immunity claim against federal prosecution. the president of judicial watch discusses the president's legal issues, election related lawsuits, and their impact on the election. daniel weiner talks about campaign fundraising so far and the broader role of money in american politics. washington journal starts now. host: good morning. it is friday, april 26. oral arguments in former president trump's immunity case lasted a little over two hours. the supreme court is weighing whether former presidents can be criminally prosecuted for actions taken in office. should former president trump be immune from criminal prosecution? the phone lines are split up this way. if you say yes, he should be

immune, colas on (202) 748-800 . -- call us on (202) 748-8000. if you are against, (202) 748-8001. if you're not sure or think he should have partial immunity, it is (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. include your first name and city and state. we are on social media, face book.com and x. welcome. we will show you some of those portions from yesterday's oral arguments. here's an article from axios with the headline trump could get partial victory after supreme court hears immunity case. it says he seems likely to win at least partial victory from the supreme court if his effort to avoid prosecution -- in his effort to avoid prosecution.

a clear rejection of his theory of immunity would allow the january 6 trial to resume but it seemed to be the least likely outcome. a majority of justices seemed inclined to rule that presidents must have at least some protection from criminal charges but not necessarily the absolute immunity trump is seeking. the most likely outcome might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts. that would still be a victory for trump, who has sought to delay trial until after inauguration day in 2025. his lawyer, john sawyer, told the justices a former president could not face criminal charges even if he had a political rival assassinated unless he had been impeached and convicted by the senate. list take a look at john sawyer delivering a portion of his opening remarks yesterday.

[video clip] >> without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency. for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for official acts. the framers of our constitution viewed an energetic executive as essential to securing liberty. if a president can be charged, put on trial and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president's decision-making when bold and fearless action is most needed. every current president will face blackmail and extortion by political rivals while in office. the implication of the court's decision here extend beyond the facts of this case.

could president george w. bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to congress to induce war in iraq? could president biden be charged with murder -- president obama be charged with murder for killing u.s. citizens abroad? could president biden be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policy? the answer to all these questions is no. prosecuting the president for official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure. host: and now here is a portion of the opening argument delivered by the council in the u.s. government's case against president trump case. [video clip] >> this court has never

recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. the petitioner claims a former president has permanent criminal immunity for official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. his novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability, bribery, treason, sedition and murder and conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. that has no foundation in the constitution. the framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong and devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of power for private gain. the executive branch is enforcing congressional statutes and seeking accountability for petitioners alleged misuse of

official power to subvert democracy. that is a compelling public interest. in response, the petitioner raises concerns of potential abuses. established legal safeguards provide layers of protection, with the courts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understanding of every president from the framing through watergate and up to today. this court should preserve it. host: we are taking your calls on the question of former president trump's presidential immunity. beverly is first in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. president trump needs immunity and the right to have no one

take his in -- his election interference away from him. he did a good job in the four years. we are all in fear of a war with president biden in place. the reason president trump did question the election for president biden is because when we went to bed the night before we were supposed to get the totals. president biden was not in the lead in georgia. it was president trump. then we saw that video of people saying the volunteers went home early. host: i just want to make sure i understand. you think all presidents should have immunity from criminal prosecution or just president trump? caller: i do because the way they are handling and now that

handling it now -- they are handling it now, the next one we bring up will be president biden. host: do you think president biden should also have immunity from criminal prosecution? caller: well, yes, because if they bring these charges and hold against president trump for all the good work he did for the united states of america, president biden is the worst president we have had. they certainly could bring up a lot of charges on him once he's out of office. do we want to go down this line? host: let's go to robin, cleveland, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. there goes the problem there. nothing she said was true. if anything this shows the two-tier justice system of the

rich and the poor because the people he told to go to the capitol will go to jail so why should he not? that's the two-tier justice system here newsmax and fox news lying about. donald trump lied about the election. he knew he lost and he tried to steal it. fox news tried to sell -- tried to help him and newsmax. he deserves to go to jail, why wouldn't he? if it was barack obama, he would already be in jail. quit acting like we do not see what is going on. quit acting like donald trump did not expose how many weird white people are walking around here. host: bonnie in massachusetts is next. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i think former president donald trump should be immune to prosecution because of the fact that -- one of my reasons is when other leaders from other countries come here to visit, ok , they get diplomatic immunity, so why shouldn't donald trump, the former president who served our country as president for four years? why should he not receive immunity? host: diplomatic immunity is different because they are americans -- they are not americans and representing a foreign government. donald trump is an american. caller: i still believe he should receive immunity. host: let's talk to ann in michigan. caller: good morning. host: say it again? caller: fort gratiot.

i believe that former president trump did not have absolute of unity -- should not have absolute immunity. we have had 247 years of american history since the declaration of independence and have never had cause to reach this issue. we have had many presidents who have done things that may be considered criminal. they brought out that fdr put japanese americans in internment camps. we know five administrations continue to send american soldiers to die in vietnam and yet none of them have ever been prosecuted in retrospect and as that is because what they did, they did in furtherance of our national security, to the best

of their ability, even though there were certainly political reasons as well. they wanted to get reelected and did not want to be the ones to say we are going to lose or that kind of thing. overall i think they were making a good-faith effort to do something in furtherance of us as a country, whereas what donald trump did in trying to meddle in the election, was basically something that was solely beneficial to himself, to keep himself in power even though 62 court cases had shown he could not mount the evidence necessary to prove that he had won or that there was sufficient fraud that had occurred in any state that would have changed the outcome of the election. host: so you would draw the line at personal gain? caller: partly at personal gain.

every president is hoping they will get reelected and there is some element of personal gain but overall what a president does, especially in furtherance of our national security, because i know justice thomas brought up operation mongoose and i had to look that up but it was apparently when jfk sent our cia to cuba and they launched terrorist attacks on civilians in cuba, which seems really shady, but what he was doing was still something he or the administration thought was in furtherance of protecting or promoting democracy or our national security. host: got it. let's take a look at some tweets that came in from lawmakers. here's senator chuck schumer, who says today, scotus here trumps ridiculous claim of total

immunity. he is not immune. they are only protecting trump and slowing his trial. scotus should not have taken this case. they speed up trials when they want but not in this case. here is richard blumenthal. justice thomas's decision to not recuse himself is another low point in the court's at-bats. we need a real enforcement mechanism and here is senator blackburn. "president trump cannot attend oral arguments in his own supreme court case tomorrow because an activist judge is requiring him to be in new york> this is an -- in new york. this is a takedown."

back to the phones. angel in yonkers, new york, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am a democrat and i voted the first time for reagan, ronald reagan. ronald reagan did a great job in this country. and president trump should receive immunity. he has done a great job in four years. he has taken care of what all the other countries also and has

also, you know, done so much for us that i cannot believe they are going through this, and the democrats, what they are doing, especially schumer, and the democrat from yonkers in new york are going after him because they don't want him in power anymore. that is the thing. host: so, angel, you said he should get immunity because he did a great job. is that how you would decide immunity if you feel like the president did a good job? then he should be immune from criminal prosecution? if he did not, then he should be prosecuted? caller: not only has he done a good job but i have evidence of people that received either their wife or husband died and they received voting cards and gave them to other people and i

have a godmother -- my god father died and she did not give his away. with the democrats did in the last election as they kept all the names of all the dead people on the lists and they gave those cards to the illegals that will -- that were coming in here. host: you know that is illegal, so i would hope that if you know of those -- if you know people that did that, having noncitizens voting, that is illegal, i hope you reported that. dave in adrian, michigan, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking the call. the guy who just talked, something about his wife and cards, well, my comment is about my wife, actually. i was watching c-span yesterday when the hearings were going on. it was -- i was a bit

disappointed with them. this is a side note because of the way the justices talk. it is just too legalese for me to follow all the time but my wife walked in and came home from an appointment and was telling me, so i muted the tv. at that point, along the bottom left of your screen, it said oral arguments, trump versus united states. i thought, ok, that's what this is all about. this one guy against the country. and i suppose it would be fair if trump was granted immunity if you could strike his name and put mine in there too or yours or anybody else's who will call and, but since that's never going to happen -- call in, but since that's ever going to happen, i have to say this is totally ridiculous.

use justices like alito and cavanaugh were arguing we have to protect the position of the presidency -- trump himself is arguing this is not about him. this is not about me, he's saying. that's ridiculous. i saw january 6 happen with my own eyes and that's what this trial is about. as much as i could not follow the legalese, i could follow it, you know? after your show ended, liz cheney talked in the national cathedral about january 6. that's what this is about. he is not immune. he is not some figure that did not take place in this whole thing. that's what this is about. host: we got a text from virginia. any president should be immune from these highly organized and targeted attacks.

