CSPAN - Washington Journal Washington Journal

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 31, 2026 11:01-13:05 - CSPAN

02:03:50

Washington Journal Washington Journal

Source

Participants

Main

mimi geerges

cspan 18:46

Appearances

brian lamb

cspan 00:38

chuck schumer

sen/d 01:04

mark warner

sen/d 00:55

rep jim guest

00:52

todd blanche

admin 02:19

willie nelson

00:30

Callers

andre in arizona

callers 00:52

carl in washington

callers 01:02

donna in west virginia

callers 03:42

errol darts in unknown

callers 00:07

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
Gun Free Zones Debate 00:11:18
unidentified		What the facts, straight from the source.
		No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
		Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
		The flag replacement program got started by a good friend of mine, a Navy vet, who saw the flag at the office that needed to be replaced and said, wouldn't this be great if this was going to be something that we did for anyone?
		Comcast has always been a community-driven company.
		This is one of those great examples of the way we're getting out there.
		Comcast supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal, joined by Eric Pratt.
		He is Senior Vice President at Gun Owners of America, joining us to talk about the response to the Minnesota shooting and the Second Amendment.
		Eric, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thank you so much for having me, Mimi.
unidentified		It's great to be here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Just start us off with telling us about your organization, Gun Owners of America, your mission, and about how many members you have.
unidentified		Absolutely.
		Well, Gun Owners of America is a grassroots organization.
		We're made up of more than 2 million Americans who love freedom and who are dedicated to defending our Second Amendment rights, which matters because that freedom allows people to protect themselves, not just from criminal violence, but from government tyranny as well.
		At our core, GOA is no compromise, and we're actively winning in the courts, in the Congress, and in the states.
		But honestly, ultimately, our strength is our members.
		They peacefully exercise their First Amendment freedoms, you know, which is their right to petition their government.
		But, you know, that loud voice has made such a huge difference over the years, and there's no doubt about that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Eric, before we get into the topic at hand, the NRA is also a gun membership organization.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Can you give us an idea of how you differ from them, if at all?
unidentified		Sure.
		Well, they're obviously the older organization on the block.
		They've been here for more than 100 years, and they do a lot of good work with the shooting sports and things like that, which honestly we don't get involved in.
		We are purely an organization that focuses on regaining our Second Amendment rights.
		And I know they do some of that too, obviously, but that is our sole mission.
		And so that's why we are so heavily involved in the courts, in the Congress, and in the state legislatures.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, regarding the shooting of Alex Predi in Minneapolis a week ago, President Trump has asserted twice this week that, quote, he said you can't walk in with guns.
		He's also said, quote, he shouldn't have been carrying a gun.
		What was your reaction when you heard that?
unidentified		Well, we disagreed with those comments the way it was stated and some of the others, voices that have come from the administration.
		I will say that there were a couple of voices in the White House who made very strong statements supporting the ability to exercise our First and Second Amendment rights together.
		And that was during this past week.
		And, you know, we appreciate that because the U.S. has a long history of recognizing that freedom.
		You go way back, the Boston Tea Party was a peaceful protest that was carried out by armed individuals.
		And you look at the civil rights marches during the 1960s.
		The Deacons for Defense used firearms to protect peaceful marchers who were being attacked by racist thugs.
		So through our history, we see that Second Amendment rights and peaceful protest are not mutually exclusive.
		And that's why we'd like to see the administration uphold this right, even while acknowledging that you can't use your freedom to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement activity that's constitutionally protected, which, you know, I think is what many administration officials were trying to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And not to belabor this point, but one of those officials was Greg Bovino, who has been removed since then as Board of Patrol Commander at Large.
		He said that the Second Amendment didn't apply to Alex Predi in this situation.
		Are there certain situations like a protest where you would say that maybe it doesn't apply or do you reject that statement flat out?
unidentified		Well, you know, the Second Amendment says that the right shall not be infringed.
		So we believe there shouldn't be infringements on the right.
		But again, as I mentioned earlier, that doesn't give one the freedom or the license to interfere with lawful law enforcement activities that are protected under the Constitution.
		And so, you know, to that point, you know, obviously there isn't that license, but I think they need to be very careful how they say this and not make it sound like, you know, one has to choose between the first and second amendment.
		They're not mutually exclusive.
		We can walk and chew gum and exercise both freedoms at the same time.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to invite our viewers to start calling in now.
		If you've got a question for our guest, Eric Pratt, Gun Owners of America, you can call 202748-8000 if you're a Democrat.
		If you're a Republican, it's 202-748-8001.
		And Independents, 202748-8002.
		We also have a line set aside for gun owners.
		That line is 202748-8003.
		And that's the same number you can use for texting us.
		Eric, Mr. Predi had, I believe, an open carry permit.
		Can you explain the permit that he had and what that allows?
unidentified		Well, a permit means that you've gone through, obviously, the permit process, and that can vary from state to state.
		Some states are constitutional carry, which means that you don't even need to get permission as long as you're a law-abiding individual.
		Well, Minnesota is not one of those, which means he had gone through the process where they had done background checks on him, and obviously there were no felonies or anything that would have flagged him as being prohibited from carrying a firearm.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And how different do the state laws vary in that case as far as where you can carry your gun, if it can be concealed, if it can be open?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What are the laws around that and what are the variances?
unidentified		Well, if you go back a few years, there was tremendous variance.
		Most states had what we call shall issue permits.
		In other words, if you're not a bad guy, the government shall issue you the permit.
		There was a few states that were what was known as may issue that even if you weren't a bad guy, you're a law-abiding citizen, they may issue you the permit or they may not issue you the permit.
		And so there was a very significant Supreme Court case that was the Bruin decision, which said that those states that were exercising discretion and keeping good people from carrying, that was illegitimate.
		So as a result of that, now every state is either what I mentioned earlier, a constitutional carry where you don't even have to get a permit.
		You can carry as a matter of right, protected by the Second Amendment, as long as you're not a bad guy.
		And there's 29, there's 29 of those states.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And who decides if you're a bad guy?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So there's no background check at all on that.
unidentified		That's right.
		Well, look at it this way.
		Criminals.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Can you decide yourself if you're a good guy or a bad guy?
unidentified		Well, I think criminals know if they have a record.
		And by the way, they don't care about permitting process.
		They carry anyway.
		That's what bad guys do.
		They don't care about the laws.
		So this was saying, you know what, we're not going to punish good people because of what bad people are doing.
		I mean, imagine being told you can't drive a car because there's some people who drive drunk.
		Or, you know, we're going to make you, a law-abiding citizen, blow into, you know, a device that will then only allow your car to run.
		And that's because there's those bad people out there that drive drunk.
		Those 29 states are saying it is your right.
		It is your God-given right to protect yourself.
		And so we're not going to put hurdles.
		And if you use your gun in a crime, then you're like any other criminal now.
		And they will treat you accordingly and hopefully take you off the street.
		So, but back to the Bruin case, every state now is at a minimum a shall issue carry state.
		But what started happening is you have a lot of states, or I should say some like New York and California that said, okay, you can get your permit, but we're only going to leave a couple of streets where you can actually exercise your right to carry.
		And so they started passing gun-free zones.
		They call them sensitive places, but really they're gun-free zones.
		And so states like New York, California, Hawaii started passing gun-free zones all over their states.
		And so now those laws are being challenged.
		In fact, we won on that very point in New York in our Antony case.
		In Hawaii, they challenged it and lost at the circuit court level.
		So because of our win and Hawaii's loss, that created a court split or a circuit split.
		And so now the Hawaii case is actually before the Supreme Court and they held oral arguments a couple weeks ago.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We've got a question for you by text from Jeff in Michigan who says that Predi had a concealed carry permit.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What he was doing is completely legal, yet Rittenhouse is a Republican hero, and this is in reference to Kyle Rittenhouse.
unidentified		So let me say this.
unidentified		It would be foolish for me to comment on an incident that is now under investigation right now in Minnesota, especially where the key facts remain in dispute.
Dom's Trouble With Guns 00:15:45
unidentified		And honestly, where we haven't even seen the body camp footage.
		Now, what I will say, GOA did immediately call for a full investigation because transparency is really essential to maintaining public trust.
		Now, in regard to Rittenhouse, the difference there is we're talking about a case that already went through the full judicial system and he was acquitted by a jury.
		So we're kind of comparing apples and oranges there in terms of the stage in the process.
		Because with the one, most recently, now we're looking forward to an investigation, whereas Rittenhouse, he had a full court trial and was acquitted by the court.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Eric, if you could just remind our viewers about the facts of that Rittenhouse case.
unidentified		Absolutely.
		So this was several years ago.
		It was actually during President Trump's first term.
		I want to say it was 2018.
		But actually, no, it may have been later than that.
		Sorry.
		I think it was during the previous administration.
		But anyway, there was a lot of public unrest, and he had a firearm on him, and he used that firearm when he was attacked by several individuals.
		And so, I mean, that's at its core.
		He was charged with murder and with assault, but he was acquitted on all accounts.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that acquittal was November of 2021.
		He was 17 years old at the time.
		Let's talk to our viewers and start with William, a Democrat in Miami's Burg, Ohio.
		Good morning, William.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi and Mr. Pratt.
		I'm just a dumb 90-year-old hillbilly.
		I've never owned a gun in my life.
		And as far as amendments, there's nothing that pertains to Trump.
		He is the ruler.
		I'm just waiting for some country to come in and kidnap him and Mr. Hagseth and charge them with murder for 123 people.
errol darts in unknown ▲ ● ▼		And I hope that happens before one of these countries eliminates the USA from extension.
unidentified		And believe you me, with this idiot, it is coming.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, William, regarding regarding the Second Amendment and gun rights, do you have something along those lines for our guests?
unidentified		I don't own a gun, but I think if you can pass to get a permit, you should be allowed to carry it.
unidentified		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to Stephen, a Republican, Alexandria, Virginia.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Stephen.
unidentified		Hi.
		I just want to make sure that you understand I am a Republican, a voting Republican.
		I also have a concealed weapons permit.
		And I believe Donald Trump is a traitor and all who associate with him are traitors.
		But anyway, I'll leave it at that.
		But the hypothetical that I'd like to have us consider is if I am carrying a gun and observe misbehavior or let's say unlawful behavior on the part of law enforcement officers, such as they tackle an innocent person and shoot him.
		Am I in my rights to use that gun to stop the actions of the law enforcement of the law enforcement agents in that situation?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's take that question.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Eric.
unidentified		Well, you know, I think you get on very dangerous grounds there when, because now you're, you know, it sounds like you're talking about a Lone Ranger deciding what is proper and improper.
