of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. including wow. wow suppo c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers. even you a third -- giving you a front row seat to democracy. coming up on washington journal, the president of judicial watch tom fitton discusses legal issues facing donald trump. then former president -- then former prosecutor james zirin talks about payments stemming to stormy daniels. washington journal starts now.

host: is the washington journal for march 20 second. later today the federal reserve will announce if it will increase interest rates. this decision comes in light of the fed's recent actions involving svb and signature bank. some criticizing the fed deposits. the men at the center of this is jay powell. she root -- she received criticism from elizabeth warren this week. we will get your sense on what you think is your level of trust in chair powell, his management of the federal reserve and impact on the economy. if you approve of the way and have confidence in federal reserve jerome powell -- federal reserve chair jerome powell, give us a call at (202) 748-8000 . if you do not agree with his management and have no confidence, (202) 748-8001 the number to call.

you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook and on twitter. that third meeting you can see at our c-span website. from the wall street journal this morning if you go to its website, a piece by tim rose who covers the federal reserve and economics overall wants to watch from that fed meeting. he joins us now on washington journal. thank you for your time. one of the things you write this morning is overall as chair of -- as chair powell takes the microphone, he needs to explain any rates. can you expand this process. guest: raising interest rates for the fed has been straightforward for the fed over the last year. the economy is too hot, inflation is too high. in the way the fed that's it back in the balance is to load

the economy down by reducing demand i slowly -- spending. that seems like a straightforward, open and shut case. his recent as two weeks ago, inflation has been higher this year, economists are expected -- a calmness say it is higher than expected to be. the stresses we are now seeing in the banking sector reflect in part the inflation we have had and aggressive measures the fed has had to take. that has changed the calculus around whether the fed raises at its meeting. host: any chance no interest rate hike will happen? guest: policymakers saying the fed should take a timeout today

and skipped the chance to raise rates. if you look at what investors think the fed is going to do, quarter percent increase is priced in today. investors see a 90% chance the fed goes ahead and raises interest rates. the real question is how jay powell explains the decision today. how they are balancing potential trade-offs. those trade-offs are, you want to continue to slow down the economy to get inflation down, but you don't know how much these banking stresses are going to slow the economy down. maybe a lot more than you want, maybe not enough to get inflation down. it is always difficult with monetary policy because you do not see the effects of your actions right away. that is especially true when you have doubts of financial instability, like what we saw over the past week and a half. host: fed chair powell

constantly talks about data he has to look at in order to make these determinations. bank issues aside, what data has he had over the last couple of weeks to consider as he makes his decision? guest: the data on hiring has been robust. the data on inflation has probably been higher than fed officials were anticipating. reportedly there were some revisions to the inflation profile from late last year. the last time it fed officials met when they raised rates on february 1, they saw -- they thought inflation was slowing down a little bit more than it looks like it did. that had been why when the fed chair testified before congress two weeks ago he said they were debating whether to raise rates by more by .5 percentage point rather than .25%. because of the strong data in the economy.

bank stressors are serious. one of the reasons banks are coming under pressure is because the fed has raised interest rates so fast to deal with these inflation problems in our economy. they have to consider now the effects of what they have done. host: one of the things you write about this morning under the headline of the case for holding steady as far as the chair's actions, he always references to percent inflation point. why does he depend on that number and are there others that would say maybe that number is not achievable? guest: the fed has a 2% inflation goal. they declared that about 10 years ago. the idea behind having an inflation target, which moche -- which most central banks around the world have, if you tell everyone what your goals are, when you decide what you're going to do with interest rates, markets might help you with that. stabilizing of property of inflation can become

self-fulfilling. the idea is if you announce what your target is, they may make it easier. the question for the fed right now is how quickly do you want to try to slow the economy down to get back to that 2% inflation target? fed officials are not saying we need to get to 2% inflation this year. you probably have to cause a really bad recession to do that. the question is, how much longer are they willing to wait or how much longer can they take for this to happen? the worry here would be if you have 4% or 5% inflation, we will have years of that and consumers will start to assume inflation is going to be higher, 4% or 5%. that can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. it would be much more difficult to get inflation down if it was sticky around 4% or 5%. that is where the fed has been focused on trying to cool the economy down, slow down hiring, slow down wage growth in order

to make sure inflation doesn't remain at higher levels. host: we are going to ask our viewers in the next hour what they think about their confidence level they have in the chair and his management. there was sharp criticism this week from senator warren who has constantly criticized the fed. some support from other members of congress. what confidence do you think overall in washington does jay powell have? guest: the banking issues for the fed. primary regulators from silicon valley bank. they will be hearing next week. they will explain what happened at the san francisco fed, charged with supervising the bank. what happened at the board of washington which oversees regulation of the banks. but would powell testified before congress two weeks ago, before any of this happened, elizabeth warren was the outlier. we did not hear democrats really criticizing the fed because

inflation is still a problem and the arrangement we have in this country is the fed has been tasked with getting inflation under control. one of the challenges for democrats has been they downplayed inflation two years ago. they said aggressive spending policies were not going to create a lot of inflation, now you have it. the question is what do you do with it? republicans have refrained from criticizing powell for the most part because they wanted the focus their criticism on the white house and the president. host: nick timiraos, as far as what you are watching, to me what you are watching as far as what chair powell says, what you think the impacts will be on markets otherwise depending on what he says. guest: no matter what it is they decide, markets are going to want to know how the banking crisis or the banking stressors have changed the feds forecast. how will the fed react to

incoming data. and it is that different from what the fed was signaling just two weeks ago when powell was adjusting interest rates closer to 5.5 percent or even higher. now the question will be if they raise interest rates, rates will be just below 5%. how much about 5% does the fed they are going to have to go? that will be critical in determining how markets react today. host: the economy and the federal reserve, you can find his latest piece and what to expect from this meeting today on his website at wsj.com. nick timiraos with the wall street journal. thank you for your time. if you want to see picture been powell make that about -- that announcement it will be at 2:30 this afternoon. you can watch out our app at c-span now and find it on our website at c-span.org. the last conversation we had with the guest as far as levels of confidence in the federal reserve chair. what is your level of confidence

in chair jerome powell's management of the fed? if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. some of you posting on social media. anna saying, when it comes to that level of confidence, no, he lobbied for fewer regulations, he is raising rates. he is eliminating 2 million jobs for nothing. tony from florida saying, "chair powell blew it on the transitory nature and its that by inflation cooling policy and undermined our economy and now he wants to impose ricardian measures to harm the economy. he has failed us and he needs to go." from pittsburgh, pennsylvania this is from walter, "the price of diesel fuel could stabilize the economy.