somehow president trump continues to thrive politically through this interference. and this from troy in clintonville, wisconsin. "the president should not be immune from criminal prosecution. the current system has held since its inception. no president has tried to do what from has tried to do to this country or the office. wake up. -- wake up." sherry in laurel, mississippi, good morning. caller: i would like to say liz cheney withheld a lot of information from the january 6 committee that is coming out now. president trump should be totally immune from prosecution. short of having picked up a gun and murdered somebody. you draw the line there. host: so is that where you would

draw the line, murder could be prosecuted but any other crime not? caller: it depends on the situation on this. there's a lot of ways to look at it. treason is a very good one and high on my mind now because of the guy in office now and he has been doing that since he was a senator. host: ok. diane, new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. absolutely no immunity. our country is great because we have the rule of law. we have property rights, intellectual property rights, and politicians that are held -- we say no man is above the law but this is definitely putting a man above the law. we have seen while he was in office happy abused all the democratic institutions.

what they do in other countries when they try to be authoritarian is to chip away at all our institutions. this is our judiciary we see. the only issue before them is is this man immune from all the actions that he did? like the man said, we saw with our own eyes, first of all, for four years, all the lies. then we see him jetting out for four years all these antigovernment -- him ginning up for four years all these antigovernment groups. they hide behind free speech. what this man has done -- you can listen. you hear people are willing to give a person immunity in our country. it's crazy. the alleyway to clear this up is to say -- the only way to clear this up is to say we want our democracy back.

it seems the only way to get accountability is to go to court. there's rules that we all agreed on since the founding of our country. so i don't see how this man gets a pass. host: all right. let's take a look at this portion from the hearings. just a soda mayor raised a hypothetical question of whether a president should be able to assassinate a political rival. [video clip] >> it could be alleged but it has to be proven. the concept is long viewed inappropriate in law that there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against. now, i think -- and your answer below, i will give you a chance to say if you stand by it. if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person

and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts? >> that could well be an official act. >> and why? because he's doing it for personal reasons. he's not doing it like president obama's alleged to have done it, to protect the country from a terrorist. he's doing it for personal gain. is that not the nature of the allegations here, that he's not doing them -- doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility, but for personal gain? >> i agree with that characterization of the indictment and that confirms immunity because that characterization is there's a series of official acts -- >> because immunity says even if you did it for personal gain, we

won't hold you responsible. how could that be? >> that's an extremely strong doctrine in the case law. >> we go back to justice thomas's question, which was where does that come from? there are people here who tell us that the founders actually talked about whether to grant immunity to the president, and in fact had state constitutions that granted some criminal immunity to governors, and yes, they did not take it up. instead, they passed an impeachment clause that basically says you cannot remove the president from office except by a trial in the senate, but you can impeach him after -- or you can impose criminal liability.

we would be creating a situation in which we would be saying -- this is what you are asking us to say -- which is that a president is entitled not to make a mistake but more than that. the president is entitled to total personal gain -- for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office. that's what you are getting us to hold -- you are trying to get us to hold. host: we are taking your calls on the question before the court, should former president trump be immune from criminal prosecution. the lines are gas, no or not sure. on the line is kathleen in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a democrat and i am so upset with the democrats and what they are doing to this country and to is despicable.

i watched biden on tv when reporters told them -- told him president trump was running for office and he was upset. he said he would do as much as possible to keep him from being in the selection. the white house has no business discussing prosecution with any of the district attorney's who are coming up with these fraudulent charges. and this case, president trump should not be targeted. he should be immune. these are false charges. if anybody should be charged, it should be biden. they are such a crook family. when you think about his son being on a plane, if he flew

each time to china, it would cost him over $18,000 for a flight. he used the white house jet, the air force one, to do all these contracts. no, no, no. host: i will ask you the same question i asked another caller, which is do you think it should just be former president trump immune from prosecution or all presidents? if the supreme court decides for immunity, this will apply to everybody else. caller: i would say in this particular case president trump should be immune. host: but not anybody else? caller: not anybody else. you have to look at the circumstances. this president has gone through hell for this country and the corruption we have is not just in the white house. it is throughout our nation.

you have corrupt politicians. you have a corrupt da. look at leticia james. she ran for office saying she was going to go and get president trump. it is sad what's happening with the democrats -- happening, what the democrats are doing. host: duluth, georgia, good morning. caller: yes. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i feel that former president trump should not be immune from this case. clearly, his actions were based upon a personal purpose and not in the best interests of the american people. if he is granted immunity in this case, that will set the precedent for any president to get into office and do whatever

they want however they want whenever they want and not be held accountable. we as americans should want the president, a representative of our country, to be someone of high moral grounds, and this is just unacceptable. when he did is not acceptable. host: let's go to st. louis. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not think he is immune. trumbo pointed these justices -- trump appointed three of these justices. they don't care he organized a kit would attempt that killed one shop -- a coup attempt that killed one cop. he had congressman and a vice president running for their lives during the certification of the electoral college votes. the court wants to sweep this under the rug and talk about

everything else but january 6 and not let us hear the case that everyone wants to hear before the election. i mean, the idea that he should be immune is a crazy idea, and his lawyer is crazy to think he could assassinate anybody. he is a kook. host: you think that should apply to all presidents, then, that none of them should have immunity from criminal prosecution after leaving office? caller: if they are breaking the law for their own personal gain. he wanted to get reelected so bad that he was willing to do this. you get another one like him that wants to break the law for his own personal benefit, ok, they would have to be prosecuted too. host: let's take a look at a portion of the hearing. this is an exchange between justice barrett and trump's attorney, john sawyer, on this issue of private acts versus

official acts. [video clip] >> you can see that private acts -- you concede that private acts do not get immunity. >> we do. >> in the special counsel's brief, he urges us, even if we were to decide or assume there was some immunity for official acts, there was sufficient private acts in the indictment for the trial to go back and i want to know if you disagree or agree about the characterization of these acts as private. he turned to a private attorney. he was willing to spread false claims of election results. private? >> we dispute the allegation but that sounds private. >> a verification signed by a petitioner that contained false statements. >> private. >> three private actors and a consultant helped implement a plan to submit private slates

of presidential electors. >> i believe that is private. >> so those acts he would not dispute. those are private and you would not raise a claim they are official. >> what would -- what we would say is official is meeting with the department of justice to deliberate about who will be the next attorney general. >> thank you. host: back to the calls now. to abilene, kansas, hello. caller: hello. i guess i will start with earlier in the show you quoted chuck schumer. and if you want to go back to chuck schumer, there was a man who began with a big live, him and hillary clinton -- big lie, him about hillary clinton, about russian collusion.

the democrats have been lying about a lot of things. he must have immunity because just like january 6, you know -- there was one person killed their and that was one of the demonstrators. you have people saying it was 2, 3, 4 people killed. so this murder is not even good because they can twist anything the way they want. you see the one lady spoke about hundred biden. every time you see our president step off the plane, you see hundred biden behind them were ahead of him. he goes everywhere, everywhere. host: i want to ask you about what a viewer named aaronson to us on facebook. he says no to immunity. no president should be immune from prosecution.

this is not russia. the president is not an autocrat or a king above the law. what do you say to that? caller: he gets immunity but congress -- they are supposed to watch what he really does if it gets too out of line and i grew up in a time when you could trust our government. i do not trust our government anymore. host: would you trust congress to impeach the president if he committed a crime? would you depend on that? caller: not really because they have already impeached him once on a phony situation. host: what if the president does commit a crime in office? caller: they say he committed crimes. lawyers were tell you there is no crime and there is a crime. they argue it both ways every time. any lawyer can take you there

side. so a crime is just how they feel about it. now president trump is on trial now -- host: they crime is not how you feel about it. i mean, there are laws, right? so what do you do in this case? caller: in this case here? host: justi -- if a president commits a crime in office, he's not prosecuted while in office, but after he leaves office, i mean, do you prosecute it or just say he is immune because he's the president? caller: he's immune to crimes that he did -- if he felt, ok, let's go back to one hillary clinton broker phones. she did it with not dylan tenant. that's how the fbi said it. so she did lie.

she had a private server and you're not supposed to and she knew it and when they found out, she broker phones -- she broke her phones. host: so is it about intent? caller: well, she intended to break the law, but she knew she was covered. host: all right. caller: trump does not have a free hand there. some republicans and all democrats against him. host: kevin in windsor, connecticut, go ahead. caller: there is no immunity for this guy. nobody is above the law. that is how a democracy works. nobody is above the law. when you go underneath the table and do something sneaky, and

feels like the supreme court is slow walking this until the election comes and the american people have a right to know. they are saying hundred biden this and that by the republicans have not come up with charges, nothing about hundred biden. it is just a talking thing, you know? you have marjorie greene helping russian now. i mean, for years now. i'm 68. presidents cannot talk to rivals now. that is scary business in this country. host: this is a poll result from february, a couple months ago, with the headline most do not trust supreme court on election cases. it says most that americans say -- americans don't have confidence in the supreme court to make decisions related to the