		I mean, that's why we have the legal system.
		That's why we have the justice system to decide those questions.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Dom is a gun owner in Iowa.
		Hi, Dom.
		You're on the air.
carl in washington ▲ ● ▼		Hi.
		Yeah, I was going to comment, you know, a lot of times it boils down to common sense.
		You know, you take and carry a gun to something like that, you're just asking for trouble.
		You know, where is the common sense?
		You know, you take it to a gun to a powder keg, something is going to happen.
		It's not that, you know, you're there with the protesters, and the protesters are not going to attack you for protesting with them and that.
		And law enforcement, if he wouldn't have had that gun on him, he'd probably be alive today.
		You know, I'm not saying they didn't overreact, but I'm saying he didn't use any common sense.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Dom, let's get Eric Pratt to comment on that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Eric, he seems to agree with the administration officials who said he shouldn't have brought the gun in the first place and he was asking for trouble.
unidentified		Well, the reason somebody would bring a firearm is strictly for self-defense.
		I mean, let's look at the other situation we just talked about.
		If Kyle Rittenhouse did not have a firearm with him, he would probably be dead right now.
		And it was his firearm that he was able to use to protect himself in the midst of a riot, which, you know, by the way, if you remember the facts on that, I mean, he was simply there to help clean up the city.
		He wasn't trying to be a part of the riot in any way, but as things spread, he got enveloped into it.
		But, you know, he used his firearm for self-defense.
		You know, I think that the difference with that is he had it purely for self-defense.
		He wasn't looking to use it against the authorities in any way.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is Christopher in Jupiter, Florida, Line for Democrats.
unidentified		Good morning, Mr. Pratt.
		Lovely day to you, sir.
		Thank you.
		Same to you.
		Thank you.
		I am a proud gun owner myself.
		Admittedly, I'm not very good at operating them.
		I don't fire them very often.
		I don't have the time to go shoot them.
		My question to you, and I wanted to propose this, is why can't we talk about and have a conversation for a legitimate licensing procedure to own a gun, just like you would a car, just to make sure that you're proficient at it and that you can show that you operate the gun proficiently and effectively.
		And you can also provide de-escalation concepts into the licensing.
		And you just make somebody show that they can operate a gun like that.
		What do you say?
		In most states, there's actually far fewer restrictions on car ownership and use than on firearms.
		You know, I have a license in Virginia.
		I can drive anywhere in the country.
		I can't do that with my concealed carry permit.
		I have a son who bought a car before he was even old enough to drive.
		He can't do that with firearms.
		And I could go on and on with, you know, some states have fingerprinting.
		Almost every state has background checks.
		Certainly, to buy a firearm in this country, you go into a gun store, you go through a background check.
		I don't ever remember going through a background check to purchase a car.
		You know, the differences are myriad, but it's almost to the point where I would say I would much rather just have the restrictions that we have on cars applied to firearms as opposed to the existing ones we have now.
		And I say that by contrast because obviously we believe the Second Amendment says, again, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
		So, to that point, I would take issue with all those restrictions that you just laid out.
		Those shouldn't even exist.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Michael in Cleveland, Ohio, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Michael.
unidentified		Yeah, hey, hi, you guys.
carl in washington ▲ ● ▼		Hi, y'all.
unidentified		I want to tell everybody that we're all facing the fact here that that man came to that protest with two clips.
		When you take two clips to anywhere, you're looking for trouble.
		Why do they have two clips on him?
		And another thing, these guys are talking about how this country is going to, another country's going to come in and kidnap Trump and Henson.
		I don't know what that 90-year-old man's drinking down there, but I'm telling you, the man had two clips on him.
		He was coming to look for trouble.
		And here, look what he did a week before.
		He showed anger.
		If anything, as a psychologist as I am, he should have never had a gun.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And your response to that, Eric, about the two clips and that he was looking for trouble because of that.
unidentified		Well, you know, again, I'm not going to address what was in his state of mind.
		I think that that'll all be part of the investigation.
		As far as the magazines that he had, you know, it is interesting.
		If he had magazines that were over 10 rounds, in many states, anti-gun Democrats are trying to ban that.
		That's going on right now in Virginia.
		As a Virginia resident, I'm looking at our legislature, which is now controlled by Democrats, and the governor, who is now a Democrat, and they are looking to ban those from law-abiding Americans.
		So, you know, there's a bit of a hypocrisy right now that we're seeing Democrats all of a sudden sounding like champions for Pareti saying he had his right to carry a firearm in the magazines, whereas in other states, their fellow Democrats are trying to ban them from us.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And, Eric, does your organization, just to be clear, believe that there should be any limits in the amount of ammunition that a person is allowed to carry?
unidentified		Again, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
		So, no, there shouldn't be restrictions.
		And if somebody is a dangerous person, then honestly, they shouldn't be out on the street because once they are out on the street, you will never prevent them from getting their hands on some type of weapon.
		So, it becomes a justice, you know, an issue of our court system if we keep putting people, bad people, back out onto the streets.
		But law-abiding people shouldn't be restricted any more than, you know, just like it's been said under the First Amendment, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
		And yet, we don't gag people when they go into the theater, right?
		We don't do that to prevent them from yelling fire.
		No, what do we do?
		If they yell fire when there's no fire, they get punished for that.
		Well, that's the way it should be under the Second Amendment as well.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Darryl, a gun owner in New Jersey.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're on the air.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Mr. Pratt.
		Good morning.
		Good morning, sir.
		Please define for me shall not be infringed.
		I have three questions.
		Shall not be infringed.
		What does that mean?
		Please define for me.
		Yeah, answer that when I ask the next one.
		Go ahead.
		Yeah, so infringement is limitations, restrictions.
		You probably have better access to a dictionary right now than I do.
		But no limitations whatsoever for law-abiding citizens.
		Thank you, sir.
		That means all gun permits and gun laws are inherently unconstitutional.
		That's right.
		Okay.
		My second question is: who gets to define what is a protest and when a protest starts?
		The government, the people?
		That's a slippery slope.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what's your third one, Darrell?
unidentified		My third one is the founding fathers brought guns to their protests.
		That's how it's all started.
		The First Amendment is amended for the people, and the Constitution tells the government what they shall not do.
		It doesn't give us rights.
		Our rights are inherited from God, passed down.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Darrell, can you tell us a little bit about the guns that you own?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How many do you want to share that?
unidentified		You can tell that you're not a gun owner.
		We don't talk about things like that just for situations like that.
		That's the way in where they can knock on your door.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is that?
		Is that right, Eric Pratt?
		Is that like an inappropriate question to a gun owner?
unidentified		I'm spot on.
		Yeah.
		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I take it back.
		Sorry.
		Let's talk to David, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, Republican.
		Go ahead, David.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		Hello, how are you today?
		I just want to make a point.
		The Bill of Rights, you know, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, they primarily protected the individual and the states from the federal government.
		That was the original intention, including the Second Amendment, so to speak.
		So in other words, up until the doctrine of a corporation of the Supreme Court was delegated those some of the aspects of the 10 amendments to the states, the states could have regulated gun ownership any way they wanted to.
		In other words, some states could have prohibited any kind of ownership or whatever, but the Supreme Court delegated that to the states under the doctrine of a corporation.
		I don't know if you know what I'm talking about.
		I listened to Mark Levin.
		One other comment is in Pennsylvania, they changed the threshold for ownership, or they changed the threshold for getting a gun permit, just having an arrest on your record, even though you never went to trial and never convicted, just having an arrest for a crime that's punishable by two years or more, you can be denied a concealed carrier permit.
		That's basically all I really wanted to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Eric Pratt, go ahead.
Gun Ownership Discrepancies 00:14:39
unidentified		Well, my understanding is that, you know, the caller's right that before the 14th Amendment, states had more freedom in terms of laws that they could pass.
		However, many states did have their own Bill of Rights, which protected things like the right to keep bare arms.
		Now, with the 14th Amendment came the incorporation doctrine, and then that was specifically applied to the Second Amendment.
		That is, just to make this simple, under the McDonald decision by the Supreme Court, the states and localities can no longer infringe upon our Second Amendment rights.
		And so, yeah, that's why we now see the current civil rights division of the Justice Department challenging state laws that are infringing people's Second Amendment rights.
		And they're doing this in California with concealed carry.
		They're doing this in Illinois with certain types of firearms, frequently called assault weapons, but basically they're commonly owned firearms.
		So anyway, the Trump Justice Department is using that doctrine to go after states that are restricting people's rights.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Jeff, a Democrat, Indianapolis, Indiana, go ahead.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're on the air.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
andre in arizona ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Pratt, I take it you are someone you're kind of right-leaning, I guess.
unidentified		Well, I believe in the Second Amendment.
unidentified		So if that's what it does, then so be it.
andre in arizona ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, I'm a liberal and I believe in the Second Amendment.
unidentified		You got a problem with that?
		No.
		In fact, a lot of our members are self-described, quote-unquote, liberals who believe in the Second Amendment like you do, and they're members of Gun Owners of America.
andre in arizona ▲ ● ▼		Because I am a gun owner, and I believe in the Second Amendment, and it just seemed like it gets kind of blurred with Republicans.
		I remember back in the 1960s, I know you being a historian, I guess, that at one time Ronald Reagan had an issue with the Black Panthers practicing their Second Amendment, and even the NRA agreed with him.
		Do you think that was pretty consistent there?
		Because it seemed like you guys worship Kyle Rittenhouse as a hero, and that's debatable.
		And Mr. Pratt as someone being irresponsible, and it just seemed like, well, I would just say, and I'll close with this.
		Conservatives don't have a monopoly on the Second Amendment.
		So let's be clear that we just believe in responsible gun ownership.
		I don't believe Charles Manson should walk around with a gun.
unidentified		Wouldn't you agree with that?
		You can go on our website at gunowners.org, and you will find press releases and articles where we supported the right for the Black Panthers to be able to march, you know, peacefully march, but to do so while armed.
		And I agree with you.
		I mean, the Second Amendment is not about political party.
		It is a human, God-given right that he gives to everybody.
		And that's what we advocate for.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		James, Independent, Hamburg, New York, you're on the air with Eric Pratt.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, sir.
unidentified		Morning.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		I live in Western New York.
		And when you want to say, just own a pistol, say, have it in your house for protection, you still have to go through the fingerprinting, the background checks.
		You even have to submit so that the local police could go onto your social media to find out, you know, if you're a good person.
		I don't understand why we have a Second Amendment right, but nobody's going after judges that infringe on it.
		I even know the Democrats said something about illegal orders.