jerome powell should take a hold of government approach or step aside some of the thoughts there from you. you can give us a call on the lines or post on social media. we talked about senator warren on the sunday show with criticism of jerome powell's management. here is a portion of that. [video clip] >> the first is to remind chair powell he has a dual mandate. yes, he is responsible for dealing with inflation he is also responsible for employment. what chair powell is trying to do, he has said explicitly, they are trying to, in effect, slow down the economy so that 2 million people will lose their jobs. i believe that is not what the chair of the federal reserve should be doing. i want to make a second point on inflation as well. there are other drivers of the

cost increase. supply-chain kinks, the war in ukraine. raising interest rates doesn't do anything to solve those problems. all it does, at least by the way the chair wants to do this, is put millions of people out of work. i opposed chair powell for his initial nomination, that his renomination. i opposed him because of his views on regulation and what he was already doing to weekend regulation. i think he is failing in both jobs. as the oversight manager of the big banks, which is his job and also what he is doing with inflation. we have got to have tough regulators. that means we have got to have an independent investigation. powell needs to turn around the regulations that are in place right now. congress needs to step up and

roll back the changes that were made in 2018 need to hold these cdl's accountable. that is how we have a secure banking system. >> you don't have confidence in jay powell. do you think the president should fire him? >> my views on jay powell are well-known at this point. he has had two jobs. one is to deal with monetary policy, one is to deal with regulation. he has failed at both. >> would you advise president biden to replace him? >> i don't think he should be chairman of the federal reserve. i said it as publicly as i know how to say it. i have said it's everyone. host: those are thoughts from elizabeth -- from senator elizabeth warren on the chair of the federal reserve. if you have confidence in his management, give us a call at (202) 748-8000. if you have no confidence you can call and tell us why at (202) 748-8001.

and you can post on a variety of sites. from facebook when talking about the level of confidence, saying, "not really, he is stuck between a rock and a hard spot. to raise interest rates affects the housing market, the job market. i would not want to be in his position under this administration." from a viewer off of twitter saying, "this is why you get runaway inflation. it is hard is held to raise sentiment -- to raise rates with public sentiment. some legislatures weighing in. senator rick scott, a republican from florida, his twitter feed saying, "accountability matters. if chair powell and others won't hold themselves accountable, it is time to establish inspector

general who will." when it comes to inspector general, there is a piece about senator scott's call for inspector general to oversee the fed when it comes to bank regulations. others saying, you can find that piece on reuters. a final question on white house briefings monday asking about confidence and chairman powell. here is a bit of that for monday. [video clip] >> do you view this primarily as a public issue, not a systems issue? >> it is important, the president believes, what we are seeing that occurred over these last 10 days or so that americans should have confidence in the banking system, they should have confidence in the

actions that the regulators have taken, that began at the direction of the president. you asked me should there be more work to be done, absolutely. we should not let congress off the hook. they should take actions moving forward to make sure we are taking the actions to make our banking system secure. more actions need to be taken, for sure. the president has taken action. what we are seeing with these banks are distinct to those banks. but we are in a different place than we were in 2008. because of the regulations that we saw in the obama biden white house. that matters as well. >> to follow up on that, you said the administration can do without congress. do you have a timeline on when we could see that, days or weeks? >> we are already seeing some of

that under as regulators have taken action over the last few years to reverse the last administration deregulation. that is because of the actions under this president. we have seen that. we cannot take congress off the hook. the regulators are going to continue to do what the president asked of them. these past two years. congress has to act. we need to make sure they do their part in this. as a president is taking actions to give the american people confidence. >> does the president viewed jerome powell stewardship at all a risk to his position as chairman of the federal reserve? >> the president has confidence in jerome powell. host: that was from the press briefing on monday. you can see those as they come in on our website at c-span.org. a republican from texas -- chip

roy, republican representative from texas, his office putting out comments on the federal reserve saying, "americans should not -- should not be held responsible for clear mismanagement." and followed up with an explanation point the said d.c. must stop their spending. the bill amounts from their own bad policy. cnbc taking a look at what happens when it comes to potential rates increase later on today. situation over the last couple of weeks with those banks you heard about, regulators stepped in to read -- stepped in. they provided more favorable loans. the fed joined with other central banks monday to advance liquidity. after ubs agreed to by the embattled credit fleas, investors will now be looking for assurances that jerome powell continue banking problem.

a perverse of problem with respect to the bank. you understand the problems and are capable to do something about it. i think they are exceptionally good understanding the pressure that are driver get -- that are driving it. 2:30 is when that meeting is scheduled to take place. you can see it on our c-span now app and watch it later on our website c-span.org. cleveland, ohio on our no line, we will hear from loretta. caller: i have no confidence in jay powell. i believe president biden shouldn't have kept him over. he is an original trump guy. i think back to the trump administration when they passed

the budget for all of that money to be spent and then trump got to crying about the high interest rates. and he wanted jay powell to give him zero interest rates. and that is what he did. trump rushed all that money out into the economy at zero interest rates. so i don't think the banks or anybody made money off of that money because it was at a zero interest rate and they loaned out. so they want they money back. and now they can get it because jay powell is steadily raising the rate on biden. he is making it biden's fault

when it was actually his fault for agreeing with trump. and that is not fair at all. host: that is loretta in cleveland, ohio giving her thoughts. you can call either on the yes or no line. if you say yes, you trust jay powell's management of the federal reserve, the number to call (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you want to give your opinion there too. i was telling about the inspector general efforts by senator rick scott florida, an op-ed at the fox news website and calling for that inspector general saying, yes, you read that right. the central bank does not have a truly impending ig to investigate it. fighting a fixed bill that i believe will have biden establish -- like any other government agency. he says common sense is something that should have been

done a long time ago. if chairman powell really cares about the american economy and serving the taxpayers, he will do three things during the fed meeting and put support behind this idea and do fit has been fired as far as lack of bank oversight. let's see if he is brave enough to do it. from west virginia on our no line, you are next up. you are on, go ahead. caller: i don't have faith in this system. they run the bill up. they don't care. they spend money in waste. host: and specifically toward jay powell, you called on our no line. tell us why you don't have faith in him specifically. caller: they work with the rest of them, they are all crooks. host: ok.

from congressman john -- as far as confidence in the federal reserve, he writes, "americans should not be on the hook for the federal reserve and banking regulators out-of-control spending by washington and general mismanagement of silicon valley bank. american people are done with government bailouts. he writes on his twitter feed, senator john hickenlooper from colorado saying, "federal leaders missed clear warning signs with the vulnerability to clap -- to collapse. investors in startups have signed a letter to examine oversight and restore public confidence." as far as yes or no aspect of the call, you can choose to call. many of you making your thoughts known on twitter. we put a twitter poll out asking

you to respond. it is not scientific. as far as pure response when it comes to that twitter feed asking the question about confidence in federal reserve chairman jerome powell, majority of you saying no confidence. 67 point -- 67.7% saying no. 32% saying yes when it comes to that level of confidence. when it comes to level of confidence, this is jim calling in on our yes line. calling in from new york. hello. caller: she is doing good because i am making money now. i have got money in the bank and i am getting interest. i was getting three dollars on my don't want to say how much for the last couple of years. this is good. i am surprised kristin will guard raised rates .5%. the european union. can you imagine that?