2024 election according to a cnn poll. 58% of respondents said they either did not trust the court at all or just some. only 11% said they trusted the supreme court he great deal while 31% seven a moderate amount. patricia in new york, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. thank you for having the show. i think what is lost here is people are forgetting we are talking about an attempted coup. we are also talking about an attempted assassination against the vice president. and it does not really matter if you are a democrat or republican or independent, which is why i'm glad the lines are not

broken down that way. it is if you believe in the rule of law. it is as simple as that. i don't care if it's a democrat or republican. every president -- i don't care if it's joe biden. i don't care if it's trump. you have to be a person, as the gentleman from connecticut said -- you should be the one who is an example of the highest order of things in the world. this is someone who we know has committed crimes. and to say that this person who commits crimes that are personal gain crimes should not be subject to prosecution outside or inside the government is absolutely ridiculous and it really does not make sense so i think we have to stop fighting about who we support and really look at what the matter is on the table because at the end of

the day, you will suffer no matter what side you are on. host: let's take a look at this exchange between mr. trump's lawyer and justice kagan about legal scenarios should a former president stage a coup. [video clip] >> how about if the president orders the military to stage a coup? >> i think that, as the chief justice pointed out earlier where there's a series of guidelines against that, so to speak, like the uc mj prohibits the military from following a plainly illegal act, that would fall outside. if you want to adopt the fitzgerald test that we advance that may well be an official act and i would have to say it has to be impeached and convicted before criminally prosecuted. >> he is gone, let's say, this president who ordered the military to stage an.

he was not impeached. he could not be impeached. but he ordered the military to stage a coup. you are saying that's an official act? >> it would depend on the circumstances. if it were an official act -- >> what does that mean? he was the president, he is the commander-in-chief, he talks to his generals all the time, and he told the generals i don't feel like leaving office and i want to stage a coup. is that immune? >> there needs to be impeachment and conviction before him because the framers viewed -- >> is it an official act? >> if it is -- >> is it? >> it could well be. i don't know. again, it is a context specific test. >> so under my test, it's an official act, but that sounds

bad, doesn't it? >> that's why the framers have a series of structural checks that have successfully prevented that kind of extreme hypothetical. that is the wisdom of the framers. what they knew as the wrist that need to be guarded against was not the notion that the president might escape criminal prosecution for something unlikely. they viewed it as more likely of the risk of factional strife. >> the framers did not put an immunity clause into the constitution. they knew how to. there were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. they did not provide immunity to the president. and not so surprising, they were reacting against a monarch who claims to be above the law. was in whole point that the president -- wasn't the whole point of the present was not a monarch and not supposed to be above the law? >> two things in response to that.

they put in the executive vesting clause, which was originally understood. also, they did discuss and consider what would be the checks on the presidency, and they did not see we would have criminal prosecution. benjamin franklin says we don't have that. that's not an option. everybody cried out against that as unconstitutional. the structural check we are adopting is impeachment. it is clear on that. >> thank you. host: and we -- if you missed those oral arguments, they are on our website. we have a page set aside for all of trump's trials. it is c-span.org/trumptrials. you can find documents, video resources from all the seminal -- all the civil and legal

trials including yesterday's oral arguments. we will talk to judy in phoenix, arizona. good morning. are you there? caller: yes. host: how that high -- hi. caller: ok. should trump be immune? host: from criminal prosecution. caller: all of his indictments? no. absolutely not. and i have not been right in my life since, like, 2015 or 2016, whenever this started. and trump began it all. i cannot live like this much longer and hopefully he will not be elected president for the second time so that we can

continue in our justice system to have trials and to have his peers in the jury make decisions on what the verdict should be on every crime that he's been indicted on. host: his lawyers are making the argument that all future presidents will fear that their rivals will just prosecute them after they leave office and that will hobble all their decisions. what do you think of that? caller: i am 72 and up until trump made his presence known to be in politics, everything has been doing just fine, like the supreme court justice has talked about. except for nixon -- that was a glitch for that got taken care

of with the rules in the congress and whatever that we have in place to address those glitches that come once every 200 years, but i just cannot deal with this, and no, there should be no changes made with presidents and immunity. host: let's talk to beverly in florida. hi, beverly. caller: i don't think that trump should be in this courtroom day after day holding him back from being on the campaign trail. there has been no charges all this week while he has been in court that proved that he is guilty of anything. they should give him immunity and let him go on his way with

no election interference. host: i was going to say we are talking about the federal cases, not the one in new york. do you think all presidents should be immune from criminal prosecution? caller: it depends on what the criminal charges are at the time the presidents are brought up on these charges but in president trump's case i don't see any charges. i have been watching all week. they have not proved anything he has done wrong other than the democrats don't like him. host: did you follow the oral arguments yesterday? caller: i did. there's a lot of talk. there's no proof. they are just saying things off the top of our head. if this is how our laws are going to be run in washington, d.c., we need to do something

because we are paying for all this as taxpayers. they are just pushing everything along and letting it last 5, 6 weeks. we are paying for this. i don't know about other seniors. i'm going to be 80 years old. i cannot afford to have my taxes raised any higher than they are. i will not have a roof over my head. you will have to find me a home and feed me along with the illegal aliens. host: all right. let's talk to sandra in alabama.good morning . caller: good morning. i don't think any president should be given immunity. based on the rule of law. i hear a lot of people -- they divide it into republicans and democrats and there was one caller that said it should not matter whether you are republican or democrat or independent. if trump was to have -- to

decide he does not like the way your child looks and says i will order the military to shoot your child, would you want him to go to trial and be given a sentence for murdering your child? if we give him full immunity, that's basically what we are saying. no man is above the law, no president, no legislature, nobody. host: so, sandra, what mr. trump's lawyer said in front of the supreme court was there is a mechanism for that, which is impeachment. what do you think of that? caller: we cannot trust that because we saw what happened on the capitol and along party lines they voted not to impeach him. if they had impeached him, we would not have this dilemma we are having now. no other president has requested

that -- nixon got pardoned by gerald ford. we could pardon him to keep him from going to jail because that's basically what he's trying to avoid. but restrict him from holding any political office. host: all right. let's talk to jeremy in missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think? caller: hey. i believe he should be immune for the acts, the federal acts, based on, like you said, coming into it, he was being attacked by the fbi. he was being watched. he was being persecuted by the clintons and the obamas from the fbi so he had that in mind when he originally came into office, so during this new election, he was thinking probably along

those same lines. that's where i feel all this came about. host: and just as kagan was like, what if a president orders the military to stage a coup? should that be immune or criminally prosecuted? where are you on that? caller: if the president feels like everyone is acting out against him, what is he supposed to do? what is his line of defense? i know it is congress's to impeach him if they want to try him but he should not be tried by georgia and all these other federal prosecutors. host: georgia is a state prosecution. caller: what is the federal prosecution? host: it is the january 6. that would be in d.c. then the documents case in florida. caller: for sure.

people walk around with their cell phones. they were not staging a coup. i'm sure there were bad actors but most viewers that i have talked with -- you know, i was not there. i am sure it was frightening for many but in the end there were not people there to storm the capitol or take over the country. host: pamela, chesapeake, virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. i think you should not have immunity because there are too many people in jail now both innocent and guilty and the ones that are innocent did not get any immunity. president trump -- and i hate to call in president trump -- he has been playing chess while everybody else has been playing checkers. he said this thing in motion a long time ago when he said he would run for president and changed his mind.

that's because everything was not in place. the first time i knew donald trump should not be president of the united states is when he said the press is bad. don't believe your lying eyes and ears. he was setting it up now. i am the one you were supposed to believe. host: do you think that should apply to all presidents, then? caller: all presidents. i'm a democrat and if you do something wrong then what you did is what you did and you did what you did -- and you don't pitch a fit. every time things don't go his way. what he does not lie about is what he's going to do. and if you think you are going to give that man all that power on the first day that he's going to be a dictator, you are wrong.

he will not go back. host: let's talk to marsha in georgia. caller: you got it pretty right. good morning. i am listening. i have not called in about three years. ever since trump has been in office, i'm terrified. when he came down those steps, i was horrified. i knew that he was a criminal and we was going to have a problem but i never imagined anything like this. immunity should not be given to anyone. if you are going to run a city, a state, a country and you tell the citizens, if you break the law, you go to jail. nobody is above the law. give this man immunity and your whole country is gone because if you give it to him everybody else is going to think, well,

trump did it. i can do it too. and also the supreme court -- it is time for them to go. we need to start electing them and no more lifetime appointments. host: let's go to columbia, maryland. bill, good morning. caller: good morning. i will preface my remarks by saying i am a trump supporter and politically i think and also for the reasons outlined in the questioning yesterday, i think they should remand it to the lower court. that would do a couple things. that would take this election interference author table, at least a large -- interference off the table, at least a large part of it. but these are consequential questions. i'm not allowing a large trump

supporter but also a civil libertarian and i'm horrified by the overreach of the "deep state" and how it is affecting all of us. and so i suspect what is going to happen based on what i heard yesterday -- and i did not hear all of it -- well, hopefully they remand it to the lower court, because they will have to come up with partial immunity. all the discussion about official acts and private acts -- that's the other thing. i don't know if i heard it yesterday or somewhere else. i heard someone say if he were to commit murder, if the executive were to commit murder, the state laws would govern that, so he would be subject to prosecution by states, but i think these are consequential questions. absolute immunity is absolutely not -- and you have to think about it. if they were to give -- if they

were to say we will give absolute immunity to the executive, that would mean all the stuff the current administration is doing would not be subject to litigation, and i think a lot of what this current administration is doing should be litigated because i think a lot of what they are doing is unconstitutional and it's an overage, so it's a double-edged -- an overreach, so it's a double-edged sword. as a trump supporter, i think this is total political interference, what's going on with these cases. just on the face you can see it. even democrats, i think they know what's going on, and it's all wrong what they are doing to trump. host: all right, bill. let's talk to joe, sudbury, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i'm on the not sure because i'm confused because of

the petitioner. they are arguing both sides because if i can say about when you played the amy county barrett section, she said -- the lawyer pointed out that not everything in the indictment is -- has a blanket immunity to it. the parts where trump consulted his private lawyers about the situations would not be covered under this. so it's -- where they say it's his official acts as a president that they need blanket immunity. that is what they are arguing. maybe you could help me out but they are not arguing for complete blanket immunity because his lawyer said no to barrett when she offered up some situations that, no -- that would be criminal.

