coverage begins at 6 p.m. eastern at c-span's artwork and spend no, as journalists and celebrities walk the red carpet. then at 8:00 p.m. eastern, sights and sounds from inside the boat is the festivities begin. what the white house correspondents dinner live saturday on the c-span networks. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> koolen-de vries syndrome is extremely rare but friends don't have to be. >> this is joe. >> when you are connected, you are not alone. announcer: cox supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy. weo

"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 fedel 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

>> i'm the dean of georgetown university and i'm delighted to be here with you to introduce our two afternoon panels. in keeping with the objective if -- of the conference i'm particularly delighted that we are a proud cosponsor of this event. you heard earlier this w