FCC chairman Brennan Carr made sort of a mafiosa threat to go after the network in response to Kimmel's remarks about the assassination.
Now, the substance of those remarks from Kimmel aside, and to be clear, he was wrong, flat out wrong factually.
Isn't the First Amendment at risk when the FCC chairman tries to intimidate a news network over content that he personally disagrees with or that the state disagrees with?
And private employers have every right to dismiss employees, whether they're television talk show hosts or otherwise, if they violate the standards of that company.
The point in this case is that in the wake of a heartbreaking tragedy impacting people across the country, that he would act in such a callous and thoughtless way, and I respect the right of his employer to make that decision.
I said, if I ever had the chance to go back to the public square, first, I would seek to run campaigns and serve in a way that treated others the way I wanted to be treated.
But in the wake of this rising tide of political violence, going all the way back to the congressional baseball game that happened when we were in the White House and my friend Steve Scalise almost lost his life that day.
The attack on Gabby Giffords, the assassination attempts against President Donald Trump, the attack on, which threatened the lives of the family of Governor Shapiro in Pennsylvania, of course, the heinous murder of the Minnesota Speaker of the House and Charlie Kirk's assassination.
In the wake of all of that, while I don't think we should blame the American political debate on moments where evil grabs hold of the heart of an individual and leads to violence, I do think leaders would do well to restore a threshold of civility in American public life.
I mean, somebody I enjoyed a very warm personal relationship with up until the day he passed away was a giant of the civil rights movement who served in the Congress, the late Congressman John Lewis.
But I remember I walked into the main hall at the stadium, and as you might imagine, all the Democrats and the staff were on this side of the main hall.
All the Republicans were on this side.
And as new vice president, I'm over here.
People are shaking hands.
And suddenly across the lobby, I see John Lewis waving his arms and like makes a beeline straight to me, throws his arms around me, says he's proud of me.
And I don't know if there were more slack jaws among Republicans or among Democrats, but it is possible to forge relationships with people that you differ with on issues, as long as we understand that there are things more important.
I want to linger for a moment on this question of the First Amendment and freedom of speech, because the FCC chairman saying to ABC, we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way.
This is not an isolated example.
We have President Trump saying that George Soros should be put in jail, Stephen Miller promising a government campaign to dismantle and destroy left-wing groups.
The Attorney General, Pambondi, talking about prosecuting hate speech.
So I'm wondering, are you worried that the administration is using Charlie Kirk's murder as a pretense for prosecuting political dissent in this country?
I would just tell you, Tim, that while I understand the concern of many on the left when they hear about investigations, I just remember that summer of 2020 and the riots that tore asunder Minneapolis and some, I think, 50 cities across the country.
And what we found along the way was that some organizations were actually pre-positioning bricks that rioters could use, pre-positioning water and supplies and food.
And I don't know that we ever got an answer to that.
And if there are individuals that are facilitating violence against American citizens, I believe they should be held to account and they should be exposed.
But that doesn't include people that are simply exercising their First Amendment rights in a peaceful manner.
unidentified
I want to talk about party politics.
The title of this session is The Future of Conservatism.
And it seems like ancient history now, but you had really first distinguished yourself in the Congress as a conservative who was opposing your own party's president, George W. Bush, on some of the major initiatives of his presidency, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, bank bailout.
And I'm wondering today, when you see Republicans in Congress making these...
But I'm curious, when you see Republicans in Congress today making these sort of gratuitous shows of capitulation to President Trump, encouraging him to run for a third term or hanging the gold-framed portraits of him in their congressional offices.
What does it say to you about the separation of powers and what does it say to you about the state of the Republican Party today?
And I learned a lot of lessons along the way, but one of the things I learned was I just, I thought, if I ever get there, I'm just going to do what I told people I would do in all the years that preceded it.
But I'd spent 10 years or better part of 10 years on the radio talking about the principles of limited government, a strong defense, American leadership in the world, traditional values.
The first bill he introduced was doubling the Federal Department of Education, which I'm someone that believes, and I did as governor, that education is a state and local function.
I've been married to a school teacher for 40 years, so I voted against it.
We opposed entitlement expansions under President Bush out of a commitment to fiscal discipline.
But people would oftentimes come up to me and they would say on the floor, they say, hey, you have to go along with the administration on this because you work for the president.
And if before you head home after the Atlantic Festival, you make your way to Washington, for the first time in history, the entire Constitution is displayed at the archives.
I mean, at the founding of the country, the framers of the Constitution conceived of a government of co-equal branches of government and separation of powers.
I have an argument today with the president's unilateral tariffs imposed on friend and foe alike because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the authority to tax and tariff, they called them imposts, to the Congress.
Well, another great example of this is, I mean, I have, over the last three years, I've visited Ukraine twice since the brutal and unprovoked Russian invasion.
I hold the view that the United States and our Western allies need to continue to give Ukraine the resources they need until the Russian invasion is stopped and repelled.
But right now, 85 members of the Senate are co-sponsoring a bill that would put back-breaking sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil and essentially prop up the Russian war machine.