unidentified		You're not supposed to follow them.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		Well, when judges violate the Second Amendment, isn't there a legal recourse for that?
		And I understand Trump is supposed to be the best, but I've only seen more rules in New York for guns.
		So is anyone ever going to correct this injustice?
		I mean, we don't have slavery.
		We don't allow states to have partial slavery, and we'll figure it out in court later.
unidentified		These are the rules everyone's supposed to follow.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I'm lost here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Eric Pratt.
unidentified		Yeah, I think the answer is you have to vote in better representatives.
		You know, I frequently hear this in terms of congressmen.
		Why can't we prosecute congressmen for their anti-gun votes?
		And, you know, look, there's a speech and debate clause in the Constitution which protects people how they or officials for how they vote.
		And that's actually a good thing because otherwise you would have these wild swings where the party in power could always prosecute the people who are out of power for their contrary views.
		You know, the real answer is the people need to elect better representatives, and then that will have a domino effect because then those better representatives will end up, or governors will appoint better judges.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Dave is in Rock Creek, Ohio, a gun owner.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Dave.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hey, so I'm a Republican and a gun owner, but I think the main distinction in this case is he was not peacefully protesting.
		He was out engaging with law enforcement.
		And it looks like in an earlier video where they show him kicking the taillight out of the truck, it looked like he had a firearm on there, too.
		So, you know, you can peacefully protest and carry a weapon, but you can't engage with police officers and wrestle with them and stuff like that.
		Just because you have a gun with you makes it worse.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Jeffrey in Columbus, Mississippi, Democrat, you're on the air.
unidentified		Yes, sir.
		So you're saying that Alex Purdy, because in Minnesota, it gives you the right to have a concealed weapon, even though you're out of state.
		Why what gives NICE agent or federal agents the right to take their weapon away from them?
		And then after they take the weapon away from them, after he's down, literally down on his stomach, shoot him.
		You said he's there for harm, but the weapon was concealed.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Any comment there, Mr. Pratt?
unidentified		Well, you know, that's, you know, we're getting into the facts, and we're looking for a good, thorough, impartial investigation into that.
		I'll just say, in terms of the earlier comments that the caller made, you know, when we say that we're allowed or we're given the right, I wouldn't say that that comes from the state.
		Again, that is a human, God-given right.
		We have that right to be able to defend ourselves.
		And part of the problem is that governments have usurped that right and they're treating it as a privilege where they give it to some and not others, or they put hurdles that make it difficult for people to carry.
		So, anyway, I think it's just important to remember that those rights that we see in the Bill of Rights, they're trying to codify God-given rights.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Margaret, Republican, St. Augustine, Florida, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I woke up in the middle of this, so I don't know if you covered it.
		I've heard the arguments about the right to bear arms.
		And of course, when that was passed, the arms they were talking about were different than the arms we have today and that sort of blow up people.
		And that's what most people are upset about when the school shootings happen and how the children blow up.
		So I'm curious.
		And also the idea of the argument that it was about the militias owning the guns.
		What about if we kept the amendment, like you say, and let anybody have whatever they want, but they couldn't be the arms that were available in the year that amendment was passed, the kind of guns where you have to reload almost every time you shoot them?
		Well, if we were going to do that, then I suppose we should just go back to quill pens and parchment because that was the technology that they had during that day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But a pen and a parchment can't kill you.
		A gun can.
		So the idea that the founding fathers didn't even consider the power of assault rifles and that they weren't really thinking that common citizens would have access to that and everybody would have access to that.
		What do you say to that specific?
unidentified		Two things.
		First of all, they did have repeating firearms at that time already, number one.
		Number two, even the muskets, you know, if that's what you're saying you want to limit us to, guess what?
		Those were weapons of war.
		That was the modern technology.
		And so really, just as the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech in however the technology evolves, that should also apply to the Second Amendment.
		So that, I mean, if the Second Amendment is going to be a defense against tyranny, it's not really a good defense if the people have muskets and the government has fully automatic weapons.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Michael, Stanford, Connecticut, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		Hey, good morning, Mr. Pratt.
		Morning.
		I've never heard a gun guy talking out of both sides of his mouth like you.
		I mean, first you say that the risen house guy in Wisconsin would probably be dead if he didn't have his gun.
		Well, he probably wouldn't have gone there if he didn't have a gun.
		He was out there causing more than just mischief, and he didn't shot somebody.
		Now, you're a gun owner.
		You said that.
		Now, what if you were face down on the ground with all these guys on your back, and then they shot you in the back?
		You know, isn't it to protect yourself from tyranny?
		Now, what's going on in Minnesota doesn't look like tyranny to you?
		I mean, come on.
		These people are out there.
		They're protesting.
		And you tell me, oh, you should leave your gun at home.
		I bet you you have a gun on you right now.
		You don't leave the house without it, and it's always there.
		You got your car keys, you got your gun, you got whatever else you want to leave the house with.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Michael, in his defense, he did not say that you should leave your gun at home when you go to a protest.
unidentified		Michael must have come in later.
		I've been watching this whole thing.
		Well, then you've mischaracterized what I've said.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Eric.
unidentified		First of all, yeah, I am armed right now.
		You're absolutely right about that.
		And I have never ever said that anyone, any law-abiding person should not have the right to have a firearm on them.
		In fact, absolutely, they should when they are engaging in free speech, free and peaceful speech.
		Now, the difference, and here's the big difference.
		I've said, you know, the Rittenhouse case, that went through the jury system.
		So the way you've characterized it is a bit different than the way the jury understood it.
		So I'll just leave it there.
		As far as what's happened in Minnesota, we are calling for a full and vigorous and impartial investigation.
		And honestly, if there's any hypocrisy to this, and I alluded to this before, you know, it's the way that the anti-gun left, as I assume that the caller is here, typically favors banning firearms or restricting firearms.
		This is what we're dealing with again here in Virginia.
		You know, speaking of Virginia, when Virginia went blue several years ago, they banned the carrying of firearms at permitted rallies.
		Gun owners of America actually had to go to court to get that lifted.
		So it's actually ironic that now the left is championing people's right to carry there in Minnesota, where in states like Virginia and California and many other states, they're actually trying to ban that ability to actually go armed to a rally.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		One more call for you, Eric.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is Ruben in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Democrat.
unidentified		Yes, I agree with the guy.
		You are talking out both sides of your mouth.
		You keep saying the anti-gun left when it's the president that's also calling for you shouldn't have a gun if you're a peaceful protester.
		This guy was laying down on his stomach and he was shot in his back and he was carrying his gun.
		He was not brandishing his gun.
		Christy Noam lied and the president lied and they keep saying he was waving his gun around.
		Even Congressman Trey Gowdy said you can't distinguish the vote between he and Kyle Rittenhouse.
		Kyle Rittenhouse was a child.
		He shouldn't have had a gun inside Wisconsin.
		And crossed, plus he crossed state lines with a gun.
		I know here in Philadelphia in between Jersey, you cannot cross a state line with a gun.
		Now you keep saying the anti-gun leftist.
		What about the president calling now for not to carry a gun?
		There was a couple that they celebrated on stage that came out on a Black Lives Matter and pulled their guns out on them.
		Stop saying anti-gun left.
		You are showing discrepancy between them and the right.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And last comment, Eric, and also the point about Kyle Rittenhouse being 17 and owning an AR-15 style rifle.
unidentified		So perhaps the caller hasn't been listening the entire time, but I vigorously disagreed with what Republicans were saying, even in the administration, when they said people can't walk around with guns.
unidentified		We disagree with that.
Baldwin On The Right 00:05:38
unidentified		Absolutely.
		Totally full stop.
		At the same time, the anti-gun left is trying to disarm gun owners.
		Just look at what's happening right now in Virginia.
		This is very close to me because I live in the state of Virginia and they've introduced like 20 to 30, maybe 40 bills to restrict my rights.
		You don't see that happening in red states.
		So there is a difference in the degree and the vigorousness that the left goes after disarming people.
		And again, I'll just close with this.
		Go on our website at gunowners.org.
		We supported the Black Panthers in their right to peacefully protest while armed.
		You know, the Second Amendment should have no party.
		It's for everyone.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Eric, just to put a point on it, as far as the age of people, do you think that there should be an age limit on who has the right to own an assault rifle?
unidentified		Well, that varies by state.
		In New Hampshire, there's actually no minimum age to get a concealed carry permit.
		So, you know, that should be a state issue, and I think it has been.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, their website, gunowners.org.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thanks so much for joining us today.
unidentified		You're welcome.
unidentified		Thanks, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Coming up later on the Washington Journal, Omar Noora Dean from the government watched up dog group Common Cause discusses the Trump administration's push for voter data.
		And coming up after the break, though, it's open forum, so you can start calling.
		And now, here are the lines: Democrats 202-748-8000.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		We'll be right back.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		The latest book is titled The Fate of the Generals, MacArthur, Wainwright, and the Epic Battle for the Philippines.
		The publisher, Scribner, explains the premise of Horn's book.
		For the doomed stand American forces made in the Philippines at the start of World War II, two generals received the country's highest military award: the Medal of Honor.
		One was the charismatic Douglas MacArthur, whose orders forced him to leave his troops and go to Australia.
		The other was the gritty Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, who became a hero to the troops, whose fate he insisted on sharing.
unidentified		A new interview with author Jonathan Horne about his book, The Fate of the Generals: MacArthur, Wainwright, and the Epic Battle for the Philippines.
		Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb, is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
		Sunday on C-SPAN's Q&A.
		In his book, Baldwin: A Love Story, Nicholas Boggs discusses the personal life and activism of American writer James Baldwin.
		Mr. Boggs, who spent more than 20 years working on his book, also talks about Mr. Baldwin's many writings, his life outside the United States, and his involvement in the 1963 March on Washington.
		And Baldwin had, in fact, written a speech to be read there, and he had written it in France.
		He'd gone over to France for a march over there.
		These were black Americans in France who were doing a march along the scent in support of the March on Washington.
		And then Baldwin brought this speech with him.
		And the exact reasons and specifics of how this happened, we don't know, but somehow or other, he didn't end up reading it.
		But a very famous person, actor at the time, without saying that it was James Baldwin's words, read these words about black global liberation coming out of the mouth of, you guessed it or not, Burt Lancaster.
		Nicholas Boggs, with his book, Baldwin, a love story, Sunday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's QA.
		You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
		We 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.
rep jim guest ▲ ● ▼		It's an amazing show to get real opinions from real people.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		Appreciate you guys' non-biased coverage.
unidentified		I love politics and I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