host: what action do you think chair powell is -- has taken that leads to that, do you think? caller: i got my money from bonds. i buy the one month treasury bills. i am not making gigantic money, but i like to play it safe. i am getting about 3%. which is a lot better than i was getting. i was getting .01% for the last i don't know how many years. now the money is worth something. i wish that you guys would not take so many texts.

you cannot hear the inflection in their boys -- in their voice with those texts. host: there is a variety of ways you can comment on these things. on the phone, the way to do that, we do leave lines open on our texting and social media sites. if you want to text, (202) 748-8003 is how you do that. david in massachusetts on our no line. you are next up. caller: i urge everybody to watch the easy money documentary . somebody talked about that already. it is a pbs documentary. i called on the no line. host: as far as your confidence in jay powell, why do you have no confidence? caller: it is not a level of confidence in jay powell

specifically. if we look at resources, we usually do it through the stock market. 90% of the stocks are owned by a very small percent of people. i think around 10%. i don't have confidence in the way we allocate resources as a society. james powell could fix that, as a central banker. host: that is david in massachusetts giving us his thoughts. one of those things from the actions of the federal reserve being highlighted on the front page of the wall street journal about banking shares in light of the federal reserve's actions and saying it has increased optimism about the banking system that helps with u.s. stocks tuesday. the regional bank including first republic bank at the forefront of a rally. ensuring comments by global finance authority.

the dow jones industrial average posted their second day of gains. the first time since silicon valley bank and signature valley -- and signature bank collapsed. government yields also climbed sharply with the two year treasury yield noting its largest single day gain since 2009. let's hear from arnie in massachusetts on our no line. caller: this is eddie. host: eddie, i apologize. caller: he has to raise the rates to stop inflation. what causes inflation? spending. why doesn't he just tell the president to revise his budget, he is spending too much. hence, inflation. he should tell the president and the congress. he said i only gave congress what they wanted.

he should have stood up. and so should powell. host: this is from jay in connecticut on our yes line. you are next. caller: caller: i have confidence in jerome powell. it is extremely complex. people are thinking this person just makes a decision off the top of their head and that is it. it is not that easy. there is loads of behind-the-scenes conferences and people getting together with this stuff. to roam powell is raising things, lowering things with an extremely complex situation. and the other thing is, if it is not him, who else is going to do it? is there anyone else out there that confident? host: that is jay in connecticut giving us a call. we have made it simple about expressing your opinion. if you say yes, (202) 748-8000.

if you say no, (202) 748-8001. and you can tell us why. one of the people expressing confidence yesterday on the show was senator mark warren. he is the chair of the senate banking committee. when asked his confidence level, here is his answer from yesterday. [video clip] >> with the fed expected to raise interest rates yet again, do you have confidence in jerome powell? >> i believe jay powell has managed this inflation issue fairly well. tough on both ends. you can squeeze from both sides. the fact that he along with the treasury and the fbi see came out with those emergency efforts to guarantee depositors make sure your money is safe in these banks makes sense. host: we will hear from donna in pennsylvania on our no line. caller: my vote is for no.

i would be very careful about anybody else giving any information out because we are not that much different than russia. we are not that much different in china. i think january 6 was bad. host: but when it comes to specifics as far as chair powell himself, why are you a no vote? caller: i don't think he has anything else he can do. they took us into a recession and they had no plan. they printed money and they had no call -- they had no plan. they spent money but they had no plan. this is what happens when you have no plan. they are using racism and diversity and woke. all of those are a distraction to look over here. if you want to know what happened to america, just rewind.

just rewind it shows and watch them. host: that is donna in westchester, put -- west esr, pennsylvania. federal reserve meetings will be at 2:30 th afternoon. a couple of ysou can see it, go touapp at c-span now. watch it there. you can also watch on our website at c-span.org. we will finish off the half-hour. until 8:00 with a round of open forum. if you want to participate you can talk other aspects of news playing out. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. how you can participate in open forum on the phone lines. if you want to text you can do that at (202) 748-8003. post on facebook and twitter as well if you want. one of the other financial views that came out yesterday it was

from the treasury secretary janet yellen making comments to the american bankers association. she defended the government's decision to backstop posits when it comes to those two failed banks. you can see this whole presentation on our website at c-span.org and at c-span now our app. this is a portion from secretary janet yellen yesterday. [video clip] >> let me be clear, the government's recent actions have demonstrated our resolute commitment to take the necessary steps to ensure depositors savings and the banking system remains safe. our approach has two main pillars. first, we work with the federal reserve and fdic to protect all depositors in silicon valley bank and signature bank. the steps we took were not focused on needing specific

banks or classes of banks. our intervention was necessary to protect the u.s. banking system. and similar actions could be warranted if smaller institutions suffered deposit runs post the risk of contagion. our actions reduced the risk of further bank failures. it would have imposed losses on deposit insurance fund, which is paid through vs on bank. second, we announced a new -- to provide liquidity in the banking system. the feds new lynn the facility, the bank term funding program is designed to help banks meet the needs of all of their deposits. the situation is stabilized. and the u.s. banking system remains sound. host: our c-span now app and our

website, the ways you can see that fool speech from the treasury secretary janet yellen talking about economic matters. you can comment on that too. (202) 748-8000, for democrats. (202) 748-8001, for republicans. (202) 748-8002, independents. the manhattan grand jury investigating. when it comes to close to voting potential indictment of former president donald trump. the activity we watched as hush money investigation into mr. trump run by new york michigan attorney alan brack. prosecutors could formerly present charges. the final step for the jury's vote whether to indict. any potential indictment wouldn't be public until it is unsealed by a judge. any possible -- the timing of any surrender is unknown.