host: joe, we have all of that on our website. we have a special page set aside for that. it is c-span.org/trumptrials. yes. caller: there has been a whole different attitude since nixon. these people that don't think that if a president had somebody assassinated that there would not be an impeachment, that's what they are saying. the petitioner said you can have a criminal trial against that person but it has to go through the impeachment. you cannot have a trial against a sitting president. we have had an impeachment against nixon because he wiretapped the other side. host: but he was not impeached. he resigned. cap he was impeached. he resigned.

guest: if anyone doesn't think they would have the standing up if someone was murdered, and i don't think there is a question. it is way so far beyond anything that people would force our representatives to have the impeachment, trial, conviction, and then in a regular court where both sides to present evidence on a more fair basis and trial, that is how it would work. that is how it is supposed to work. they say not a sitting president, the office of legal counsel and are not going to put a trial to a president that is sitting. and if it is murder, i think he is going to get impeached 100%.

host: up next we will continue our conversation about the oral arguments and the former president trump other with tom fitton. and then we will talk about fundraising and money in politics with. dan weiner. >> exploring>> the people and events that tell the american story. jason stacy and matthew ellington, the co-authors of an ap u.s. history course talk about the advanced placement history exam and how this years's exam is structured and analyzing struggle documents. our siri congress investigates looks at historic -- our series

congress investigates look at how things change laws. lawmakers examine the 1972 break in at that national committee headquarters at the watergate hotel in washington, d.c. the investigation led to the resignation of president resident -- richard nixon. on the lectures in history, university of kansas political community -- communication professor on ronald reagan's address to british parliament. during the american story, watch saturday on c-span 2 or online at c-span.org/history. >> don lemon would say that is a man in his prime. >> five c-span's coverage of the

annual white house correspondents dinner -- watching c-span's coverage of the annual white house correspondents dinner and president biden expected to give remarks. coverage begins at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.org and c-span now as journalists and celebrities walk the red carpet into the event. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, sights and sounds from inside the ballroom before the festivities begin. watch the white house correspondents dinner saturday on the c-span networks. >> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other great since 1979, your primary source from capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage and taking you to where the policies are debated and decided all with the support of

americans cable companies. c-span, a 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal." we are joined by tom fitton. what is judicial watch and how are you funded? guest: we are a non--- publicly funded through charitable donations. host: let's start with the new york city trial, the hush money trial. you posted this on your website, trump trial prosecutors face big problems. what are the problems in your opinion? guest: it is not clear what laws trump violated, even under their own the theory of the case where you have misdemeanor accounts related to him or someone in his

office detailing what i would call a legal expense and what they are trying to do to make those charges more serious to suggest there was something else he was up to in doing so. and that was not reporting appropriately campaign related expenses. there is a big question about whether they are camping related expenses and what do they mean, is it a state or federal law violation? there is confusion in the courtroom as to what is going on. some of these issues were just being raised in the jury, just before the jury with opening arguments. mr. packer's testimony last few days, i am not sure why it is related to anything. so the president had a friend at the national enquirer who was willing to manage stories for him, like he was doing for other

people. it is not clear -- host: was a catch and kill where he finds stories not beneficial to him and make sure they are never aired. guest: right. according to packer he has done this for all of his friends and people he wants to curry favor with. the new question is, is it a campaign finance related issue for politicians to work with media on managing press and if that is the case, it opens the door for other presidents who have been managing negative or positive stories. it host: works both ways. -- it works both ways. host: there was a question whether the financial arrangement violated federal election laws hinge on whether the hush money is properly viewed as a campaign expense or a personal expense.

that distinction depends on whether trump was motivated by a desire to promote his election or by a desire to avoid embarrassment and spare his wife's feelings. is that what it hinges on, the reason the money was paid and categorize as a legal expense? guest: maybe if you accept the presence that there is a good faith basis to have a federal election law and issues related to a federal campaign be litigated by a prosecutor in new york city. this is related to steps taken in 2016 and 2017 and is now eight years later. there are strong arguments that even if there were issues that could have been pursued criminally it is ultimately, and as far as i am concerned, this is an investigation or

prosecution about nothing. no serious prosecutor would collect charges like this in any other circumstances and we've got this situation where we have these radical applications of the law that never happened before all that being applied to trump simultaneously by democratic prosecutors throughout the nation. as far as i am concerned what we are looking is the crimes to the degree we have a prosecutor in new york using his power to not let trump have his the civil rights. he is a hostage, not literally, but being kept away from the campaign trail while president biden is able to campaign freely. it is all because you have two democrat politicians in both the prosecutor and the judge manipulating and abusing the system to harass him. host: let's talk about the human

-- immunity case. your views on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution after they leave office, in general, not just in mr. trump's case. guest: a lot of folks say, the president is not above the law. the question is the law, the u.s. constitution, does it provide presidents the protection as president trump is suggesting, and it is clear the majority of the supreme court say yes. so at best, jack smith is left with come if the ruling goes as expected, the difficult task of delineating and pretending that while this step he took as president was political and personal but it wasn't official. i don't see how you take the 208 and a separate the two issues as personal and presidential -- how

you take and a separate the two issues as presidential and personal. host: do you think you should get immunity? guest: the constitution is set up where the president has prerogatives as chief executive and that means he is not subjected to scrutiny by the courts for those in office. host: justice kagan said that the founders did but the immunity clause in the constitution and they meant not to because we would've gotten rid of the king. guest: i guess the response to that would be immunity flows from the constitution that he has prerogatives as president of the united states, the executive power resides in him. who can check him beyond the processes envisioned in the constitution, which specifically is impeachment. host: we are taking calls for

tom fitton, president of judicial watch. you can call republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, an independents (202) 748-8002. talking about the 2024 election, this is on your websites. there are several lawsuits about judicial watches for 2024. you can see it here on judicialwatch.org. illinois, forced cleanup of voter rolls. tell us about why you're doing those lawsuits and what do you hope to gain from that? guest: the first lawsuit is about illinois and we have had many lawsuits over the years to clean up election roles. federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean

up election rolls. we look at the data and they report about their cleanups. it is zero for many counties in illinois and it looks like they haven't removed dead people for years for instance. what is interesting about the litigation previously pursued is that states like new york and new york city in a battle and they settled and removed half a million names. l.a. county settled with us and removed 1.2 million names at the beginning of last year. there is a lot of election rol s cleanup. a lot law requires it and when you are mailing ballots in more widespread fashion that is typical, it is important that the rolls be accurate and

ineligible voters not remain on them. host: i want to show you a clip from washington journal last month. we had a data specialist and author can block on the program to talk about the hearing -- the investigation into the voter fraud claims. [video clip] >> i didn't say there is no voter fraud, i said there was not enough to matter. we did find duplicate voters but the numbers were far less than the many thousands that were necessary inside the swing states. i was very transparent as we discussed the challenges with having access to some data and not having access to other. i can confidently say the trump attorneys i reported to,

specifically alex cannon, had a lot of confidence in the work i was doing and the fact that i was being as thorough as i was and probably numbing his brain with how much information i had about voter data and the processes i was going through. he trusted my results and communicated to mark meadows at the end of the day that the campaign looked extraordinarily hard at not only looking for fraud but evaluating everyone else's claims of fraud and we found nothing that rose to the level of changing election result that would survive legal scrutiny in court. host: what you think of that? guest: i don't understand what he says in that there was litigation going on in georgia by the trump campaign that if it was pursued and the allegations were worn out would have changed the results of the election in georgia. i don't think that is the full picture of what was going on within the trump campaign.

there were ongoing cases by the trump campaign itself that were never fully litigated because time ran out. it is not just voter fraud per se, it is changing the rules in a way where votes that should have been -- shouldn't have been counted are counted or recounted in a way that was contrary to federal law and county well after election day or without the security in place that would have reassured people the election was done correctly. host: you think there are enough of those fraudulent votes that would've changed the outcome of the election? guest: i think there were enough questions about the way the elections were run in the key swing states that it was a jump ball as to whether the outcome that was certified was actually correct. if i were running things, i would have done do overs in those key states.