		You and C-SPAN show the truth.
		Back to the universe for C-SPAN.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		To see one essential news network.
unidentified		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It's open forum, and we are taking your calls on any topic that you'd like to discuss, as long as it's related to politics and public policy.
Locking Mechanism Debate 00:02:45
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We'll start on the Republican line in Ohio.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Jeff, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		That was a very interesting segment with Mr. Pratt just now.
		And I have to admit, I'm not a gun owner.
		And I do have a question for anyone out there who knows about permit to carry licenses.
		But if you have a gun on your possession and you have a permit to carry, does that gun have to be in a locked position, you know, so it's safe to carry?
		Or can you carry it without the lock being on?
		And I was wondering about that because it appeared the gun went off accidentally, according to a video I saw after it was removed from the person who was shot in Minnesota.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You saw Mr. Preddy's gun go off?
		Where did you see that?
		Because I hadn't heard that.
unidentified		It was on a video.
		It looked like the agent had removed it.
		And when he put it towards the ground, it went off automatically, according to the report.
		And that's when it's reported that an agent opened fire, thinking possibly that the person had shot it.
		But I'm just curious about the locking mechanism on a permit.
		Does that have to be on?
		And if it wasn't on, does that make you believe there's some intent there to harm someone when you're carrying?
		That's all.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		And let's, I'd like to take a look and see if that is the case.
		It does, I mean, we do know that two, DHS says that two agents fired weapons.
		It says a video appears to show federal officer took gun away from Predi just before fatal shooting.
		So I'm not sure that that's accurate, Jeff, about his gun going off.
		Lonnie, Salisbury, North Carolina, Democrat, you're on the air.
unidentified		Yes.
		That's not true.
		When you got a Glock, I'm a gun owner, and I got several guns, and I'm African-American.
		I love that about that freedom of handguns.
		But no, when you have a Glock, you have to cock it first, and then ammo will go into the chamber, and then you're ready to fire.
		No semi-automatic will automatically discharge.
Mike Parker & Charles Bacon 00:04:16
unidentified		That's a lie.
		They tell people this, who's not a gun owner or never fired a gun.
		But that's not what I want to talk about.
		But that gentleman just said that was a lie.
		And they're going to try to spew this lie out to try to make it justifiable for shooting this man 10 times.
		And white people going along with it, too.
		But what I call about is Mike Parker and Charles Bacon.
		One was 10 at 92, and the other one was 11 and 94.
		If you look at those two names, you'll find out that Donald Trump paid $3 million to the family for some reason of Marlotte Station.
		These were boys.
		It wasn't just girls that Epstein was pimping.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So sorry, where'd you get this information about the payoff?
unidentified		Oh, you could find that and you could Google that.
		You could even ask AI.
		You asked AI about Michael Parker and Charles Bacon.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I know, but where are you getting news reports about it?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I understand about how Google works.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Right.
unidentified		Well, I just Googled it.
		You just could Google that name and put in Mar-a-Lago, and they named it going to come up as this was some civil case that didn't go to court.
		It was a civil case, both of them.
		It was around the same time Michael Jackson was going through his.
		Michael Jackson had to pay out $26 million for that claim of the little white boy saying that Michael molested him.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So if you can send us the actual news reports about that from a credible source, then I will certainly show that.
		Speaking of Epstein, though, there was another release of the Epstein files yesterday, and here is Todd Blanche.
		He's Deputy Attorney General answering a question about that yesterday.
todd blanche ▲ ● ▼		Can you assure the American public that President Trump, like every other prominent person whose name came up in relation to the Epstein files, that all documents, photos, and anything relevant to him connected to the case are being released?
		I mean, yes, I can assure that we complied with the statute, we complied with the act, and there is no, we did not protect President Trump, we didn't protect or not protect anybody.
		I mean, I think that there's a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents.
		And there's nothing I can do about that.
		But President Trump, of all the people in Washington, D.C. and around this country that have said for years the same consistent message about Jeffrey Epstein, it's President Trump.
		And so there's not been a change of course or anything.
		And certainly his direction to the American people and the Department of Justice, sorry, his direction to the Department of Justice was to be as transparent, release the files, be as transparent as we can.
		And that's exactly what we did.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Politico with this article.
		New documents reveal the breadth of Jeffrey Epstein's orbit.
		Friday's document release shows the late convicted sex offender's vast influence network.
		Here's what it says: that the Justice Department release of its investigative materials related to Epstein is packed with details about his ties to the most powerful figures in politics, tech, and global affairs.
		Documents shed new light on the depth of his relationships between the convicted sex offender and figures such as Steve Bannon, Elon Musk, and world leaders.
		In particular, the files contain extensive exchanges with Bannon as he mounted a political influence campaign across Europe and numerous overtures, the unrequited kind, to Musk.
		Gary in Connorsville, Indiana, Independent Line, you're on Open Forum.
unidentified		Thank you, ma'am.
		Got a few quick points here, but first, I'd like to pay a special tribute of respect to you.
		Ever since you become one of the moderators, you've been nothing short of outstanding.
Balancing Wages and Prices 00:06:34
unidentified		You're an absolute credit to this program and to the staff.
unidentified		And I'd like to take my hat off to you and a big thumbs up.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Gary.
unidentified		But what I wanted to say here, I'm concerned about the balance between wages and prices.
		I mean, I think there's a lot of people that do complain that the prices are too high, like in the grocery store and everything.
		And I think some of them people are probably victimized by the wages not being increased.
		And because in a perfect world in a reasonably good economy, you're going to have a good balance between wages and price and answer, you know.
		I mean, that's the only reasonable thing to think, right?
		Yep.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Well, go ahead.
		I'd also like to say I totally agree with some of the stuff that was being said on the previous segment.
		You know, this is one example why I became, I went from Democrat to independent because, I mean, I am a total advocate of, you know, defending yourself with firearms and only defending yourself.
		Last thing I want to say is, yeah, I am from Indiana.
		I'm a proud Hoosier, and we are the champions, people.
		Go coach Netty.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Walter Rehobus, Massachusetts, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're on the air.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		Yes, ma'am.
		I know this is an opinionated program that you have here, and this is a good program.
		I enjoy it very much.
		But I think that Alex Predty did not break the law.
		And if people want to give their opinions and be a judge, then they should be a judge.
		I think I was wrong that President Trump submitted his opinion because that man, Alex Predty, did not break the law.
		And there's a way and a procedure for people in the United States to change the law.
		And that's what I've got to say.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to William next.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat, Atlanta, you're on the air, William.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		Oh, hi.
unidentified		Thank you.
		I love your show.
		Thank you very much.
		I would like to address the fundamental misunderstanding of the Second Amendment.
		The Second Amendment was put in the Constitution because we disbanded the Continental Army on November 3rd, 1783.
		Most of the significant battles won in the southern colonies were done with guerrilla warfare.
		They did not want to divest the population of the ability to raise an army quickly again.
		Again, the Continental Army was disbanded on November 3rd, 1783.
		Now, a lot of your gun rights people are going to suggest that the weapon ownership is to prevent tyrannical governments from taking power again.
		That was not the reason to extend the Second Amendment.
		The extension of the Second Amendment was solely done so that the nation could continue to be armed without a standing army in case the state militias were called upon again to defend the country.
		Now, this fundamental misunderstanding is intentional on the part of the NRA.
		Thank you very much.
		Have a great day, and I love your show.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Don, New Orleans, Louisiana, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Don.
unidentified		Very good morning.
		On the eve of Black History Month and the 50th commemoration of Roots, the saga of an American family.
		And it reminds me of this movie I enjoy with Denzel Washington playing a young attorney, and he was defending a season attorney, Tom Hanks, in the movie Philadelphia.
		When Tom Hanks was on the witness stand, he said, I love the law.
		And so we have to look at the law, the Constitution, the national, the NBA, it celebrated 100 years last year.
		Not the National Basketball Association, which will be commemorating the first blacks to play in the NBA in 19 started in 1950, but the National Bar Association.
		And so in this country, we must love the law.
		Civil rights, equal rights, all of the contemporary issues that surrounds the law.
		Not get into these confrontations where someone is shot 10 times and justifications of that, those actions.
		The law, the legal apparatus that we hold our civil societies to the higher standards.
		And I say that to say that we have an issue of literacy, illiteracy, and learning disabilities in this country.
		Half of our country reads on a grade level, sixth grade grade level.
		And most newspapers, by chance, are written on an eighth-grade reading level.
		So, and the United States is in the middle of the pack when we talk about literacy.
		Literacy, and most incarcerated people are functionally illiterate.
		And so, and that costs the country over $2 trillion in economic prowess.
		So, we have a serious issue in this country when we talk about just the civil rights, the understanding of the Constitution, the ability to read and comprehend.
		We have a serious issue, so we should be focusing more on the issue of literacy and learning disabilities and the law and getting more people, women, men, women, men in New Orleans.
		We have the Lewis Martinette Society, a legal society that promotes civil rights since the 1890s.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Don.
		Appreciate that.
		I want to do a quick fact check that we were able to find that PolitiFact did a fact check on this allegation that there's a list that shows settlements Donald Trump made to 10 to 13 year old victims of child sex crimes.
		This is in PolitiFact, and they said that this is false.
		It says that there is no proof that Donald Trump made any settlements to 10 to 13-year-old-year-olds for child sex crimes.
Fact Check Fail 00:14:43
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		They were not able to find any evidence of these cases or settlements.
		Here is Norman, Torrington, Connecticut, Republican line.
		Good morning, Norman.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Hey, I would just let's see, Don Lemon saying that he's a journalist, so he didn't commit a crime by breaking into that church and disrupting their service.
		So, I'm just wondering if William Kelly, I'm wondering if William Kelly, who broke in with him and was doing the same thing, videotaped everything he did, posted it on social media, asked questions.
		He also disrupted the place too, but did the exact same thing.
		Can he claim that he's a journalist?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Norman, just to get everybody up to speed on that, this is the New York Times.
		It says, Don Lemon released without bond over Minnesota protest charge.
		It says nine people have been accused of violating federal law during the demonstration at a church this month, reviving a case that was rejected last week by a magistrate judge.
		This is at the New York Times if you'd like to read that.
		And Chuck Schumer was on the floor of the Senate yesterday.
		He was speaking about the arrest of Don Lemon.
		You'll remember Don Lemon was an anchor at CNN formally.
		Here he is.
chuck schumer ▲ ● ▼		Last night, federal agents arrested journalist Don Lemon in Los Angeles after he recently covered protest activities in Minnesota.
		Once again, the administration is behaving no differently, differently from police states and authoritarian regimes across history.
		They've arrested a journalist for the crime of doing his job.
		And let's be very clear: this arrest is not just about one journalist in one incident.