And we've written, we've been very public about it, that the president has not given the Senate the green light to pass the bill yet.
And if I was around, I'd probably be a little bit of a pain in the neck and say, let's pass it anyway.
Put it on the floor, put it on the president's desk.
Vladimir Putin is not going to stop until he's stopped.
He's not going to stop until we raise the cost for his brutal invasion so high that he rethinks it.
And I think the time has come for harsh new sanctions against those that subsidize the Russian war machine.
We probably ought to go ahead and unfreeze those Russian assets, about $300 billion, and send them to Ukraine.
But this is an important contest because I have no doubt, I've said this many times, I have no doubt.
I was on stage during my, I ran for president in 2023, not so where you'd notice.
But I was on stage with another writer and commentator who said that my support for Ukraine, for U.S. support for Ukraine, would get us into World War III.
Anybody that thinks capitulating to the barbaric ambitions of dictators will get you into World War III needs to study World War II.
And I say with some sadness, it was Republicans that led the effort in the 1930s to look the other way, to say it wasn't our fight in Europe.
And I've got to tell you, I have no doubt that if Vladimir Putin overruns Ukraine, it's only a matter of time before he crosses a border that our men and women in uniform are going to have to go fight him.
And so I think we need to stand firm now, call out our Western allies, as the President has rightly done, to do more.
But I think the time has come, going back to Article 1, that the Senate and the House ought to send those sanctions to the President's desk and send a deafening message that the American people stand for freedom and stand as the leader of the free world.
unidentified
Mr. Vice President, sticking with the Republican Party for a minute, I have this vivid recollection of you and I talking aboard your campaign airplane.
Well, this was minutes before, you may recall, minutes before the plane went off the tarmac at LaGuardia and almost went into the river.
And the ambulances and fire trucks had to come get us off the plane.
It was quite an episode.
But you told me that evening on the plane, you said that looking back on the Bush era, you said that by about 2006, the Republican Party had lost its way.
Those were the words that you used.
And as a result of it, the Republican Party then went into this long period in the wilderness.
And you were describing this 10 years later in retrospect.
So here we are, late 2025.
And I'm curious, as you look back over the last 10 years, but specifically at this moment in the Republican Party with massive spending and tariffs and trade wars and threatening cities with military occupation and taking equity stakes in private companies, has your party once again lost its way?
I said, look, under President Bush, we were growing government and the federal level.
And I hold the view that the Republican Party needs to be a choice, not an echo.
And we lost the majority in 2006.
We would win it back.
But when we arrived at the White House in January of 2017, I think part of the reason I was chosen is because candidate Donald Trump ran on and wanted to build an administration, one of the distinguished members of which you heard just a little bit ago, H.R. McMaster, that would hew to that traditional conservative agenda.
Strong military American leadership in the world, standing with our allies, standing up to our enemies, promoting pro-growth tax relief, deregulation, standing for the right to life, standing for values and religious liberty.
And I would tell you, Tim, that while the administration did not end the way I wanted it to, and I'll always believe I did my duty on that fateful day four years ago by God's grace.
And the reason I jumped in that primary in 2023 was because I sensed that the Republican Party and even my former running mate were following what I call The Siren Song of Populism Unmoored to Conservative Principle.
Literally, on foreign policy beginning to embrace a more isolationist view of American foreign policy as opposed to America's the leader of the free world.
Policies that frankly expand big government and speak of price controls on a whole range of industries, including our pharmaceutical industries.
And I also frankly saw President Trump as a candidate and others in our party marginalizing the right to life after what I believed was an extraordinary new beginning for life for the American people in the overturning of Roe versus Wade.
And so I do have a concern that while I'm grateful for the extension of the tax cuts, I'm frankly proud of President Trump for taking action, military action against Iran.
I'm grateful that he's gotten to a better place on Ukraine because the forces in and around the president in this administration are driving toward that populist agenda.
And my calling right now is simply to be a voice for what I think has just been the traditional conservative Reagan agenda.
That's the agenda that drew me to the Republican Party.
unidentified
Is there a I know that, you know, in talking with friends of yours and kindred spirits, you hold to a belief that once the Trump era passes and that once he has left the national stage, that the party will come back to those traditional conservative values.
But I look around and I see this exodus over the past 10 to 15 years of some of those traditional small government conservatives in the Republican Party largely replaced by some of those sort of flamethrowing populists that you've been describing.
So I'm wondering where that confidence comes from.
Why do you believe that the Republican Party will regain its old small government form once Trump exits stage right?
But I think when you look at the agenda of a strong America in the world, a strong national defense, limited government, fiscal responsibility, a respect for values and liberties, this is good for America.
And I think the American people aren't going to have it any other way.
And this World War II veteran who had jumped on a hand grenade in a foxhole in Europe and it went off, I don't even know how I was talking to him, got the Medal of Honor.
And he's sitting next to me, and he's obviously a conservative guy and it's an older fellow.
And so I got pretty comfortable with him, and I just said, boy, 1999.
I mean, I really do believe at the end of the day, those three words I mentioned that I just saw yesterday in the National Archives, other than my faith in God, my faith in the American people is boundless.