law officials say it likely wouldn't happen this week. that story was posited -- that story was posted at 5:30 this morning on the wall street journal. on the democrats line, eugene, go ahead. caller: good morning. i wanted to briefly comment on confidence in jerome powell. he is solving the wrong problem with the wrong tools. they keep doing that in washington the quite often. inflation is a symptom of about four or five things that are happening, or happened. it is not the root cause of things that have happened. among other things, they started the inflation because businesses were trying to overcome on their

losses due to. then they came in and increased minimum wages on top of that. in the meantime, groceries were all lacking goods. landlords were raising rents. things like that. you need to go to the root cause of the problem if you want to solve inflation. host: eugene in california. let's hear from christian in woodbridge, connecticut. democrats line up. caller: hello. good morning, pedro. thanks for taking my call. if i could talk about two topics , that would be great. first things first, inflation is the worst thing to happen to a civilized society. chairman powell needs to raise the rates above the inflation

rate. to get inflation under control. that is how you get inflation under control. if he falters and doesn't raise interest rates we are going to go into a terrible inflation spiral. i want to talk about the svb bailout. the average depositor at svb bank, i was reading about this, had over $4 million in their deposit account. so we effectively build out a bunch of really wealthy philly -- really wealthy people at silicon valley. that is crazy and of itself. the treasury and the fed are now going to ensure all depositors over $250,000, all depositors, anybody with over $250,000 in bank. some people could have millions,

some people could have hundreds of millions. this is an enormous bailout, a banker bailout. host: christian, we will leave it there. thank you for the call. the topic of increasing the protections from the fdic, the new york times takes a look on capitol hill for a short-term increase protection saying representative ro khanna, democratic california representative -- use for activities like payroll for smaller bank, such a move would reprise playbook used during the 2008 financial crisis. it authorized the onset to the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 to prevent depositors from pulling their money out. if passed, the new york times reports a temporary guarantee on deposits over the $250,000 federal insurance cap would be

the latest step in sleeping government response to an unfolding banking disaster. read more of that at the wall street journal. comment on those efforts as well as a last caller did. during this open form. in virginia on the independent line, good morning. caller: hello. i laugh at all democrats for this. because they worship their slave masters. they getting what they deserve. they asked for it. they still talk about trump and everything. host: what exactly are you talking about? caller: i mean he runs the plantation here now. host: patrick in run through the

new georgia -- brunswick, georgia. democrat line. caller: i want to make a couple of comments about jerome powell and the state of things going on. i have confidence in him. you cannot have zero interest rate. they held interest rates down for a long time because the government was spending lots of money. had it to do it. now they have to do it. they have no choice. i don't think he is going to raise anymore because i think he is going to hold still or make it up to .25 and call it quits. that is probably what he needs to do. everybody have confidence and things will get better. with the banking, similar confidence in that. they will fix it. there ain't going to be no problem. they will make sure the people are going to be say. host: what leads you to believe that? caller: there is still going to be problems. because it was the wild west

when interest rates were zero. that is why it has caused all these problems. and now they are going up and you are going to see in the housing market there is going to be a number of people that are hurt. commercial real estate. it had to happen. you cannot keep interest rates at zero forever. 5% is probably where they are going, probably about right. that will be the magic number. host: 20 minutes -- about 20 minutes in this open phone signal. if you want to participate, (202) 748-8000, for democrats. (202) 748-8001, for republicans. independence -- independents, (202) 748-8002. caller: i think condoleezza

rice, george w. bush and dick cheney should be held responsible for that illegal invasion. none of them should be getting off scott free. host: ok. rob in chicago. a vote on the senate side repealing the authorization for use of military force in iraq. it is set to take place on the senate side. reportedly -- reporting also this morning the house may take up his own version. a vote to go to the president's desk for signing. watch out for that on the senate side. as it starts its action. and if it moves over to the house will stop been, in connecticut, independent line. caller: good morning. what they are not telling the american people is 160 three banks went bankrupt last year. i mean it, last week.

they are not telling you that. we are broke. everybody keeps saying, we are pushing it off to our grandkids. no, your grandkids are already here. we have no money. no money. they are playing a shuffle game trying to bring in the digital currency. and if you don't believe it, just keep going the way you are going. host: why do you believe that? caller: because of how much money they printed from covid. two years, three years. host: ben, in connecticut. you are breaking up a little bit towards the end of that call. when it comes to potential indictments of the former president, what the capitol police is doing in preparation

as far as anything that could occur stemming from that saying police guarding for the possible process. bicycle rack type fencing could be deployed. the same type of fencing was spotted last week before the president went to the capital for st. patrick's day lunch with congressional leadership and irish leadership. politico piece adding political intelligence suggest more protests would occur around resident at mar-a-lago rather than new york city. the president called for protests and unrest in reaction to potential payments to stormy daniels. on the republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning to you and good morning to everybody. i tried to get through several

times with no success. but i wanted to call today in regard to mr. jerome powell, with his affiliation of the republican party under president trump. for all practical purposes, there was never any problems regarding the interest rates as we have problems today. there was not this degree of overspending that we have today. in actuality it is really not a question of democrats or republicans. it is a question of common sense. there is no household in the united states that could survive if the amount of outgoing cash

was greater then there amount of income. the basic problem is that our president, mr. biden, because he is filthy rich and doesn't worry about his next cup of coffee, he is spending money just too much. host: thomas in rhode island. some of you texting us from the previous segment saying, sheila in ohio saying, "27 year mortgage rate broker, rates have been too long for too low, -- have been too low for too long favoring the borrower. now there is a uprising of rates rising about 5%." from a viewer in richmond, virginia saying, "between chairman powell's interest rate and president biden's tax increases, there is

just no way this works out economically well for americans. actions right now are at an all-time high." a new trade allowance from william in connecticut saying i don't believe for one second taxpayers will not be on the hook for these "bailouts" of poorly run banks. adding in all caps, risk-management matters and he finishes that within! -- with an exclamation point. on our line for democrats, hi. caller: i don't know much about banking. i just know biden is trying to do what he can for the working class families. i hear a lot of republicans and other people calling in saying that biden is the one doing all of this and he is rich and he doesn't worry about his coffee. but i just want to remind people

trump didn't pay his taxes in 2020. and then also tell people, we will get through it. just top attacking each other. i am so over the back-and-forth yes -- back-and-forth bs. caller: trump has publicly declared he wants to terminate the united states constitution. maybe you agree or you disagree with that. but we all need to weigh that on the skills of making an opinion on what is going on with that man. host: when did he declare that? caller: it was a wild back. it was either posted on his social media site or on one of his rallies. but it is documented that he said it is something he wanted to do, to terminate the constitution. host: ok, glenn they are in

virginia. in massachusetts, we will hear next up from alan. on the independent line, hi. caller: i want to make sure people understood the american combined household wealth today is like $135 trillion. when people say you cannot tax your way out of a problem, back in 1990, it was only $20 trillion that people had. there is no reason we have to have a deficit like we do. it is just made by the politicians. from the top of the social security where you stopped paying, just keep that tax going and you can pay back the deficit with that with an emergency deficit act or something. host: alan in massachusetts. events to watch out for on the

networks today, if you're interested in foreign policy, secretary antony blinken testifying at the senate appropriations subcommittee hearing about the president's 2024 budget request. you can see that at 10:00 on c-span, c-span now, our app and c-span.org. also at 10:00, senate health education committee will talk about covid vaccine prices and the increase of that. modernity ceo -- moderna ceo testifying. you n e that on the c-span p d the website. this morning when it comes to fed chair powell's annocent on potentially what ulhappen on interest rates, that is at 2:30. the app and website are where you can watch those events play out. renato in st. petersburg, florida, independent line. caller: i appreciate you guys.