		The arrest is a dark message to journalists everywhere.
		If you dare criticize this administration, watch your back.
		That's not a democracy.
		That's a police state.
		And that is pure authoritarian bile.
		Democracy will suffer if the government chokes our civil liberties.
		Under this administration, the Department of Justice has all too often become the Department of Vengeance.
		Don Lemon should be released at once and the frivolous charges against him dropped.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go to Ben, Fort Covington, New York, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Ben.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you very much for C-SPAN.
		I'm calling mostly just to discuss the previous gentleman you had who was representing gun ownership.
		I'm a moderate Democrat, and yes, we do exist.
		And I own a gun, and I'm not for limiting that right at all.
		They love to quote the Second Amendment, but they leave out that first phrase about to guarantee a militia.
		It doesn't have anything about Joe Smith running around with a gun.
		But the other thing is they're always saying, well, it's absolutely fine for people to run around with open carry or hidden carry in Oklahoma or Texas.
		But this guy in Minnesota, where it is legal, they've all come down on him from Trump right down to the guy you just had on.
		They can't have it both ways, though.
		That's the way they try.
		Thank you very much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to Patrick next, a Republican in Alabama.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Patrick.
unidentified		Good morning, huh?
		I just wasn't going to call in today, but I heard that guy calling that poor man a liar about his gun going off.
		If he's a Democrat caller, if he'd watch more CNN, he'd find out something.
		There's a firearm attorney that's out doing a video.
		He's been on two or three different hosts.
		I watched the video myself.
		He's a specialist on guns.
		On that model, it's a SIG-made gun, and that model, and this guy even had a special trigger mechanism.
		It's $500 extra on his.
		But yes, the gun did go off.
		When the guy squeezed the barrel of it, the gun fired into the pavement.
		So hold on.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Say that again, Patrick.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So the officer squeezed the gun, the barrel, and it went off by itself?
unidentified		That firearm attorney said there's over 100 lawsuits against the SIG company over this model gun that has this special trigger mechanism.
		And they showed a video of it.
		And that's the law you did.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that's a fault in the gun, or that's a special feature that it goes off by itself?
unidentified		The paper you put it on there.
		Technically, what it can do is make it from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
		They're not even supposed to be.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So even fully automatic, Patrick, you have to pull the trigger.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So are you saying somebody pulled the trigger on Mr. Party's gun?
unidentified		I'm trying to tell you that on this model gun, the SIG model, I mean the MIG, the MIKA SIG, on this special model, there's over 100 lawsuits over this gun just going off.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Just going off by itself.
unidentified		Right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That is extremely dangerous, Patrick.
		And I certainly hope they get those guns off the street.
		Larry, St. Louis, Missouri, Independent Line, you're on the air.
unidentified		Morning, and thanks for having us here today.
		You know, one of the topics is a gun thing.
		And, you know, my thought says here, a gun, the only thing a gun is designed to do is to kill.
		That's what it's made for.
		And I hear people saying they got to carry a gun to defend themselves.
		Well, what are you defending yourself against?
		A gun?
		You know, it just doesn't make any sense.
		It's, you know, my thought says the Second Amendment, you know, it's about a musket gun that doesn't have nothing to do with today.
		It's time to amend the amendment.
		My thoughts also is, you know, the problem is with the guns.
		If they stopped selling guns today, it would take over 200 years in order to clear this problem up.
		None of us will be alive then.
		So maybe it's a time that maybe the amendment being amended or possibly a new amendment, make it illegal to buy the ammunition, make it where the government is in control of the ammunition, and you have to go underneath a psychiatric check to make sure that you're mentally able to do this.
		And when I see that is, what I mean is I was in a car accident about a year ago.
		A guy run a stop sign.
		I don't have a gun.
		I'm anti-gun.
		Guns is what's killing our kids in school.
		You know, you know, if you say, well, you've got to carry a gun to defend yourself.
		Well, does that mean that the kids in the school need to carry a gun?
		You know, that's a whole thing.
		The whole thing is so out of hand.
		You know, time to amend the amendment, this wreck thing.
		If I had had a gun, this guy stopped running a stop sign and run into the side of me.
		Hurt my wife, hurt me.
		And if I had had a gun, I would have been tempted to maybe shoot this guy.
		So that's what I'm saying.
		If you did a police check on me, I'm squeaky clean.
		I have nothing against me.
		You know, I'd never done anything.
		So, you know, one thing's just out of control.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sorry.
		Got that point, Larry.
		And thank you.
		Margarita is in New York, Democrat.
		Good morning, Margarita.
unidentified		Good morning.
		So happy to see you.
		I work all week, so this is a good time for me.
		I just have three little things that I just wanted to say.
		First of all, the protests yesterday, thousands and thousands and thousands of people in New York, all over, Democrats, Republicans, Independents.
		I always say when they're protesting, they don't wear a red hat.
		They don't wear a blue hat.
		I'm very tired of people saying the left, the left, the left.
		I come from a family.
		Half of us are Republicans and half of us are Democrats.
		And we can't even have a common conversation besides hanging up on each other.
		And just number two, with the Epstein files, I have daughters.
		I think it's totally disgraceful.
		We know that he's part of that.
		This is why they're covering it.
		If you see his video with the van when he was with one of the talk, I forgot TMZ, whatever.
		This is a cover-up of what is happening to the women of the world, actually.
		And that has to be brought out.
		He's in there.
		All his little friends are in there.
		And number three, real quick, also, like I said, with the Democrats, Republicans, and with the journalists yesterday, guess what they did to Jimmy Kimball, all of them?
		Freedom of speech.
		If you don't say the right thing to the Republicans, they don't like you.
		So I hope that everybody that was in those big rallies yesterday protests, that Democrats, Republican, we're from the same blood.
		When we die, we're going to the same place.
		Do you think God knows where the Republic's and Democrats?
		I don't want to get religious.
		But anyway, I just want to say the Epstein files must come out.
		Everybody's name, all those men who abuse these young girls.
		I work in a school district, and I see these women who are talking on all these programs.
		It's disgusting.
		Get those files up.
		If Donald Trump's name is on there, he has to pay.
		What would happen five years from now when we look back and say his name is there, whoever's name is there?
		And we say, why?
		We had a president who was a rapist or whatever.
		Thank you very much.
		Have a great evening.
		Have a great day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And according to the BBC, it's about 3 million pages.
		180,000 images and 2,000 videos were posted publicly on Friday.
		Those are from the Epstein files.
		And it's about a month after they were required to be released by law.
		Kevin Eldorado, Illinois, Republican.
		You're on Open Forum.
rep jim guest ▲ ● ▼		Hey, good morning.
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I'm here to talk about God, country, and about the church thing that happened there in Immineapolis.
rep jim guest ▲ ● ▼		These officers that didn't show up.
		Now, they take an oath to protect and serve.
		If they would have came to that church when it first happened, they probably could have solved a lot of problems before ICE got there.
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		Now, how can they not be police officers after they're sworn in to do that job?
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		So I feel like they should be arrested with the immigrants for letting it happen and not doing anything about it because it just makes no sense.
rep jim guest ▲ ● ▼		But as far as God goes in our country, the coins, the very first coins, say, in God we trust.
		Our nation was founded on God.
		I want to say a quick prayer if I could.
		The guy calls in once a month, says the prayer.
		Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
		Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
		Give us this day our daily bread.
		Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.
		Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
		For thy is the kingdom and the power and the glory.
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		And God bless the homeless, the hungry, all the people with the bad attitudes about this country.
rep jim guest ▲ ● ▼		If you don't like our country, get out.
rep jim guest ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Avery, Shelby, North Carolina, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, young lady.
		Good morning, Day Star, and the true ones scattered abroad throughout the earth.
		How are you?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good, Avery.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead with your comment.
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
		Well, quickly, in the blink of an eye, we're all gathered here for this day.
		With all things going on, as was foretold, this is an Antichrist world where at the beginning, the first sin, cons or kings, in the garden until now, hate and darkness, evil rulers reign.
		But this is the youngest nation kingdom, which was built upon false knowledge, false religions, false doctrines, false worshipers.
		They have changed the laws for selfish gain.
		And, you know, quickly, judgment comes from the jungle one and this nation and everything that it follows and believes in and the world that follows after them is going to be judged.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And got that, Avery.
		Let's talk to AJ in Kennesaw, Georgia.
		Democrat, you're on the air.
unidentified		Hey, good morning, Mimi.
		It's a pleasure talking to you.
		Real quick regarding the previous segment, I just have a quick question, you know, and what happened in Minneapolis.
		You know, if you're a law-abiding citizen and you're a gun owner and you have your gun on you legally, what are you supposed to do if you walk and you witness a bunch of men beating up or pushing down a woman that could be you, your mother, your daughter?
		I'm just curious.
		What are you supposed to do in that case?
		And then when people come and then you go and you help that person up and you're just helping them up and then people push you down and get on your back and shoot you.
		What are you supposed to do?
		So I don't understand what people are looking at.
		You know, I'm tired of this demonizing an ICU nurse.
		And one other quick question.
Police in Schools 00:08:14
unidentified		Do you remember, and maybe you can pull this up, the picture of President Trump and his previous administration taking a picture outside of the church in D.C. with the Bible upside down?
		You know, I always thought that, you know, in every corporate marketing media situation, you don't release things unless it's the way you want them to be.
		And if that's the case, that would explain a lot of what we see going on because from what I see, this person has broken all of the Ten Commandments.
		Everyone have a blessed weekend.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Independent Line in Terryville, Connecticut.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Paul, good morning.
unidentified		Well, good morning, Mimi.
		You probably remember me from a few other calls, but I'll tell you that the incident of the walkthrough by President Trump Tuesday night before his rally in Iowa, it was in Urbondale, the wagon shed restaurant, one of my used to be favorite places.
		But what the management did was they allowed him to walk through there without any questions or anything.
		But there was this one timid lunchgoer who had the audacity to ask him about walking back the domestic terrorist comments from his administrators.
		And he basically called the person a stupid person for asking it.
		And what was ironic was if you did the black and white video or pictures of that, it reminded me of the little nation, the girl standing beside a leader, an infamous leader in Germany in the 30s.
		I just lost respect for the Iowa people who were so heartless and cool that they would not even consider that their leader was part and parcel to an extrajudicial killing of Alex Predi.
		A lot there, but I want to, before you let me go, I want to say thank you for your professionalism.
		The two interviews that are standout, and everyone should go back and review them, the Speaker of the House and then the West Point pollster, retired pollster that you Franklin.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
unidentified		Yes, Franklin.
		Even though I disagree with their militant approach in their way in their handling of Facts and getting out the truth.
		I disagree with them more than any other two people on the face of the earth, but you masterfully held your own and you brought out the good and the bad points that they were making.
		So I want to thank you for that.
		And justice goes on.