that is the solutions that judges have had when there are issues related to voter fraud and rule breaking. that would have been within the purview of the courts and state legislatures if they wanted to be aggressive enough to reassure people that the election was fair and honest. we've had just cases in the last year i think in connecticut, your listeners can google it rather than relying on my memory, where the court said they will have a new election. there are all sorts of ways to solve this. there is a good reason why 80% of republicans it looks like don't believe the election results were accurate. host: part of the way we solve it in this country is to litigate it in the courts and there are 60 court cases. that went against former president trump. do you not believe the results of those cases? guest: that is a number that is

used by democrats and the left to guide -- disguise the investigations. you can have someone on the street corner file a lawsuit and be part of that 60 cases. there were half a dozen cases pursued by the trump campaign that were cut short. there was refusal by the supreme court to take up a substance and -- sensitive challenge by texas. a lot of substantial issues that were thrown out on mirror and some were saying it was too soon and in many cases they were told it was too late after the election. so this is a political fight about a political outcome that occurred in the courts. host: steve, ohio, line for democrats. caller: good morning.

my statement is that if the supreme court rules for the immunity case for trump, i would suggest that president biden win or lose in the 24 election -- 2024 election should not give up power and claim presidential immunity. just to claim, i am the president, i can do anything i want. i deem this election to be fraudulent and i am not going to leave the white house, period. host: what do you think? guest: i think that is a silly response to the suppositions

being raised here. a president obviously is subject to removal under the constitution for impeachment and the election process. that is a different question as opposed to if he did something like that could he be prosecuted. it doesn't mean he is not subject to the other constitutional provisions. host: i think what steve is saying is that if the supreme court does rule for immunity that that would open the door for future presidents to claim fraud in any case and refused to leave office, and then the senate doesn't impeach him, then he is good. guest: as someone else did out, when the justices, it also incentivizes presidents on the other hand and if immunity isn't allowed to try to stay in office , so they are not prosecuted for anything they do while in office. i am not quite sure if immunity

fails why the president while he is in office would not be subject to prosecution. i think -- host: criminal prosecution you mean? guest: yes criminal prosecution. it is immunity as we are highlighting flows from the structure of government. once a pillar of that is torn off i don't have the rest remains. host: karen is in alabaster, alabama, republican. caller: i just want to say i really appreciate everything you have done. i try to read judicial watch as much as i can. guest: thank you. caller: i have four quick points. the first one is the new york trial, hush money, if president trump paid or had his lawyer paid with his personal funds, doesn't that null and void

campaign violations as well? the immunity clause, if the justices said no immunity, should we go after obama for all the drone strikes he did? he killed americans. should we hold him liable for that? number three, the court cases, 60 court cases, most of them are outstanding and have never seen the evidence. they keep talking about the fake electors. isn't it true that president trump had every right to say we disagree with the election results, let's review it and if the congress had agreed to do that, they need collectors in place to move forward with it. isn't that true, constitutional? lastly, do you think it is ok for the biden administration to register illegal aliens to vote in our elections? guest: which one you want me to

take up? host: she mentioned the fake collectors that she said the president has the right to have a fake electorate. guest: the left clothes and fake electors. prior to trump being targeted for engaging in a dispute of an election, they were called alternative electors. most famously during the 1960 election where you had a similar election or on hawaii where you had alternative electors. i had a debate with the special counsel prosecutors about this before the grand jury when they harassed me about these very issues. i said the left was planning, because i read about it in the new york times, it dispute the election in 2020. they thought if trump won they would be able to push through

their slates of electors and get them recognized and their wargaming was such that if they didn't get recognized, they would the state like washington state or oregon threatened to secede from the union. host: how do you know this? guest: it was in the new york times. john podesta was doing a working with his project and i remember reading about it. what the heck is going on? this is the summer of 2020 that they were wargaming this scenario out. now the standard has been applied to trump, they should all be in a criminal investigation, of course they won't be in nor do i think they should be. his new rules if you dispute an election you will face jail. that is a dangerous path to take because it is not just about 2020 with a signal in 2024, whatever the results and questions you had you raised them in good faith and pursue

these claims under the constitution and federal law, we are going to try to jail you anyway. host: you said president -- she said president biden was registering illegals to vote. guest: i don't know if he directly registering them to vote and we have a situation if you are an illegal alien it is easy to register to vote because they don't check to see if you are citizen. typically -- not typical but is a u.s. citizen requirement when you fill of the federal registration form. you check yes or no. if you check no or yes and it is contrary to reality, they don't check. so when we have nonprofit groups and there is news out there that that is pushed through register getting people to vote as they cross the border, you have to wonder what is going on. there is a massive political

power shift coming as a result of these 10 million illegal aliens coming into the country because their mere presence if they are here in 2030 is going to result in changes in the enforcement of congress and the number of electors estate gets. host: i want to bring up, here is the bipartisan policy center, they have an article for things to know -- four things to know about noncitizen voting pointing out with the rules and laws are and how they are enforced. let's talk to and in albertville, -- let's talk to a nn in albertville minnesota. caller: i don't want to comment on the legal and judicial issues. i want to comment as a christian woman how he is man, five children with three different

wives and now has affairs with porn stars. he can do what he wants with his life but with a president i want someone who has moral, class. all things is the icky to me that he could be the president. guest: the question is, is she concerned about biden's reputation in that regard? he has been accused repeatedly of sexual advances and assaults. host: how come none of that has ever come to trial or in a court case? guest: because joe biden is protected by the media and his justice department. host: but before, i mean the -- before he came president.

he said he was accused repeatedly. guest: #metoo movement highlights how there were charges and actions by powerful men that weren't pursued for decades because it was a very different cultural and legal atmosphere at the time. so she came forward and accuses him of assaults and no one is interested in pursuing it. maybe a creative republican prosecutor is going to start pursuing biden after he leaves office. i don't know. the fact is there have been no charges, criminal charges against trump either. i am not sure what the issue is. what is the standard for morality to be a president of the united states? and colors and both parties --

and callers should and both parties -- the president denies the affair with stormy daniels, to be clear. is it good for the goose and gander for the same time to stretch the metaphor? and too often it does not. i would submit a president who supports the killing of unborn babies throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy tax dollars, that to me is a moral failing that is demonstrably destructive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the united states. host: let's go to the independent line in pennsylvania, bob. caller: in october, 13 members of the soldiers who died in afghanistan filed lawsuits against joe biden for $100 million.

i saw the affidavit and it is for murder. so joe, you better hope the supreme court helps you. and tom, keep up the good work because the person next to you called you a racist. guest: thank you. i don't know about that lawsuit so i can't comment on it. host: alex, democrat, brooklyn, new york. caller: i have been listening to your guest and i love the equation of trying to biden in the sexual accusations. i find it hilarious that none of this came up until now because the media is now pushing on what could have been disclosed about joe biden. i want to go back to the idea of

the fake electors. so peter navarro, papadopoulos, stone, others went to prison for trump. one of them lost his practice and can't be a lawyer in california. chesebro is talking about the georgia case. this woman is also found to be guilty. all of the people in trump's orbits are guilty of different crimes except trump. trump is not found guilty. cohen goes to prison for literally taking money out of his house to pay for a hush money trial and yet trump is not culpable in any of this. this guy testifies and says that yeah, subversion of all of these

worries was part of an image campaign so that tom could look good. and beyond that, -- so that trump could look good. and beyond that, they put out negative stories against trump and those running against him. i don't know how you'd sit and say this is partisan. trump has been in so many areas found guilty through his proxies that how is it that is not? host: let's get a response. guest: his proxies or allies or people around him have been subject to unprecedented novel applications of the law. some have pled guilty because i think wrongly in my view, because of the cost of fighting the case is too much. what has happened to john eastman is an abomination.

highlighting other abuses of people around trump to suggest trump is guilty of the crime isn't persuasive to me. host: you've advised mr. trump in the past. are you still in contact with him? guest: i won't say it one way or the other who i talked to about things here in washington, d.c. i don't want to comment one way or the other. don't take it as a yes or a no other than i don't talk about who i talked to. host: all right. guest: i have been questioned previously about my communications with trump before the grand jury. i can say that they were -- the prosecutors were arguing with me about my tweets and what i had for lunch with the president and why didn't the president say one thing -- did the president respond to me?

i don't think he did. they were arguing with me why didn't they respond to me. host: this is about your email exchange about claiming victory regardless of the outcome? guest: they brought me in allegedly because they wanted to know information about this document dispute because judicial watch had been highlighting the 180 where they had treated clinton differently in a case than they did trump and in retaliation they sent fbi agents to my home and subpoenaed me and documents and i had to testify about that. just before the grand jury took place, they said we want to spend some time talking about january 6. so they spent an hour asking about the documents, three hours talking to me about this january 6 issue. it was like being on an msnbc

panel, it was not questioning but a debate about issues we are talking about here, and electorate where the democrats were they planning this? i said they were planning this. what about having -- what about what happened in hawaii should mark this was all in for the grand jury, like a political debate for the grand jury. i remember thinking why his of his first amendment related activity the subject of a criminal inquiry? to this day, well, i guess i am not astonished given the depravity of the justice department. what an abuse. host: talk to nancy in florida. caller: i am calling in to thank mr. fitton about his lawsuit about ashli babbitt.