to speak to the issue at hand, we have a plethora of issues we have to address. mainly i think when it comes to the issue, it is a stagflation thing. from what i am looking at, how we don't have any jobs, people don't want to work. so many different things going on with the economy that we need to target. the solution to the issue, turning the gears, it seems to me we are going to have to address and look at the elephant in the room. everybody needs to get back to work. things need to be released on both ends. we have to sit down to the kitchen, look at what we have to deal with, address the problem on a personal and on a national plane. and understanding we have got to get back to work and do what we

need to do. the government needs to release things, allow things to happen and turn the gears in the right way. it is such a big thing. we cannot look at one isolated issue. it is not one person, it is not one president. we just have to understand we have to do what we have to do as a people to come together, recognize and acknowledge and get it handled. host: viewer from florida there. let's hear from a viewer in new hampshire on the democrats line. hello. caller: i have a short comment. i hear these people, the replica -- the republicans always blaming biden for the inflation and everything else. but none of them ever mentioned that donald trump day $1 trillion in ppp loans. and the fed has $1 trillion to build out the stock market.

thank you. host: kent and oklahoma. this is in duncan, oklahoma, republican line. duncan, hello. caller: please stop blaming trump you it it -- blaming trump, idiot. host: bob on the republican line. caller: all these terrorists across the border illegally, can biden go to jail for it, be prosecuted? host: dennis in jacksonville, florida, democrats line. caller: hey, pedro. i would like to put a shout out for africa. south africa.

give them a little attention. the nation of africa. the world bank and the imf. tell elon musk, go home and take care of your nation. that is my comment. host: that is dennis in florida. speaking of oklahoma, it was yesterday the associated press reporting the supreme court tuesday overturned a portion of the state near total ban on abortion. men have -- women have abortions of their health, not just a medical emergency. conservative states including oklahoma have enforced restrictions on abortion. a woman has a right under state constitution to receive an abortion to preserve her life if proceeding with a pregnancy would endanger a condition she

had or likely to develop during pregnancy. only take place during the case of a medical emergency. it goes on to say waiting to endanger the life of a pregnant woman is not compelling state interest, according to the ruling. floyd is in louisiana, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am an 88-year-old male who served 22 years in the air force. and i have a question regarding january 6 uprising. i would like to know and i haven't heard from anybody saying anything about who authorized or gave the permission to put the gallons up there. they had to have permission to set it up on the ground. i haven't heard anyone say anything about that. will you please get someone to

answer that for be? host: how to the associated press a week or so ago saying the vice president, harris will spend a week in africa at the end of march. at the outreach and global competition with china. triple strength of united states partnerships throughout africa and our shared interest on security and economic prosperity. that was a statement from the vice president spokesperson. last call on this open forum. in washington dc, democrats line. caller: i would like somebody who has a background in economics to call in from any political persuasion and explain to us things like the interest rates, the deficit to break these things down that are a mystery to us that do not have an economics or financial background.

there is all kinds of misinformation out there. i don't even understand how a bank is possible to go bankrupt. i don't even understand how that exactly happens. that investment, i don't know. i would just like somebody with a background in economics to give us some clarity. thank you. host: carrie, if you are still on the line i will point you to the website c-span.org. on this program and plenty of other forums, over many years we have hosted segments taking a look at matters of the economy. interest rates, jobs, inflation. they are all archived there. type in the keywords that you want to highlight. i am sure a number of segments will come up. if you're interested in viewing a specific aspect of them, you can do that. that website, c-span.org. both of our guest this morning talk about the potential indictment of former president

trump coming in from new york. first up we will be joined by the president of you -- of judicial watch tom fitton. he gives his persptive of what is playing out. another perspeive from former prosecutor james zirin. taki a look at what might occur in those cases. both those occur this morning in washington journal. we will be right back. >> the name of america, which belongs to you in your national capacity -- >> fourscore score and seven years ago -- >> ask not what your country can do for you -- >> throughout history, presidents have delivered speeches during inaugurations, times of challenge and farewells.

watch our 10 part series on american history tv. hear the words of george washington and abraham lincoln to ronald reagan and barack obama. this week will feature speeches by president george h w bush 12 days after meeting forces against the iraqi president. he presented a unified front and the hard worker freedoms that president clinton spoke about race relations in the university of texas at austin. he cited the work of those before and talked of new opportunity to confront the racial divide. >> this moment in which the racial divide is so clearly out in the open need not be a setback for us. it presents us with a great opportunity and we dare not let it pass us by. >> watch the 10 part series saturdays at 9:30 am and pm on

american history tv on c-span 2. >> on march 19, 19 79, americans for the first time were able to watch live coverage of the u.s. house of representatives on c-span. to mark this occasion, shop the c-span 44th anniversary sale going on right now. use the promo code c-span 44 to save 15% sitewide on all c-span products, including apparel, accessories and books. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase supports nonprofit operations. scan thee to shop during the 44th anniversary sale, now through thursday. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is tom

fitton to talk about former president trump and his legal issues. remind people about the purpose of judicial watch, what it does and how it is funded. guest: it is a nonprofit educational foundation, funded by contributions we sue under thereedom of information act to gain access to government information, so the people know what the government is up to. we represent whistleblowers. when it comes to litigation, judicial watch is a second to none in the u.s. host: as far as suing and getting the information, what does it give the people who go to your website? what do you want them to get? guest: the understanding of how it operates, especially areas that impact government corruption and misconduct.

the government cannot be policed by the people in a republic, we are doomed. host: as far as the legal underpinnings of what you do, you talk about legal processes. how does that apply to what is going on in new york with potential indictments against the former president. guest: corruption, you are seeing it almost as it happens. you have democratic politicians in new york seemingly target the president on pretextual, unprecedented legal grounds to try to jail him. he is the challenger to president biden, he is the likely primary challenge. the idea that you would have this pretextual novel, the new

york times called it risky to try to jail the opponent, it is so disturbing. it undermines the rule of law, it is an attack on the republican form of government. it seems incumbent upon every elected official from the president on down to denounce this. host: if the president did something wrong as many payments, shouldn't it be investigated? guest: it has been investigated. this is even among the district attorney in new york, they call it the zombie case because walking around the office for years and years, no one thought there was a credible legal claim or legal issue with the

president. they looked at it, they were interested. they raised the legal issue initially by forcing michael cohen to plead guilty to campaign finance issues on the payments, but they never pursued it. now, it is five years later and they decided to pursue it 5, 6 weeks after the president announced running for reelection. host: you use the word seemingly political targeting, why do you couch it as such? guest: it is political targeting. there are three democratic political operations. new york city, left-leaning democratic politicians are trying to jail trump. left-leaning politicians are trying to jail trump. here in washington, d.c., another democratic politician is

trying to jail trump. i suspect putin and xi recognize this activity, they are going after the regime's opponents. anti-trump apparatus. if any other country was targeting the political opponent of the president, there would be no doubt about what is going on. we are supposed to pretend these folks are acting otherwise. i do not think many are going to buy it. host: if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans and (202) 748-8002 for independents. textus at (202) 748-8003 -- text us at