		There is a subjectivity with law enforcement where there really needs to be strong reforms because nowadays it is the gun.
		It's the person.
		If the police officer says he had motive and intent, then that's the way it is.
		If President Trump says he had motive and intent to commit massacre, that's the way it is.
		So we need to clean that kind of thinking up.
		And it is a dumbing down of the electorate when one party and one leader go for the dumbest.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, Paul.
		And I just got to move on, but thank you for your comments.
		John in Henderson, Nevada, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Am I on the air?
		You are.
		Oh, great.
		You have a great show.
		You're my favorite.
		In Las Vegas, I want everybody to listen to this.
		In Las Vegas, we have no problem with school shootings.
		You know why?
		Because the middle schools are all patrolled by police officers.
		At high schools, not only are all high schools patrolled by police officers from the moment they start to the moment they end the day, but we have two police officers from the moment they start to the moment they end, two that not only walk the halls of the school, but ride their bicycles inside the school, John?
		What's that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		They ride their bicycles inside the school.
unidentified		Yes, the police officers patrol the insides of the schools every single high school.
		And they stop at first for the kids randomly.
		When the halls of kids are full, the police officers randomly will go up to a kid and say, I want to check your backpack.
		We have police officers on high schools.
		We don't have shootings in Las Vegas.
		Las Vegas is safe as heck, and that's because we increase security.
		What we need to bring back is we need to bring back Rudy Giuliani's Stop and Frisk.
		When they implemented that, crime and shootings went down 80%.
		Bring it back.
		That's my point.
		Security.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Lou is a Democrat in Richmond, Virginia.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Lou.
unidentified		How are you doing?
		Thank you, and God bless you.
		I want to make a question to the listeners: who's attempted to kill the president, Trump?
		Who tried to kill who killed Charlie Kirk?
		Who is the ones that are taking your social network away from you?
		Who's going against Social Security, your health care?
		Who is the one that killed Martin Luther King?
		What type of people were they?
		Who is the one that tried to kill JFK and RFK?
		Who's the one that started slavery and where they would kill babies and put them in the water for the crocodiles?
		It wasn't the blacks.
		It wasn't the immigrants.
		Who were they?
		Who is the one that's rising the food cost?
		Who is the one that raising interest rates where you can't buy a car or a home?
		It's not the blacks or it's not, and it's not the immigrants.
		Who are the ones doing that?
		The real, the obvious reason is the white Christian males are doing that, not the blacks, not the immigrants.
		Who is the one that drove the immigrants from the farms that now we have to bail out the farms because the farmers voted against their own better interest?
		Okay, that's our money.
		Who is the one sending money to Argentina?
		Who is the one that spending $40 billion a year going to Israel?
		It's not the blacks.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, we got that point, Lou.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Greg in Arizona, Independent Line, you're on the air.
unidentified		Good morning, first-time caller.
		So I have a comment about your guest, Mr. Pratt.
		He connected the Second Amendment with the Boston Tea Party.
		And just factually, there were no amendments under, there were no amendments in effect when the Boston Tea Party happened.
		They were not in effect until the Constitution was ratified, which was after 1787.
		And I just want to make a different point about the Minnesota shooting of Mr. Predty, and that is gun-carrying laws are under the control of the states and the municipalities.
		And that is a pretty weird case.
		And it might get to the Supreme Court with that right to carry versus him being shot.
		So it's not been clear to me whether he was licensed for open carry or concealed carry.
		I keep hearing different stories on that, but that's a very, very weird case.
		And I think it's going to go far in the legal system.
		And that's all I have to say.
C-SPAN's Unbiased Exchange 00:03:24
unidentified		And thank you for doing the great job that C-SPAN does.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Eddie in New York, Republican, you're the last one for open forum.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		Hi.
		To that guy in first call, blaming everything on white people.
		Who commits the most murders in this country?
		Black people.
		That's just a racist trope that he went off on.
		And Alex Peretti, he was a member of one of those freaks out there that go around attacking the cops.
		And CLM doesn't stand for Black Lives Matter.
		It stands for Black.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Our last call for open forum.
		And coming up next on Washington Journal, we'll have Omar Nuraldine from the government watchdog group Common Cause.
		He will discuss the Trump administration's push for voter data in Minnesota and other states and the recent FBI raid in Georgia for 2020 ballots.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		Past president, why are you doing this?
		This is outrageous.
		This is a kangaroo quarrel.
		Fridays, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity.
		Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
		Politico Playbook chief correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns is host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue.
		Ceasefire, on the network that doesn't take sides.
		Fridays at 7 and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold, original series.
		Sunday, with our guest Pulitzer Prize winner and best-selling author John Meacham, who has written numerous books chronicling American history.
		His books include And There Was Light, Thomas Jefferson, and the prize-winning American Lion, Andrew Jackson, in the White House.
		He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubenstein.
		Watch America's Book Club with John Meacham, Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN is as unbiased as you can get.
		You are so fair.
		I don't know how anybody can say otherwise.
		You guys do the most important work for everyone in this country.
		I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
		You bring these divergent viewpoints and you present both sides of an issue and you allow people to make up their own minds.
		I absolutely love C-SPAN.
		I'd love to hear both sides.
		I've watch C-SPAN every morning and it is unbiased and you bring in factual information for the callers to understand where they are in their comments.
		It's probably the only place that we can hear honest opinion of Americans across the country.
		You guys at C-SPAN are doing such a wonderful job of allowing free exchange of ideas without a lot of interruptions.
		Thank you, C-SPAN, for being a light in the dark.
Election Security Concerns 00:14:52
unidentified		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Joining us now to talk about the Trump administration's push for voter data is Omar Noradine.
		He is senior VP for policy and litigation strategy at Common Cause.
		Omar, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thank you, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Just remind us of your organization and its mission.
unidentified		Yes, Common Cause is a nonpartisan grassroots organization that holds power accountable and serves as the people's lobby here in Washington, D.C. and in state houses around the country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So when we talk about voter roles, voter data, what are we actually talking about?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What kind of information is in those, is in that data?
unidentified		Sure.
		So, you know, when you register to vote, you turn over a bunch of data to the state, including, you know, your full legal name, your address, sometimes driver's license numbers, and your social security number.
		Some states require party identification, you know, when you register to vote, so it could be which party you're affiliated with.
		And the state keeps track of who votes.
		So when you show up to a polling location and are given a ballot, that is recorded.
		And so all of that information is in an individual's voter file.
		And the government, the state governments, keep records of that over time.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But not who you voted for, just that you actually did vote.
unidentified		Correct.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So why does the Justice Department want that kind of data?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What could they do with it?
unidentified		So there's the stated reasons that they've said that they've wanted it, and I think some of the real reasons that they have said out loud in certain contexts, but not in the litigation.
		And so what the Justice Department has said is that they're looking at election integrity.
		They want to make sure that these voter roles are up to date and that there aren't folks on them who shouldn't be on them.
		The problem with that is that it is up to the states, not the federal government, to keep and maintain voter roles.
		And so what we believe the Justice Department wants to do is related to what we've seen since the beginning of this administration, which is conduct mass surveillance on folks.
		This is related to what Doge did during the first several months of the administration where they were trying to access Medicaid data, social security data.
		Actually, the Justice Department had to disclose in a recent case around social security data that some of the Dogebroses, I like to call them, had been shopping around agreements with advocacy groups to quote unquote overturn elections using social security data.
		And so this administration does not have the trust of the American people to keep their data safe and to use it for its intended purposes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, before we get to the situation in Georgia, I want to mention the situation in Minnesota.
		Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, had, this is a Washington Post.
		Bondi presses Minnesota for voter data as administration escalates pressure on blue states.
		She had linked de-escalation in Minnesota to the handing over of voter data from that state.
		Can you explain what they were trying to get and how many states have already handed over that data?
unidentified		Sure, I'll back up just a bit.
		So apparently the Justice Department has said that they've asked every state for their voter roles.
		Organizations that have been tracking this have been able to verify 44 letters from the Justice Department, the Civil Rights Division where I served in the last administration as a political appointee, to hand over those voter roles.
		Similar tracking has said that maybe up to about 10 states, eight to 10 states, have turned over that voter information, including states like Texas and Indiana.
		And several states have refused to turn over that information.
		And subsequently, the Justice Department has sued those states.
		And Common Cause has intervened on behalf of voters to protect that data and to stop the Justice Department from getting it, including in Minnesota.
		We are in litigation in Minnesota to protect voters' data there.
		And the letter from Pam Bondi to the governor right after Alex Predi was killed, I think is a callous action by the Attorney General rather than talk about the ways in which they can keep people safe in Minnesota.
		She basically was coercing him and the state to say, if you do these three things, we will take the gun, metaphorical and literal guns out of your city.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to talk about what happened in Georgia this week.
		There was an FBI raid.
		There was a search warrant at the Georgia Elections Office.
		And President Trump has said this.
		This is politico.
		Trump says individuals will soon be prosecuted for 2020 election.
		It says Trump has repeatedly and falsely claimed that former President Joe Biden did not actually win the 2020 presidential election.
		Can you just update us on what happened in Georgia and what information was actually seized?
unidentified		So in Georgia, the FBI and other law enforcement federal law enforcement took ballot boxes, essentially, from the Fulton County Elections Office, which keeps the ballots from previous elections for auditing purposes, other types of election security purposes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How long are they supposed to keep that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Because that's been five years.
unidentified		It's been five years.
		I don't know the exact number of years that they keep this sort of data, but these are like physical, you know, physical things that were taken.
		It's not just like electronic data.
		Like these are actual ballots, actual containers that contain this sort of information.
		And if you've seen the videos, you can see the warehouse is fairly large.
		And Trump, I think, the president is still obsessed with 2020, but I believe, and I think the evidence would suggest that the rest of the folks around him are using this as a trial run.
		So while Trump may be still kind of stuck in 2020 land, the folks around him are planning for 2026 and 2028.
		And I believe that this was an ability to see like, what can we get away with?
		What would a judge sign?
		What kind of sworn affidavits do we need to produce in order for a judge to sign a warrant to be able to access this sort of thing?
		What will public pressure think?
		What will the public think about this?
		Will there be public pressure?
		Will there be not?
		What litigation will come out of this?