are not watching certain channels you don't get this information but if the radio call that bird made trying to cover himself about the shots being fired when he was the only one shooting. another thing about january 6, a week ago wednesday i tried desperately to go into the national guard whistleblowers backing up trump's calling in of the national guard for the fourth and fifth of january and close he and the mayor of d.c. refused to implement them. i couldn't find it, i couldn't find the hearing during the day at all on c-span. i just wanted to thank you. host: you can find that on our website, c-span.org.

caller: why wasn't it played it during the day when there are more viewers looking at it? host: it was played. caller: it was played in the evening, not during the day, the late hours of the evening. host: ok. it is on our app as well. guest: judicial watch is pursuing a $30 million wrongful death suit for ashli babbitt's family, with your -- where were husband filed in california -- widower husband in california. there was a radio call placed by her shooter after he shot her saying essentially the shots were being fired at us, shots fired and and that shots he was hearing was the shot he used to kill ashli babbitt. that is proceeding. the biden's response was to try

to the case to washington, d.c. and our lawyers oppose that because they believe the justice department is just trying to do that to get a more friendly venue here in the district of columbia and the courts are notoriously suspicious of the january 6 defendants and people associated with it and at least one court has attacked actually -- ashli babbitt espys here and we don't want to hear. host: grade in burton, michigan, independent. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. caller: tom, what i normally do when i am checking out a media source is a verify them on some media bias websites. the one i currently have is mediabackcheck.com and they list you as a questionable source.

they say overall they rate judicial watch questionable on a stream right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories , and abysmal fact-check record. it was founded in 1994 by larry clingman who has promoted the conspiracy theory that the clintons are killing people. i guess it was an american conservative active group that filed freedom of information act lawsuits primarily against democrats such as the clintons, obama, and private scientists, as you guys label ryan -- private science fraud science. guest: it is. host: go ahead and get to your question. caller: what they do is they say judicial watch reports news using strong emotional language,

usually pro right or anti-left, typical topic cover anti-immigration. they created a website to quote unquote to expose president obama's alleged irs scandal. host: do you want a response to something in particular? caller: how about this one, they continue to promote conspiracy theories promoted by former president trump that are usually debunked. host: what do you think? guest: to have a leftist call in to promote a leftist website, they can make their own judgment but i am happy they went work they did. the left doesn't like it but we stand by our work and it is good work. host: are you going to respond to the climate science? guest: it is one of the worst scams in the history of the world in terms of the money spent and damage to economies

and well-being of citizens throughout the world, it is a climate scam, scandal whatever you want to call it. host: if you don't believe the science itself? you say the science is a fraud or the money in response to that? what is it that you disagree with? guest: many scientists dispute the extent and even the possibility at this point that the earth is warmed or that humans have a significant role in any climate change one way or the other. accordingly, for state actors to use climate change as an excuse to expand and increase and restrict government power should be opposed. host: upper marlboro, line for, jack.

-- line for democrats, jack. caller:'s version of what used to be the republican party. facts don't matter anymore. democracy doesn't matter anymore. they will do and say anything to defendant donald trump. facts be dammed. it is unfortunate because we need to viable political parties in this country. right now the republican party has been lately gotten -- gu tted. several conspiracies have been put out, even today in the interview, that the democrats had their own late of fake electors but yet he doesn't provide any actual proof. guest: you mistake what i said.

i said they planned to have alternative electors if trump won on election day. so you can argue with the new york times rather than me. the left doesn't like to hear it facts and information they are not used to hearing from sources such as me, so they attack the source rather than deal with the principal issues. there is a big partisan divide here. i don't think republicans, i would argue that republicans are not as conservatives as they should be and democrats what the thread as to their commitment to democracy. we had a lead democrat in the house with proposed legislation that would deny secret service protection to donald trump, clearly directed at trump if he is found guilty and put away i think for a felony for a year or more, whether it be state or federal penitentiary.

what they are saying is that trump gets sent to rikers by this political judge in new york, he will be deprived of secret service protection. my conclusion from that his bennie thompson wants to see president trump get killed. you take away secret service protection, that is a death sentence in the circumstances. host: peter, valley cottage, new york, republican. caller: tom, you are too much sense for this audience. the thing i wanted to talk about is and you touched on it, is prosecutorial discretion, as you can see take for instance the documents case. they are prosecuting president trump for holding onto documents but yet the gentleman looking into the biden document case,

they said he was too old and too feeble to stand trial. what president biden did as he stole documents over the last 40 years which he was not entitled to have but yet they gave him a pass and in addition with the hillary clinton thing where she had an illegal server and destroyed evidence that was under subpoena. this immunity thing is more of an insurance for the president, because show me the man and i will show you the crime. it seems to be what is going on over here that the justice department and some of these democrats say, we are going to prosecute this guy but not them and we will give you a pass. they have automatic immunity. discuss that a little bit. guest: he raised a series of points i have raised with others about the disparate treatment of trump versus prior presidents on document handling.

this immunity case if they find he has official immunity, the question will arise in the documents case. he made the decision to take the documents with him, was that a presidential decision for which he has immunity. this case, not only is it a question about the impact of the case in washington, d.c. over trump's dispute of the election for which biden is trying to jail him, but raises questions about whether that case in miami could survive as well, it would seem to me. i don't know how it is going to play out. joe biden justice department is going to face significant hurdles if this case or decision goes the way it's expected to. host: that is tom fitton president of judicial watch. thank you for coming in. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will talk about campaign finance reform and the role of money in politics this

election cycle with dan weiner from the brennan center for justice. stay with us. ♪ >> today, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round up of c-span's campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover what candidates across the country are saying to voters along with firsthand accounts, updated phone numbers, fundraising data and campaign acts. watch today at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> american history tv,

saturdays on c-span 2, exploring people and events that tell the american story. jason stacy and matthew ellington, cole offers a fabric of a nation, a history with sources for the ap history course, talk about the advanced placement history exam and how the exam is structured this year, provided strategies for answering questions and analyzing historical documents. our tv here is -- series looks at congressional investigations that led to changes in policy and law. in 1973 and 1974, the break-in at the democratic national committee headquarters at the watergate hotel in washington, d.c.. the investigation led to the resignation of a president richard nixon in august of 1974. in lectures of history, a political communication history on president ronald reagan's 1982 address to british

parliament, exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span two and find a full schedule on our program guide a watch online anytime at c-span. org/history. >> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing unfiltered view of government. where policies are debated and all in support of cable companies. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with dan weiner, former senior counsel at

the federal election commission. welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's start with the brennan center and how it is funded. guest: we are working with democracy to create a more representative, acquittal -- equitable democracy in the united states. we have thousands of individual donors and institutional donors who fund our work. you can read about them on our annual reports posted on our website. we were funded and established to continue the legacy of justice william brennan. when the founding principles of our organization is that we donate to his particular use or jurisprudence but certainly the

spirit of a constitution and system of laws that work for everyone that animates all of our work. host: and you track the role of money in politics. let's start citizens united, the supreme court decision in 2010. remind us what that was and how that has impacted elections. guest: citizens united was 85-4 decision decided in 2010 -- was 5-4 decision in 2020 and it narrowed the scope of government -- in 2010 and it narrowed the scope of government in the election process by reaffirming the principal that had been announced by the court several decades earlier that the only justification for government

regulation, money in politics was to prevent so-called corruption and a particular form, quid pro quo which is akin to bribery. what that means is a lot of long-standing, you know, safeguards around money and politics were thrown out the window essentially and these are safeguards that exist in most other well-established democracies. that gave rise to the era of super pac's, political action committees that can send unlimited amounts of money and have come to play an extremely prominent role in our politics. so citizens united was really a game changer in many respects and its legacy continues to be felt in our campaigns and political landscape. host: are there any efforts currently to roll back some of

those excesses, as you call them, to put more guardrails around money in politics? guest: absolutely. one of the signature efforts is a bill called the freedom to vote act, which came close to passing in the last congress. that was a slate of voting rights and broderick democracy reforms that included a very significant money in politics -- and broad democracy reforms that included a very significant money in politics. it reaffirmed the government has every right to impose transparency on money in politics so that voters know who is trying to influence them. and the freedom to vote act contains provisions that would significantly close loopholes that right now keep a lot of money in the political process opaque. a number of other reforms around

cracking down on money from foreign governments and oligarchs in our election, improving enforcement. the other big initiative, and this has taken fire in the states, is move toward voluntary public financing of campaigns. new york state just adopted a groundbreaking new system that matches small, private contributions with public funds. the idea there is to push candidates to raise more money from ordinary americans, in their districts, not from big donors and super pac's. there is a pilot program for that in the freedom to vote act but that has seen a lot of traction in the states, particularly new york where it went into effect this year or last year. it is getting a lot of support already, hundreds and hundreds of candidates have signed up in the system has proved to be very popular.