Well, but to your point, I think the time will come when our party is talking about the direction that we're going to take our party, whether it's back to those traditional conservative values as an alternative to a Democrat Party's agenda, or whether we're going to follow a populist, even a progressive agenda of isolationism and big government and shying away from values.
I'm curious, Mr. Vice President, now that you have some distance from office, you know, 2024 was the first time that you hadn't been on the ballot in decades.
And you chose not to endorse President Trump.
And obviously, that made some waves.
And I'm wondering, with the distance that you had from office and having not been on the ballot yourself, whether you had sort of a newfound appreciation for some of those traditional conservatives who had been reluctant to support him and to support your ticket back in 2016 or again in 2020.
And since the outset of the administration, as I said, we've tried to be praiseworthy when we see the administration doing those things that I think are consistent with how we governed and how Republicans would hope for an administration to govern.
But we've been willing to take on issues and even personnel that we think depart from the standards and values and principles of Republicans.
But I just hope to continue to be, among others, to be an anchor to windward, because I do think that the time will come that either we have a changing of the guard in politics or we face some other national crisis at home or abroad, and the American people will come back to the things that we know make us strong and prosperous and free.
You know, one of the best-kept secrets in America, actually, and you got a sense of this from H.R. McMaster, is that, and I hope it's an encouragement, Donald Trump listens.
And so while I'm not in the Oval Office as I was virtually every day for four years, my hope is to continue to be an influence, to encourage the better angels of his nature.
And I'll help him.
Whatever differences you have with President Donald Trump, he is our president.
You know, when we were evacuated first to my Senate office and then to the loading dock underneath the Capitol, we were witnessing mostly just on our phones what was happening.
And I've often been asked if I was afraid, and I don't say this to be self-important.
I wasn't afraid.
I was angry.
I was angry at what I saw.
And I found myself thinking, not this, not here, not in America.
I mean, to see the capital of the free world desecrated and ransacked, to see law enforcement officers assaulted deeply angered me.
But I will tell you, I think what was a day of tragedy, I think history will record as a triumph of freedom.
But I remind people that it was every Republican and every Democrat in the House and Senate who reconvened the very same day after Capitol Hill police secured the Capitol.
But as the week wore on, I went about my business focusing on the transition.
And it was the following Monday after January 6th that his daughter and son-in-law approached my office in the West Wing and said, would you be willing to meet with the President?
I remember I walked down to the Oval Office, back the small hallway to the small dining room where we'd spent so many times and so many meals together.
And the President was sitting at the end of the table, and he was deeply contrite, Tim, about what had happened.
He said he was not aware that Karen and my daughter were with me.
I said, well, they wouldn't leave, Mr. President.
I tried to get them to leave the building.
They wouldn't go.
And then we sat and we talked all through it.
And I again explained to him what I believe my duty was and how I kept my oath of the Constitution that day.
And I also told him that I thought the people that had desecrated the Capitol had done a great disservice to our movement because the people that I met through countless rallies, countless events over four and a half years are some of the most hardworking, decent, God-fearing, law-abiding, patriotic people I've ever met who would never do something like that there or anywhere else.
I mean, sometimes I think we, the political debate kind of devolves into some, you know, entertainment or jousting when, in fact, we've got to find a way to be together.
We've got to find a way to work out our differences in a principled way.
And I think the way we work out our differences is if each of us will stand without apology on the common ground of the Constitution of the United States of America.
And it was fashioned to bring together disparate voices and disparate ideals into an environment where those could be resolved and to move forward as a nation.
One of my unworthy son-in-laws is a lieutenant commander in the United States Navy.
In our family, it's very personal.
My dad fought in combat in Korea.
I think decisions that we make as Americans, collectively as Americans, working through the political process, it's going to have a great deal to say of what the rest of this century looks like and how much it mirrors the first half of the last century.
Here's a look at some live coverage coming up today on the C-SPAN networks.
On C-SPAN at 9 a.m. Eastern, the U.S. House is back in session where lawmakers are expected to consider a temporary seven-week spending resolution to continue funding the federal government past the September 30th deadline.
And on C-SPAN 2 at 10 a.m. Eastern, Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, vice chair of the Select Intelligence Committee, will speak on the alleged politicization of intelligence agencies during remarks at George Mason University.
And at 11 a.m., the U.S. Senate is back in session to continue work on government funding legislation with a looming government shutdown coming on September 30th.
You can also watch live coverage on the C-SPAN Now app or our website, c-span.org.
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.
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 3.45 p.m. Eastern, investigative reporter Shoshana Walter examines the for-profit drug rehabilitation treatment industry and argues that it fails to help people suffering from opioid addiction.
Then at 9 p.m. Eastern, author Misty Haginis talks about her concept of Swiftenomics, a case study of famous women including Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, and Madonna, who she claims have managed to thrive in a society largely built for men.
And at 10.15 p.m. Eastern, Washington Times legal affairs reporter Alex Sawyer argues the justice system has been politicized and the criminal trials Donald Trump faced during the 2024 presidential campaign were biased.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.