(202) 748-8003. guest: there is urgency, it seems, to investigate what is happening. president trump's civil rights are being violated, trump is a federal candidate, the leading candidate for the republican party. you have a local democratic politician trying to jail him. congress has an interest in making sure a major presidential candidate and former president is not turned into a political prisoner. i want to know what the justice department's role in this has been and what changed over the course of five years that they decided to target trump with this unprecedented application of the law. host: senator rand paul set a

trump indictment would be a disgusting abuse of power, does that go too far? guest: i think he should be investigated, i think that investigation -- no one should be immune from investigation. if he is abusing authority, he should be investigated. going to jail, i think he was just being cheeky. there are federal laws that prohibit people from violating the civil rights of folks in situations like this, but i think president trump is a victim. this is a corrupt district attorney investigation, it is politicized and if i were the governor of new york, i would be trying to rein it in any way i could under law. the president should be denouncing this directly. the politicians in dcn congress should be expressing urgent

denunciations of this and i am not seeing it. america should take notes of those politicians and political commentators who are supporting this effort to put someone in jail based on political affiliations, not because of anything they supposedly did wrong. it is trump one day, it could be the rest of us another day. host: what did you think of the call of protests? guest: the first amendment applies to supporters of donald trump and those who are critics of bragg. they like to pretend the right has no right to protest and pretend and it calls for conservatives to protest as a call to violence. the reality is the left regularly uses violence to achieve political ends. the january 6 issue was a disturbance that got out of

control, it was not a planned violent effort like we see regularly in cities across america over the last few years. people have a right to protest. if they want to, they should exercise freely and peacefully. that goes without saying. host: the first call is from matt in virginia, democrats line. you are on, go ahead. caller: i have a quick question and a longer question. the quick question for the guest is, you said you get your funding from contributors. how many of your contributors are trump donors? guest: i have no idea. caller: give me an estimate in your mind. guest: i have no idea. caller: i think that is false, i think you can guess it is probably 100% of your donors. you are a right wing

organization and most of the donors are extremely rich trump donors. you can look it up on open secrets, you will probably find many of your donors are large trump donors who would not fund you if you went against trump. host: what is the second question? caller: you say this is a political investigation of donald trump. is the investigation of hunter biden a political investigation being pushed by republicans? guest: it is not a political investigation, there is no real investigation of hunter biden. he's been protected for the last several years by the justice department and fbi. i think a test to see whether something is right or wrong, suspicious or not for these types of investigations, is the person being targeted with a novel application of the law?

the first time the law is being applied in a particular way to the target? that has happened repeatedly with president trump. with hunter biden, there is plain evidence of racketeering, tax issues, bribery and other things. there is little to no movement by the justice department. host: putting the weaponization committee into that mix? guest: they are investigating the conduct of the justice department and fbi, that seems to be right up the alley as to what congress needs to be doing. the big question is, why hasn't a special counsel been appointed for hunter biden? how is it the president's son can be investigated by the justice department outside

special counsel regulations that we were told repeatedly were sacrosanct. but when it came to trump, the rules changed with biden. i jokingly say this, i do not think there is a double standard. there is a single standard when it comes to the justice department's approach. protect democrats, target trump and others they consider to be on the wrong side of the political aisle. it is consistent the last few years. host: independent line from mississippi. caller: how are you doing? guest: good morning. caller: yes, sir. i am looking on the screen about your occupation, you saying the investigation of the president is wrong, you also -- you are

supposed to be a professional and be honest. on the special counsel, doing an investigation about the very thing we are talking about, it turns out the special counsel was working together to find information on hunter biden, but then they went overseas together to start dipping in these investigations. they found out that particular country had information on president trump, doing something illegal. not only that, you go back. they did not say president trump was innocent of any crime.

it is possible, 10 charges. you guys are skipping and hopping all around the republican party. you and all the rest of your guys are going to lose badly in 2024. not only that, a lot of these will be subpoenaed. host: we will leave it there. guest: just to be clear, and investigation that is legitimate and protects the rights of those being investigated is not necessarily wrong. this is harassment. an indictment arising with this novel application of the law, this issue has already been investigated. there is nothing new under the sun. i am not quite sure what the caller is referencing, i think he is referencing durham. they looked into allegations that popped up while they were

investigating the abusive targeting of trump. something popped up about trump that raised issues, whether there was misconduct. i am not sure how that was resolved. if they had evidence that trump had done anything wrong, they would have prosecuted him. host: your website recently posted about the cost of john durham's research, what did people get fromt? guest: we had to battle them to get these records. i do not know why it is a secret when it is told what expenses were for the last fiscal year. $8 million. i think people would draw their own conclusions as to whether we got a fair deal for the durham investigation for at least $8

million. i do not know what the totals are given the charges he is brought and failure of the prosecutions he has brought. host: you are saying it is not a fair deal? guest: i do not think we have gotten our money's worth. host: republican line in pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: this case is already over with. stormy daniels has to pay trump's lawyers and trump for all of this, i do not know why it is still going on. with all the republicans, you will not win in 2024 if you keep on disgracing us maga people. one more thing -- host: i think he was referring to stormy daniels defamation payments to former president trump. guest: he is raising the issue

about the quality of the witnesses being used against trump. bragg was given information that could result in charges against people like stormy daniels for extortion. instead, he seemingly wants to prosecute the victimf e extortion. chris michael cohen has been prosecuted and found guilty, his former lawyer said he testified to the grand jury saying cohen told me the money was about milani and protecting wallonia being embarrassed, protecting trump from having this come out, the allegation on behalf of -- that this was done on behalf of the political campaign. i do not know how this will work out, i suspect it will strengthen trump's position in the primary. in a general election, i cannot

imagine an indictment helpful to any candidate. if they were helpful to politicians, they'd be lined up outside the courthouse asking for one. host: michael: is a convicted felon, does that complicate the case? guest: i would think. if you are in an extremely anti-trump jurisdiction, you take your bets. in many ways, the process is the punishment. get the indictment, may be the trials put off. trump has this hanging over his head during an entire campaign, i do not know how it pans out. how does the secret service handle this? will they be with trump during the arraignment when he is in custody? he will be in custody, let us say he is convicted or denied bail.