host: can you explain the difference between a pac and a super pac and how much money we are talking about in a presidential election? guest: a pac is an organization whose major purpose is to elect or defeat federal candidates, it is a federal pack. normal -- a federal pac. a normal or traditional pac is subject to limits on how much it can raise from any one individual or entity and also certain restrictions for ordinary pac's can't raise money from organizations and unions. a super pac is a type of entity created sort of under the jurisprudence of citizens united and a super pac is not subject to those restrictions on how much money can be raised. it can accept many types of contributions that ordinary pacs

can't and pretty much the only restriction on the super pac is generally can't accept money from foreign nationals. domestic sources is kind of anything goes for most super pac's read super pac's -- super pac's. super pac's are the reason why the cost of our election cycles are going up. we are looking at a little over $6 billion for the total federal election cycle in 2016. that shot up to $14.4 billion in 2020. the estimates i'm seeing for this election cycle range from $18 billion to $20 billion that the current presidential cycle is likely to cost. host: the question is, what really is all that money that is a lot of money, what is it being spent on, tv ads, staff? why does it continue to go up?

because typically those don't dramatically in cost. guest: i think super pac's have supercharged the way campaigns feel like an arms race essentially in that they need to keep spending and spending to keep competitive. a lot of the money goes to ads, increasingly those are just not over television and radio but online. online campaign advertising has guy rocketed which is a problem because there are far -- has skyrocketed which is a problem because there are far fewer regulations. and also the ground game, people going to doors and knocking. increasing accounts go to litigation because we have many, many losses and other legal disputes over our elections now. the cost is going up. i would see -- expect it continue -- expect it to continue to go up.

many elections are close and hard-fought and people keep throwing more and more resources at them. i do look at the total cost of elections, but to me the most important question isn't maybe the overall price tag but where does the money come from. it is a big difference if the money is coming primarily from ordinary americans, those who had the concerns shared by the majority of citizens in this country versus if it is coming from a small group of the various -- very wealthiest donors. our question at the present -- brendan center over citizens united is that you are seeing more and more money coming from a very small group of people who are able to write checks for 100 thousand dollars, $1 million, or even more. the top 100 donors in the 2022 midterms significantly outspent

the 3.7 million people roughly who gave small donations. to us, that is a big problem. host: i will mention to viewers that if you would like to call in, you can do so now for our guest, dan weiner. republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, an independents (202) 748-8002. you are talking about very large donors that can write very big checks. what kind of influence do they look for and typically get? guest: at the most extreme, obviously, you have examples of donors writing huge tracts and directly getting the benefit, having an actual quid pro quo exchange. but that still is illegal. mostly what donors are looking

for when they write those sorts of checks is sort of access and influence. there was a fairly notorious case and i want to emphasize there are examples on both sides but this is one that it illustrates thewhere he held a t trump tower and was surrounded by billionaires who had written million-dollar checks to be there and it was their opportunity to lobby for the things that they wanted. i wanted to be clear that happens on both sides. but that access and influence is what people are looking for. when they write checks at that level. for many of these folks, it is a kind of investment because the government has a lot of power to control the fate of various industries and businesses. getting that kind of access and

influence is critical. another example from the democratic side would be sam bring -- sam bankman-fried who is facing prosecution. he wrote hundreds of millions of dollars of checks and a lot of that went to democrats and that was to get his foot in the door to exert that kind of influence on behalf of the industry that he was trying to build. of course, some people also engage in this spending for the purpose of furthering the views that they hold important, and that is a reason that some people give. but we have to be realistic that a lot of it is about influencing policy, and often policy directly relativement to the donor's bottom line. host: let us talk to the callers. betty in athens, alabama. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i have it written down

so it will take me eight few minutes. i watch c-span a lot. host: just talk into your phone, do not listen to the tv. i can turn -- you can turn that down so you do not get confused. caller: hold on just a second. let me see, just a minute. host: go ahead. caller: i'm trying to turn it down. host: we will come back around to you. ok, once you get that situated. hermann in perry, georgia. republican. go ahead. caller: yes. basically and first of all i would like to mention ima born-again christian. and i see all of these

televangelists and people claiming that they are serving jesus christ. ok, and then i am seeing on the democrats side, and i am having to get away from both. i am seeing it on the democrats side abortion and all of this stuff. and then we are seeing these people supporting donald trump. you know, who calls dictators his friends, right on national tv with putin, calling him a friend. and donald trump, if he is friends with people like that, then that makes you just as guilty as that as what they are doing. host: do you have a question about the financing of campaigns? the money in the 2024 campaign? caller: well.

i have a question as far as you know as far as this campaign. i am looking at the supreme court, and i am a citizen of this country. i am looking at a corrupt supreme court saying on right on technet -- national tv like i saw this lady interviewed trump the next day, what do you think about them trying to hang your vice president, and then he said maybe mike deserved it. and then these republicans are calling in and trying their best to dust -- justify what donald trump is doing. i am a veteran. and then he says the veterans that got killed are losers. and they are still supporting him. i just do not understand. host: ok. that is a little bit off topic that if you have a comment. guest: the caller mentioned one

thing which is important which is in the united states, only u.s. citizens are allowed to donate to campaigns. and what i tend to particularly worry about and the caller reference to this is the ability of foreign governments and oligarchs to manipulate the u.s. electorate which was a major issue in the 2016 election. it has been a significant issue in every election cycle sense. one of the things that is a concern is that some of the weaknesses in the current campaign-finance system especially the ability of secret money to come in creates an opening for significant amounts of foreign money to come into the elections. that is one thing that the freedom to vote act would address in a particularly thoughtful way. host: john, independent in rhinelander, wisconsin. caller: good morning and thank

you for taking my call. in wisconsin in the primary we passed a referendum, thankfully to ban outside money in the elections. people were for it. and it was a bipartisan effort and you say oligarchs in russia and i would say sam bankman-fried is also an oligarch, same idea. the phrase in wisconsin was zuckerbucks where facebook dumps hundreds of thousands of dollars into the state of wisconsin in three democratic crowns -- democratic counties in order to get more people out and whatever you want to call it. canvassing and whatever.

it was money from outside the state and i am glad and thankful that our state passed a referendum this spring that will be in effect this fall which outlaws outside money from outside the state. so i just want to see if the gentleman -- host: did you know anything about wisconsin? caller: a couple of issues. wisconsin has had a lot of issues with outside money coming in. and actually in the last decade, a lot of the campaign finance laws in wisconsin were significantly weakened which was part of the reason. the caller is referencing a slightly different issue which is during the 2020 election which took place at the height of the pandemic states needed to make a lot of changes to the voting process in order to ensure that people could vote safely and you know, exercise

their democratic rights without worrying about getting sick. you know, it would have been ideal for those changes to be publicly funded. there was a big push to get congress to appropriate money to help them. it did appropriate some money but not enough so there was a role for private donors who stepped in to help states do that. there is no evidence that any of that money was distributed in a politically biased way. i have to just say that. that does not mean i think it is ideal for private donors to help with election administration. i think it should be publicly funded. it is incumbent on policymakers and the states to provide election officials with enough money to conduct election safely and securely. that is a big problem and in these conversations about so-called zuckerbucks, that piece gets lost. if you want to keep money out of election administration you also want to make sure that the

public funding is sufficient to hold states and secure elections. host: tony. columbia, pennsylvania. democrat. caller: hello. my name is tony, can you hear me? host: yes. caller: my question is if we are so afraid of money getting into the election system why don't they have a simple system? you run for office, there are no donors. the federal government grants you so much commercial time during that election period, and that is it. there should not be election donors because we all know as americans agreed in our country is one of our biggest problems. and if you allow greed into the election system the first thing you get is manipulators. and that is what is happening right now. money has taken over the rules of law. it should be one flat rate that

the government pays for and -- for taxpayers in congress and you get so many commercials for your election cycle and that is it. nobody else can influence it. take the money out of the process. guest: it is a great point that the caller makes because you might be surprised. that is actually how a lot of other countries run their campaigns. they are entirely publicly funded and that is mandatory, not voluntary. that under the current supreme court jurisprudence would not be permitted. you have a right under the first amendment as interpreted by the supreme court to spend money on political advocacy and on electoral advocacy. that does not mean we cannot have voluntary public financing. as i noted we have an increasing number of jurisdictions adopting

strong voluntary public financing systems. but you cannot make it mandatory in the united states. the one thing i will say is that the reason we at the brennan center like small donor matching is that i do think then rather than getting a pot of money from the government there is -- there is something valuable about using public funds to lift up the voices of ordinary folks. i personally and the brennan center support the idea of amplifying small private donations because that encourages candidates to get out there and interact with constituents and raise money while they are campaigning. i think that needs -- that leads to a more representative system where the elected officials have the freedom to be closer to the people that they represent. it frees them from a lot of the less pleasant access of -- aspects of campaign fundraising that dominate their lives. the reality is that public

financing is a norm and other well-established democracies, europe, latin america and asia. the united states is an outlier. host: tim, democrat in california. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. caller: i have been thinking about this for a a while. i was watching an indy car race. on the screen it was split on one side it was a car race and on the left side is matrix that shows you all of the cars and what position they are in so if you cannot see the car you can look over there and look at that data. i do not know if you guys are familiar with that or not but, i thought why can't i see that? i want to see that for somebody that is campaigning on

television. i want to see the campaign portfolio if you well, i want to see the percentage of small dollar donors. and the percentage of money that comes from pacs and corporations. and so on and so forth. because it is public information, they report it. so, every time you see the candidate's face or a senator talking somewhere, you will see their campaign portfolio real-time on the screen so you start to learn. and i was thinking you might be able to use that candidate's ego and their desire to get elected.