		Can we figure out ways to get around the litigation to prevent this sort of access of ballots from previous elections?
		All as a way to figure out what they want to do in 2026 and 2028, because I believe that the Trump administration is afraid of a free and fair election in 2026.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		There's also the issue of the security of those ballots.
		So how secure are they in this facility in Georgia?
		And how secure are they now that they're in the FBI's hands?
		Can they be tampered with in any way, either from Georgia officials or from federal officials?
unidentified		State elections are run throughout the year, every year.
		Sometimes that's federal elections, sometimes it's local municipal elections.
		And they're pretty good at keeping their ballots and related information safe.
		There hasn't been any evidence that state elections officials are tampering with ballots.
		And so all of this is part of the Trump administration's lie that they've been peddling since 2020.
		And now that this information is in the FBI, which is led by Kash Patel, who has shown also not to be a credible or trusted voice on law enforcement issues, Tulsi Gabbard, similarly, not a trusted or credible source on these issues, that there is real concern that they'll use the information they have, potentially manipulate it, potentially lie about what they have found.
		And we've seen from the Fed chair to state's attorneys general to Don Lemon that the Trump administration will prosecute people out of political vengeance.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Speaking of Tulsi Gabbard, that's the director of national intelligence.
		She was actually there on site at the Fulton County election office raid.
		This is Virginia Democrat Mark Warner.
		He is the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
		He said this about that, and then we'll talk about it.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		We all know the Trump administration's strategy is throw as much shit on the wall and see what sticks.
		While the nation was still grieving ISIS rogues' actions in Minneapolis, yesterday, the Trump administration, in a move that should scare the hell out of all of us, went to seize election materials from the 2020 election that Donald Trump lost in Fulton County, Georgia.
		What does this mean for the fall?
		And what should particularly concern us is, guess who showed up at this FBI raid?
		Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
		Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with election security.
		Tulsi Gabbard has even been in charge of dismantling what was called the Foreign Malign Influence Center to try to make sure foreign countries don't interfere in our elections.
		This complete Trump loyalist somehow popping up on an FBI raid, what the heck was she doing?
		We ought to stand up and step up against ICE.
		We also got to stand up and step up to protect our elections coming this year.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think?
unidentified		The senator makes a lot of good points.
		The election security doesn't fall under Tulsi Gabbard's purview.
		And it's rich really coming from the Trump administration to talk about election security when they dismantled an agency called CISA.
		And I've been in D.C. too long when I can't remember the names.
		I just think.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency.
unidentified		There you go.
		Thank you.
		They've dismantled CISA and the critical funds that it doles out to election officials across the country to be able to keep our elections safe and secure from cyber attacks and from foreign influence.
		And so Tulsi Gabbard is engaging in mission creep, but we all know that the folks around the president himself are eager to please him.
		And this sounds like an internal PR stunt for Tulsi Gabbard.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you'd like to join our conversation with Omar Nuran, Dean of Common Cause, you can start calling in now.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Well, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch was asked about DNI's Tulsi Gabbard's presence at that raid, and this is what he said.
unidentified		Can you explain Tulsi Gabbard's role in DOJ activities?
unidentified		Could you please explain Tulsi Gabbard's role in DOJ activity regarding the Fulton County search?
todd blanche ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean her role?
		It was reported that she happened to be present in Atlanta.
		I mean, yes, I saw the same photos you did.
		I mean, she's not, she doesn't work for the Department of Justice or the FBI.
		She's an extraordinarily important part of this administration.
		This administration coordinates everything we do as a group.
		And so I think her presence shouldn't be, there shouldn't be questioned.
		Of course, that's a big part of her job.
		And so the fact that she was present in Atlanta that day is something that shouldn't surprise anybody.
unidentified		Chairman Maximum, we're over 10 we'll have to go.
todd blanche ▲ ● ▼		All right, just two more.
todd blanche ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Just following up on that.
unidentified		So are you saying that Gabbard's appearance in that area had nothing to do with the Justice Department action?
todd blanche ▲ ● ▼		I most certainly did not say that.
		No, I did not say that.
		I said that exactly the opposite.
		I said this administration works closely together in all kinds of different areas.
		And so I'm not sure if there's surprise that the administration is working together on things like election integrity.
		But if there is surprise, let me unequivocally state, we are working together as an administration on election integrity type issues.
		And so that's all I can say about that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you make of the Justice Department and the intelligence community working together on election integrity?
unidentified		Well, the Deputy Attorney General's statements kind of tracked what I said that it sounds like she just happened to be there and wanted a publicity stunt.
		You know, in general, it makes sense for the government to work together, right?
		We've seen that government is better when resources are kind of pooled in a way that is efficient.
		But sometimes if the leaders at the top are ones that we shouldn't be able to trust or we can't trust, it's really concerning when various parts of the government that don't usually work together on a specific issue here voting are working together because we know that they are potentially trying to do things to undermine our elections.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to callers and we'll start with Kurt in New Jersey, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hello, good morning.
		Thank you for C-SPAN.
		Like everybody else, Mimi, you might be the best.
		You know, I was searching.
		There's so many topics.
		You know, I'd like to stay on topic if I can.
		But I looked up sanctuary cities, you know.
		I asked a couple AI a question, is it legal or sanctuary cities legal?
		And the word generally came up twice.
		So generally, we follow the law.
		So I'm guessing you trusted everything Joe Biden did and the Democrats do.
		You know, we pick sides.
		But let's be honest, I'm not a Democrat or Republican because I don't want to be labeled or the Republicans may be audited more.
		I think that was proven under Obama.
		Do you I have a couple questions for you.
		A Dominion never divulged their secrets of the Frank of the Mike Lindell site Frank speech had quite compelling evidence against the fair election.
		And then I have a question for you.
Concerns About Data Collection 00:15:27
unidentified		Do you trust the China election process or the Russian election process?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You mean in Russia and in China?
		Their elections in their countries?
		Is that what you're asking?
unidentified		If I were to listen to your guest, he's going to tell me that our elections are totally up and up.
		You know, it's like Roberts, the Supreme Court justice.
		He was the Chief Justice, and there was a case right before January 6th that Pennsylvania had more votes than actual registered voters.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's take that up, Kurt.
		You got a couple of things there for us.
		All right.
unidentified		So I think we'll start with the sanctuary cities.
		I think the issue here is that our immigration system has failed.
		And what we're seeing coming out of the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, and even the need for cities to pass sanctuary city laws is all part of a complete failure by Congress to pass meaningful immigration reform that keeps our country safe and ensures that people that are here and are vital contributors to our country, immigrants, that those folks have an ability to be here lawfully.
		And so you can't separate these pieces.
		On the piece about China and Russia, I don't think China and Russia have free and fair elections.
		And I believe that the last elections we had, the 2016 elections, Trump won the 2016 election.
		Joe Biden won the 2020 election and Trump won the 2024 election.
		I'm very comfortable to say that.
		What I fear is that Trump now and the folks around him are trying to undermine the 2026 and potentially 2028 election.
		And what I'm doing, what Common Cause is doing, what others are doing, are trying to make sure that that doesn't happen.
		Because we want free and fair elections in this country.
		We don't want to be China.
		We don't want to be Russia.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, he did mention Pennsylvania in 2020, the allegation that there were more votes cast than there are people or registered voters in Pennsylvania?
unidentified		I'm not sure exactly which case he's referring to.
		There were cases coming out of 2024 around voter rolls, and states were taking folks out of the voter rolls within 90 days of an election, which there are certain laws, including the National Voter Registration Act, that prevents what colloquially are called voter purges so close to an election in case of mistakes.
		And the Supreme Court said in a case coming out of Virginia that they weren't going to mess with it because it was too close to the election.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Tony Lansing, Illinois.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat, good morning, Tony.
unidentified		Good morning.
		My question is, how concerned are you?
		You've kind of addressed it, but it's such an important issue.
		It's vital and core to our democracy.
		How concerned are you that what happened in Georgia could happen on Election Day?
		And secondly, how confident can we be in our election system when both sides aren't involved in this process that they're going through?
		Thanks, Tony.
		I am concerned that what happened in Georgia will happen on Election Day or after Election Day in key districts in key states.
		As I mentioned earlier, that I think that this was kind of a test run to see what they can get away with, what kind of public pressure might they have to deal with if this happens again?
		And so this is really concerning.
		I'm not quite sure what you meant by both sides engaging in this sort of thing.
		I'm not aware of during the last presidential administration them seizing ballot boxes, but it's really concerning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		On the Republican line in Virginia Beach, Virginia, David, you're on the air.
unidentified		Yeah, hello.
		I'm a certified public accountant.
		I've been auditing for over 35 years.
		The first thing they teach you at auditing school is that you cannot rely on the results unless the internal controls are working.
		So my question to you, and I have a lot of questions for you, so I hope you won't cut me off because I have quite a bit to throw at you.
		I'm anxious to hear your response.
		So is it fair to say internal controls over the registration of voters, maintenance of voter rolls, casting and counting of ballots, especially with all these mail-in ballots, were insufficient for the American people and Donald J. Trump to rely on the published results of the election?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's take that up, David.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, internal controls.
unidentified		Various states have different types of requirements in order to register to vote and what they need to bring to a polling place when they do cast a ballot.
		And there has been no evidence, no credible evidence by several state audits, external research, that the United States has a widespread issue of voter fraud.
		At the same time, there are cases where folks are voting in very limited cases.
		I think some of the research shows like less than 0.1%.
		And those people are prosecuted.
		They are prosecuted and have been prosecuted by both Democrats and Republicans, by the federal government, and by state and local government.
		The system is working the way that it should work.
		And there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud or that the internal controls that we currently have are insufficient.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What can we expect from coming after this FBI raid?
		I understand they took like 700 boxes.
		Are they going to recount the ballots?
		What are they looking for?
unidentified		I think they're looking for a story that they can tell that feeds what the president has been saying since 2020, that he should have won that election and that there is some sort of malfeasance that took place that prevented him from winning that election.
		As we know, he had called during the 2020 election time, the Secretary of State in Georgia, on a phone call that many of us have heard or read a transcript of.
		He said, I need X number of more votes.
		And so I believe that he's looking for those votes.
		And if they don't show up, which they won't, that they'll make up some story to please the president.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Jerry is on the independent line, Somerset, Kentucky.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jerry.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I got three quick questions I'll make as quick as I can.