is the secret service with him? this is the height of absurdity we would try to break the system as bragg is suggesting over these dubious allegations, and i say that charitably. host: sam is in atlanta, georgia, democrats line. caller: donald trump -- i'm going to say this slow for your line guest. donald trump -- guest: what am i lying about? caller: please do not interrupt me. host: go ahead. caller: donald trump called for the suspension of the constitution. there is only one person in america that has called for the rest of their political enemies,

it was not a democrat. do not insult us by having these liars come on, just like fox news. i am not making this up. this is one of the fox news liars, do not let the fox news liars desecrate this precious show. i do not mind right wingers, trump supporters. host: we have invited the guest we have invited, do you want to ask a question before you go? caller: we are not stupid. host: do not talk to me, talk to the guest. caller: do not insult us. host: we will leave it there. guest: if you're going to call me a liar, i will not respond to you other than to say i didn't know what you are talking about. host: curtis on the independent

line in baltimore. caller: thank you for having me, i can understand the last caller's hostility toward your guest. if anybody belongs in prison, it is donald trump. he has been a problem for this country before he even became president of the united states of america. you get on this show and tell us, try to feed us all of this bowlcrap about him -- bullcrap about him not being held responsible. he has committed treason according to me and a lot of other americans in the country. so you can take this guest and go on with your show, thank you. guest: there is simply no evidence he has done any of that. there is hostility to donald trump and, unfortunately, there is what i would call a contagion among his opponents that they cannot deal with him as a

political opponent. they have to treat him as someone they want to jail, that is how you undermined the country. if you are supporting this politicized prosecution, the effort to turn donald trump into a political prisoner, it is un-american. we have to be blunt. this is not about donald trump, per se. it is about how our law enforcement system is going to be used. will it be used as a vehicle to put people in jail you do not like politically, simply because of their politics, facts and evidence aside. that is the standard for drop. there was no american knowingly working with the russians stealing the elections. what else do you need? moveon, stop trying to jell gel your political opponents. make the case in a public square about why your guy or gal should

win. it seems the left wants to use this case to rigged the election, essentially. by changing the election process, by having law enforcement come in on the side of joe biden area -- biden. host: no one should be above the law. guest: no one should also be below the law. everyone deserves protection and equal justice. you cannot be targeted because of who you are. it should be what you did. trump is being targeted because of who he is. in the case of the situation in new york -- you can see it over the course of various investigations. they are thinking of ways to try to throw him in jail, that is not is the way it is supposed to

work. we were opposed to the way hillary clinton was treated, we thought she was given special treatment. some supporters said, you keep on saying you do not believe hillary clinton should go to jail. i think there should be a legitimate investigation of everything she did. that does not mean she gets prosecuted, but at least the process is there. here, you have a process that has been abused and politicized in a way that should be rejected by all men and women of good will. host: if you are makes a comment on twitter saying didn't the hillary campaign pay for the infamous steel dossier in payments to a law firm -- and payments to a law firm? guest: that is a fair analysis, they tried to disguise money that was used to target trump. many campaigns get caught, in

this case it was a dramatic issue because of the nature of what was going on and the lies associated with that. it was not like they labeled a hotel bill as a food bill, this is something that was substantial. durham did not want to do anything about it. host: republican line, hello. caller: good morning. you in your organization are doing a great job, i apologize for the stupidity of many of the callers on this program. i watched the show repeatedly and it turns my stomach. i have two questions. number one, bill barr, trump's attorney general, had the hunter biden laptop from december 2019 and did nothing with it. he claims he came out with a statement saying it was

legitimate, but he did not make a big effort to get out there on the sunday shows and let the public know the laptop was legitimate. i heard a report that possibly the fbi or cia was using hunter biden as a means of monitoring corruption, and the reason they never reigned him in was because they were using him. i would like your comment on that. guest: that is the first time i have heard that second point. i think the criticism of bar is worse than what you suggest in the sense that i do not think bar had an obligation to go on sunday morning talk shows and attack hunter biden, it would have been inappropriate. but he had an obligation to pursue the leads, my understanding was, in 2020, i do

not think much was going on in the investigation. he let it be known that nothing should happen. so that investigation was stalled from december 19, 2019, for other reasons, where they were sitting on it. separately, there have been allegations folks within the f ei around the time of the election were trying to suppress the investigation of hunter. but bar himself did not want a comprehensive investigation done, because he thought it would be election interference. since then, nothing has been done. we've covered stories on the program, it seems like every three months we get leaks from who knows where. the justice department needs to make a tough decision on whether to prosecute hunter, nothing gets done. they are pretending to be agonizing over it, how

complicated could the issues be related to hunter other than he is the president son? host: in maryland, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a bachelor of science degree in paralegal studies, i was listening. he brought up an important word that would be evidence. as i see it, these cases are in the grand jury and they are gathering the evidence. the doj's gathering evidence, you said earlier there is no evidence. you did not know what the evidence is, sir. it is quite offensive the way you talk about our legal system that i dedicated a career of studying. you have not seen any of it. trump is a former president, but he is a private citizen. i want all citizens to be held

accountable. host: there is concern that the grand jury is not actually seeing all the evidence. mr. costello suggested that there is a lot of material that has been withheld or he is concerned it has been withheld from the grand jury. when the grand jury sees, what they want the grand jury to see, he is an anti-trump activist, and elected official in new york within a democratic party of new york that is very anti-trump. he has a long history of pursuing president trump. you can be excited about trying to jail trump, but it is harmful for the country. host: what makes him an activist

against the former president? guest: he targeted when he was in the new york attorney general's office, he targeted trump's foundation. similarly, dealer charges of paying for -- i did not know what the details were while ignoring allegations and requests. i see this fanatic pursuit of president trump within the law enforcement establishment of new york, between letitia james who has been pressuring him, former attorneys who were pressuring him as well and the idea that a politician is making a political decision here, i think is naive. host: aside from the comparisons to hillary clinton, are these not legal actions and should be treated as such? guest: no.

president trump is running for president. he is a former president. it is up to the district attorney to expand to the public why he is "harassing" the president and blowing of the nation in terms of our political system and a presidential campaign. is the new rule going to be that state attorney general's and district attorneys cannot investigate presidents and former president -- can now investigate presidents and former president and try to with novel applications of the law? no one looking at this case has seen anything like it. that should give us pause. host: tom fitton of judicial watch. this is mary lou in new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for all the great work you have done with judicial

watch throughout the years, sir. i am honored to speak with you. i have a comment and a question. my comment is i hear these people, in and i think they are losing sight of the main issue. it is not only about donald trump. it is about everybody's legal right to be treated fairly and they are missing that. donald trump is the greatest president in my lifetime, and i and going to be 75 years old. unfortunately, joe biden with barack hussein obama behind him is the worst. the question for you is this -- there is a man who worked behind the scenes and is one of the main verses of the problem that is going on in this country. his name is george soros. what i want to know is this man has millions of dollars that he

forced into these elections to put these corrupt da's in office. what can we do about george soros? do you have any idea where the gets all this money from? host: thank you. guest: i presume he earned it legally. he is a wealthy investor, has made a lot of money in the financial markets. he has a right as a citizen to participate in the public policy process, just as those who oppose his agenda have a right to highlight how extremist he is in terms of public policy and the policies of the politicians he has been supporting. soros and folks around him -- i would encourage anyone who is interested in these issues to recognize that you do not need to spend a lot of money to have

a big impact in some of these local races. i think greg raised two main dollars total for his campaign. -- $2 million total for his campaign. soros gave $1 million or two main dollars to a packet supporting him. host: type think it got down to have a million dollars. guest: but even that is a huge percentage of support in that contested primary. i think bragg is a public official. i asked her for the support he received given soros's agenda and his policies. this is separate, or maybe not from the trump issue because bragg has been notorious for

this soft on crime approach for crimes that really harm public safety while throwing a book that donald trump on contextual issues. host: karen, independent, minnesota. caller: hi. this is karen from middleton. thank you for taking my call. the judgment who took my call originally was very polite. my point i said to him was that there was a caller who called in and was very rude in asking tom how many supporters he had that will republican and saying he really knew and i had said to the man who answered my call, i said, i would not think that politicians should know if their donations work from republicans, democrats, or independents.