i do not know if i am making sense. host: let's get a response. guest: i think the caller is hitting it on the mark saying that transparency is incredibly important and this is information we believe voters deserve and they should have. there are proposals out there that this is not the law currently, that when you see a campaign ad, new york -- many people are aware of the standby the ad message and there are proposals to add to that disclaimer also the names of your top donors. i do not know if you could have a running taker. i would encourage anyone curious to go to the website of the federal election commission. that is the agency that oversees the campaign-finance system at the federal level. fec.gov. they have a lot of data on their website.

and then there is also an organization that i recommend called open secrets. i think it is just openedsecrets.org. that actually the mission is to track campaign-finance data. we work with them closely. they have a lot of interesting information on their website. it is a great resource if you want to learn more about who is funding the candidates trying to influence you. host: you mentioned the fec, can you explain their role in elections and especially their role in the effectiveness and enforcement? caller: the fec is a small federal agency that oversees campaign-finance laws in the united states. it is an independent agency which means it is insulated from control by the president. unlike the vast majority of other agents is it is evenly divided.

by tradition it has six commissioners and by tradition three of them appointed by the republicans and three by the democrats. so that was crafted in part because of a very real worry about an agency that had such a sensitive mission and its power being abuse. the problem is that republicans and democrats tend to agree on less and less and the agency struggles to take decisive action because of the even division. in particular, it tends to struggle to enforce the law. it has to vote, the commissioners have to vote to open an investigation of alleged violations. that can take years. it frequently fails to investigate credible claims and then even when it investigates, it is often not seeking penalties for alleged violations until years later. you know, i know and work with a number of the commissioners at the fec.

they are good people. but the structure of the agency does not lend itself to decisive action. and that is true even on some issues where there is broad agreement such as keeping money from foreign governments and oligarchs. the fec does do enforcement but it tends to be delayed and the penalties are fairly low. actually enforcement of the laws on the books is a challenge in and of itself. it is not just a question of changing the law but making sure whatever law is passed is robustly and fairly enforced. host: john, independent. kentucky. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i think all funding, lobbyists are nothing more than bribeer -- briber.

how do you think nancy pelosi has been worth so much. she has been bribe. we need to get money out of politics. our country is going off of the cliff because of greed. that is how i look at it. end lobbyists. no more donations. thank you. host: can you talk about the -- what the regulations are regarding members of congress and their financial disclosures and what they are allowed, what stocks they are allowed to buy and sell and those things. guest: first of all, one thing that is interesting about the comments is the frustration with money in politics is an issue that does cross partisan lines among ordinary people. you know, there are sharp disagreements in washington but

not so much and the rest of the country. so while i do not necessarily agree with some of the other aspects of the statements about particular people, i think that that frustration is shared. members of congress do have to disclose their personal assets and sources of income. they file reports annually. those reports are somewhat detailed although they disclose the dollar values of the assets in fairly large ranges. so it can be hard to pinpoint exactly how much they are worth. and the precise nature of their income. they also have to disclose stock trades. and they are subject to certain insider trading laws. there have been pretty serious criticisms that some of those rules are not well enforced. so you see examples on both sides of the aisle with members of congress not disclosing some

stock transactions. there is a push right now to strengthen the rules and prohibit them from trading private stock. that had some bipartisan momentum. and i think there is a very serious push for that. but, both -- actually at the top of every branch of government as probably many callers are aware, there are pretty ace serious concerns about the ethics of supreme court members and their willingness to disclose sources of income, afta -- gifts and the like. and then concerns with occupants of the white house, president and vice president because president trump in particular had a very extensive business empire and those things came to the fore when he was in the white house but these are perennial questions about the personal income of members of congress. i do want to say that the vast

majority of people who serve in public office are dedicated public servants. i do not believe that bribery is rampant. i am very in favor of limiting the role of big money in particular in politics. i do think we need to maybe get back to recognizing that most people get into public service for the right reasons and they are not necessarily looking to personally enrich themselves. i think there are bigger structural problems that go beyond whether some individual is corrupt, although there are examples of them on both sides of the aisle. host: at 9:30, we will take you to a brief house pro forma session and then we will come back to open forums. that is happening in about nine minutes. donald in st. joseph, missouri. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i am with the group that says

money has got to be eliminated from our government. it is such a thing of the past. representative democracy is now outdated. we need to go to a system where we can make our anonymous laws online and people can vote on them to be worked out. you cannot just rush into something like that for minority rights. but big money, it causes such a stranglehold on anybody who has ideas just to run for office. they had to wade through the

morass of money. and it has gotten so big that it is just a waste of money. think of all the things we could be doing instead of using that money on -- throwing it down a rabbit hole for political advertisements and such. host: let us get a response. guest: look, again, i think what is just writing is that when we listen to the callers the frustration with the campaign-finance system crosses partisan lines. there are very few other issues where you see this kind of agreement among the general american public. that we really need to change the campaign-finance system. i disagree that representative democracy is not -- no longer works. i think it is the foundation of

our country. but i think that we need significant reforms to make our democracy truly representative for everyone. and putting reasonable safeguards in place or more reasonable safeguards in place around money and the political process is a very important part of the reforms that we need. host: let us talk to ronald. independent. caller: good morning. i am very interested and daniel, about what happens to the money that a candidate collects. and then, they retire, let us say they got $10 million in unspent campaign funds. there is a law, i understand about how you deal with that, ok? and what i have heard you say is that most candidates and people like that are honest and all of

that. i think that is fairytales. i think most congressmen and senators are in it for good reasons, but also for the money. ok? so let me give you an example of what i think of the way it works. let us say a run for president and i have $10 million left over. the laws that you cannot use it for private use. you have three choices, you keep it until you die, or you can give it to another person who is running for office, or you give it to the party. however, what is not covered is the interest on the $10 million, so you could put it in a bank, you go to wells fargo or someplace and you say give me 5%. so you have 500 grand a year. all right? and you keep that rolling on

until you die or whatever happens. would you explain to the people what are the options that you have when you retire from politics? host: we got it. go ahead. guest: the caller asked a great question and it is one of those things that you do not hear much about. so, when politicians and elected officials retire at the federal level they can hang on to the campaign war chests, and many of them do for years. as a caller noted, the main restriction is that you cannot convert that the personal use, which is just basically going and using it for your personal living expenses or buying a for rory or 24 arias -- 20 cars. you can set up organizations and you can even employ yourself and family members as long as you

are actually providing bona fide services. there have been a lot of proposals out there to try and get candidates to liquidate those. and i think some the biggest issues, when a former elected official becomes a lobbyist and they have a big pot of money that they can use to donate to other candidates and again, participate in the process of access and influence. other candidates, president trump will convert the campaign war chests into other political purposes. he actually has used a lot of his money from his last presidential run to cover the legal fees in all of the litigation that came up in your last segment. you know, the last thing i will say is that respectfully, most of the people get into it for the right reasons. i think most of them do try to conduct themselves honestly. i think it is better to think

about these things on a structural level and the incentives in our system even for good people than it is -- then it is to think that politicians are bad. public service takes a lot and i respect that. i think we need a system that works for them as well as for ordinary americans. host: greg in virginia. republican. hello. caller: can you hear me. host: yes. go ahead. caller: a quick question. it is on election day when the voting starts, i wonder why do they give out updates through the sequence of voting and why don't they wait until after all of the voting is in before they give out any results. to me that would keep things on the up? if they did not know what was going on and just waited to give out all that information after the voting was done. host: dan? guest: that is a little bit outside of my expertise.

what i will say is there is a long tradition in the country ever since we have had television of wall-to-wall election day coverage. everyone wants to know when the election will be decided. i do think that and this is beyond the realm of money in politics but i do think uniform rules for the casting and counting of votes is very important. and i think what the caller is alluding to is some the questions around how vast -- fast votes are counted. the freedom to vote act has these important campaign-finance reforms and at its core has uniform rules around the casting and counting of votes. that is in my view that is something to get behind and republicans and democrats sometimes disagree about the details. ultimately we all agree that

everyone who is eligible to vote should have the opportunity to do so and we should count the votes as expeditiously and securely as possible and know the results as soon as we can without rushing the process. and that is what legislation does. host: daniel weiner the director of elections in the brennan center of justice. thanks you for joining us. as i mentioned we will take you over to the house for a quick pro forma session then we come back to open forum.