		Is it true that the reason that so many voters, black voters, use voter boxes is because the lines are so long, sometimes from three to five hours.
		Number two, is it true that when they pull the voters, when they checked the voter votes last time, after the last election, they only found one bad vote out of 179,000 votes?
		And that was the only person that was convicted.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what's the third one?
unidentified		The third one is, is it true that there's only one voter box in some of the black areas for every 100,000 populace?
		100,000 voters, as opposed to as low as 16 in a lot of the white districts.
		Thank you for my time.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Jerry.
unidentified		Thank you, Jerry.
		Those were great questions.
		I'll take one and three together.
		There are problems with the way in which we run elections in certain states.
		For example, in Georgia, it is a common problem for really long lines.
		And the state has engaged in lawmaking that makes it even harder to vote.
		So some folks may be familiar with the cases around line relief, which is basically folks bringing water, bringing pizza to folks waiting in hours long line to be able to vote.
		And we have seen, and there's been litigation around this, around those sorts of long lines in communities of color, in black communities, in Latino communities.
		And so this is a real problem.
		And we should be trying to make it easier for people to vote.
		We should have a day off so that people aren't juggling work and other things to be able to vote.
		Voting is essential for fair representation in our country.
		And on your question about the number of, I think you said bad votes, I think that goes back to what I said earlier, that there isn't a problem of widespread voter fraud or any sort of malfeasance in our elections.
		And when there are folks who voted who shouldn't have voted, those folks are prosecuted.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Shelly is up next.
		Democrat, Springfield, Virginia.
		Hi, Shelly.
unidentified		Hi, can you hear me?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we can.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Oh, hi.
		Omar, correct?
		Yes.
		Yes.
		I worked for decades in the federal government in the field of, I was a mathematical statistician who worked in the field of statistical disclosure limitations.
		And, you know, my wheelhouse, my world revolved around things like the Privacy Act of 1974, SHIPSI, a whole bunch of other regulations and laws that applied to the protection of data.
		And one thing about the U.S. federal system that people might not understand, federal data system, is that all the data is fairly disaggregated.
		It's not in one big monster database so that we can track you, right?
		And there's a reason for that.
		And what I've been scared is hearing, you mentioned this in your introduction, is hearing about this idea of grabbing a lot of data and combining it together so that you have a lot of data on everybody in the country.
		And the voter rolls are just extreme PII being exposed.
		And when the DOE guys got into Social Security, as you mentioned, there's now reports of them violating a lot of those laws, right?
		Privacy Act, for instance.
		So what do you think about this whole situation?
		And was it explicit say in Project 2025 that they were going to try to do something like this, right?
		I just, it scares me quite a bit as somebody who worked in this field for decades, right?
		That this is happening.
		And I don't know how to sort of process what I think is like an underreported scary thing that we all could be affected by at some point, including as it pertains to elections.
		So that's kind of my question.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Shelly.
unidentified		Thanks, Shelly.
		You make really great points.
		The federal government has data privacy laws, the Privacy Act being one of them.
		Many states have state privacy laws that are essential to keeping folks' private information safe.
		And what DOJ is doing here is trying to create a massive aggregate voter database and then pull in other information from other parts of the federal government.
		So what you described as a disaggregated system, they're trying to aggregate all that across things like the DHS SAVE database, the social security information.
		I think in Bondi's letter to Governor Walls, she also asked for SNAP data.
		So this is, you know, this food nutrition program.
		They're trying to amass a system where they can identify folks, voters, to a level of precision that could allow for intimidation around folks, depending on, let's say, where they are, how they registered to vote, which elections did they vote in.
		You could imagine ICE agents showing up in certain communities where there is more Democrats than Republicans, and that they go house to house based on information they have from the voter roles that they are trying to.
		So this is really important.
		And I hear you about this not being reported in a way.
		I think Mimi's here having us talk about this.
		And I'll go on any show and talk about this.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Heartland, Wisconsin next.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Republican Mike, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		So there was rumblings leading up to the certification of 2020 that I believe it was Arizona was not going to certify their results.
		Therefore, it would have halted the whole process.
		And then how convenient that there's a huge insurrection, as the left would like to call it.
		But now we know that there were 200 FBI plainclothes agents.
		But Christopher Ray said that he had no idea.
		And pull up the 2024 voting map and how everything laid out.
		The states that Kamala won have zero voter ID requirements.
		So that is something that I think should at least be talked about.
		It's interesting, if nothing else, that the states that don't require you to prove who you are went blue.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think, Omar?
unidentified		I think there's making some causal inferences here instead of correlation.
		And I'll say that in 2020, we had congressional investigations.
		We had independent counsels that looked at the 2020 election.
		And there was no evidence that there was any malfeasance or anything that went wrong on a way that would have changed the outcome of the 2020 elections.
		The United States Supreme Court, which has been very favorable to the president with three of his appointed justices on the Supreme Court, did not take up issues around the 2020 election.
		Every federal court that looked at this issue, including ones with judges appointed by President Trump himself, did not find any evidence that merited the cases going forward.
		So 2020 is closed.
		Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
		And to your point about which states voted for Kamala, which states voted for Trump in 2024, Trump won 2024.
		There were states that voted for Joe Biden in 2020 that then turned to Trump in 2024, including Michigan.
		And so this, I think you're raising issues around the election results in 2024 that are irrelevant and wouldn't change the outcome of that election.
Concerns Over Warrantless Arrests 00:05:12
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about voter ID laws and how strict they should be?
unidentified		I think we need to make it easier for people to vote.
		That is something that is essential to get participation, to get young people.
		Voter ID laws have been shown in litigation and in research and just everyday common sense to disproportionately impact young people, to impact naturalized citizens, to impact low-income folks, to impact rural folks, white, black, Latino, Asian, regardless of your race or ethnicity.
		And in my view, we want more people to be able to participate in our system.
		And as I mentioned earlier, we have internal controls to make sure that folks who shouldn't be voting in our elections aren't voting in our elections.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		On the independent line, Brad is in Washington, D.C. Good morning, Brad.
unidentified		Good morning from the nation's capital.
		Yeah, Omar.
		Well, actually, C-SPAN, I'm very disappointed in C-SPAN this morning.
		You have a conspiracy theorist on to the left.
		I mean, are you going to bring on Alex Jones to sort of, you know, talk about right points to come back with this guy?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Brad, why do you think why do you think Omar is a excuse me, excuse me, excuse me?
		Why do you think Omar is a conspiracy theorist?
		Go ahead and lay out your thoughts on that.
unidentified		Sure, sure.
		Well, because he's talking about all this information that you need to give when you register to vote, Social Security number, driver's license number.
		They're all government numbers.
		The government already has them.
		And he's talking like, hey, if you have to give the government this information, they're going to have this information.
		And then he says ICE is going to come door to door for people?
		I mean, that's right out of Alex Jones' book.
		I mean, this guy is so far left that C-SPAN should put on a little caveat saying this is merely this guy's opinion and not to be taken as factor.
		Because people are listening to this show and they're saying, hey, I heard this on C-SPAN, which is a legitimate station.
		They're going to believe this guy.
		And responding his opinion.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So let's, we definitely have lots of guests that give their own opinions, Brad.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That is not new, but let's have a response.
unidentified		Brad, I said at the top of this program that I believe the election results in 2016, 2020, and 2024 were all free and fair.
		And what I'm talking about is wanting to make sure that we continue to have free and fair elections.
		Just this morning, there's reporting around ICE not needing warrants to go into people's homes, not needing judicial warrants to go into people's homes, and to be able to arrest people without warrants, without even administrative warrants.
		And so what I'm talking about isn't conjecture.
		These are memos that are signed by the acting director of ICE, Director Lyons.
		And that isn't conjecture or theory.
		It's fact.
		The director of ICE has said that you do not need a warrant to arrest people and that you don't need a judicial warrant signed by a neutral judge to be able to go into people's homes.
		They are currently doing this.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Omar, we'll just show that on the screen real quick.
		Here is the headline that you're referring to.
		It says, ICE expands power of agents to arrest people without warrants.
		It says an internal memo changed the standard from whether people are unlikely to show up for hearings to whether they could leave the scene.
		Okay, go ahead.
unidentified		And then related to the information, you're correct.
		Social Security, your number, your driver's license number are government information.
		But as our previous caller, I believe Shelley talked about, who worked in the federal government for many years, that all that information isn't centralized within the federal government.
		This is information that state governments have.
		And the fact that DOJ has gone state by state asking for this information is evidence that DOJ currently does not have this information.
		And there are laws, both state laws and federal laws, that protect this sort of information from being shared within the federal government.
		That is also fact.
		That is not theory.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Mark next in New York.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I'd like to ask a question about the post office, about post-dating, because this is something new that came out for mail in election.
		And I think that's it.
		I forgot the other one.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, we'll take that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Quickly.
unidentified		Yes.
		Folks should try to vote as early as possible.
		Mail in voting has been shown to be safe and secure.
		And the earlier you vote, the more likely it will get to where it needs to get in order to be counted.
		We want our elections and our election results to be tallied quickly so that we can have greater confidence in our elections.
		And so what the post office is doing shouldn't stop people from voting by mail as soon as they get their ballot.
Coming Sunday Political Chat 00:00:56
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's Omar Nooradine, Senior VP for Policy and Litigation Strategy at Common Cause.
		They're on commoncause.
		Thanks so much for joining us.
unidentified		Thank you, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that does it for us today on Washington Journal.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We'll see you again tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Eastern, as usual here on C-SPAN.
unidentified		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington and across the country.
		Coming up Sunday morning, James Antel with the Washington Examiner discusses campaign 2026 and political news of the week.
		Then the nation's Sasha Abromsky talks about President Trump's use of executive power and his book American Carnage: How Trump, Musk, and Doge Butchered the U.S. Government.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Sunday morning on C-SPAN.

Chapters

00:00:00 Gun Free Zones Debate
00:11:18 Dom's Trouble With Guns
00:27:04 Gun Ownership Discrepancies
00:41:44 Baldwin On The Right
00:47:23 Locking Mechanism Debate
00:50:08 Mike Parker & Charles Bacon
00:54:25 Balancing Wages and Prices
01:00:59 Fact Check Fail
01:15:43 Police in Schools
01:23:57 C-SPAN's Unbiased Exchange
01:27:22 Election Security Concerns
01:42:15 Concerns About Data Collection
01:57:42 Concerns Over Warrantless Arrests
02:02:54 Coming Sunday Political Chat