date should not be worried about that. i compare it to a pastor of a church who has been no right to know who gives money to the church. i also went to say that i listen to c-span 1, 2, and 3, but i like to this into the prerecorded senate hearings. people need to this end to things like that. they do not have to listen to the news. if they would just watch these hearings, they would learn what is really going on. it is said that they probably just do the washington journal. there is a word i want to say, but anyway -- host: do you have a question for our guest? caller: i wanted to ask him about the fact that there was

the attorney who gave the information to the grand jury about exactly cohen and what they did not know. isn't that correct? it was 100 pages or something and they did not even know what cohen had actually said. guest: i guess robert costello suggested that there were hundreds of females that he would be helpful to trump. that hundreds of emails that he thought would be helpful to trump. he was concerned the grand jury had not seen it. we will see what happens. maybe bragg will walk back. i would encourage anyone watching to share their visa with the governor of new york. bragg is a public official. call, beat respect for, and say,

what do you think about these issues? you have a right, despite with the left tells us, you have a right to petition your government. that means calling and sharing reviews and recognize that there are folks working for a living taking your call. be direct and sustained, but i would not underestimate the power of personal interactions with government officials -- whether it be in congress or at the state or local level. they carefully. host: democrats fight, tennessee, robin. caller: alvin bragg prosecuted trump's charity for stealing money from kids with cancer. and using charity money to buy a painting. when you selectively leave out that, that is the same thing as lying.

you are, sir, a liar. are you going to to the same thing about louis when georgia comes to? because at a certain point, we have got to admit the fact that donald trump is a criminal. the tried to steal the election. he think it was stolen. that was a lie, too. what is your answer? guest: people can look at the facts. the targeting of trump on the foundation and brought their own conclusions about anything. on the fulton county case, this is a novel application of the law. this president was trying to figure out what was going on. the wealth made our public. people should listen and draw their own conclusions. what the left is trying to do, not only in phone cap, but in washington, d.c. -- trying to

do, not only in fulton county, but in washington, these economic is criminalizing elections. exercising your right in a way the left is done repeatedly that history. host: expose look at the documents by the special counsel, where is that as far as the status is concerned? guest: i do not know. there is a battle according to the newspapers who are trying to read the lease. grand jury proceedings are typically under seal about cap the client privileges and whether they apply. jack smith is the special counsel. i do not know what is happening. that is another instance of the novel application of the law because it is trump, while others are protected or, frankly, the law is made up in

terms of the justice department's position. host: there was a cnn story in august that describe you as a former legal advisor to trump. is that the case? guest: i am not a lawyer. i do not talk about what i talk about with trump, but i have been public about this issue. 10 years ago or so, we had asked for records. we were taking the position they are taking up from the archives. we have news that bill clinton had tapes made of his communications with foreign leaders. how are they not presidential records? we sued, go to court. the court tells us you cannot do this. no one can second-guess the president's idea of presidential

records. justice department lawyers went into the courtroom and said, if the president has them after he leaves office, they are presumptively personal. after this erupted last year, i was like, what is going on? they said no one can second-guess the president. new rules for donald trump that were not applied to bill clinton. again, figuring out ways to get him despite what the law says. host: have you had three cases with jack smith's team regarding the documents? guest: there have been reported site was over there, but i am not in a position to talk about what happened when i was over there. host: new jersey, republican mine, bobby. caller: tom, i have got to come to your defense.

it seems like the devil because it woke up on the wrong side of the bed today -- it seems like the democrats woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. guest: i guess i'm supposed to know if you are a comfortable -- if you are a trump donor. caller: i am a competent supporter and a judicial watch suorted. i feel badly that you are getting attacked today. would you agree or disagree that as a republican, we only have two cable news channels we can turn to -- fox news and newsmax? every other channel in this country, that is only half. my next question is the

corruption in this country is beyond belief. you just mentioned it. with the freedom of information act, you are struggling to get stuff from the justice department, the fbi, the cia. the john durham thing introduction be a disappointment for me. i am convinced that chris wray and some of the people in the fbi are corrupt. are you making any progress with the hunter biden laptop investigation? host: we are out of time. guest: getting information on anything related to hunter biden is like drawing blood from a stone. mostly because they have got investigation going on, so they can hide documents, but that highlight some thing else. there was a big disclosure by congress last week about money that was evidently passed through to a hunter-friendly

business to members of the biden family from a chinese communist front company. the lack of media interest in that story is astonishing. this is on top of biden's issues related to ukraine and russia. he is throwing into hunter's coffers and then hunter's laptop suggests that he was taking care of joe without money. there is evidence from tony bubble and ski that confirms that joe biden was in on all of this during his vice presidency and during the period between he was vice president and president. there is a lot there to be investigated. does it mean that joe biden is "guilty"? i do not know, but i am i confident that the justice department is figuring out what went on?

no. caller: quick question. quick question as far as trump. i am not true if you answered the previous callers before about what you think about georgia. you say that new york is a misdemeanor, the left is doing this, but you literally have trump on tape trying to find votes. i do not know how you dispute that. i want to know your opinion, not the political or appropriate opinion. what do you think? right is right, wrong is wrong. what is your opinion? you are making it seem like he is just clean and these things are made up. this is not made up. this thing from georgia where you have him on tape, what is your opinion? guest: five describe the tape as

completely innocent. they were talking about the number of votes. he was not directing anyone to find votes. he was talking about the votes they "needed" or were in dispute. the tape shows what it shows. i say it shows completely appropriate contact that should never -- conduct that should never have been the subject of any investigation but democrats are prosecuting trump for disputing a close election. this type of activity by the fulton county prosecutor was going on in the justice department where they were investigating state legislators and citizens were just doing what they thought they could do to participate in the process with the debate, it is a signal for 2024 if it is another close

race, it is a warning that they will come after you. do not exercise your first amendment rights. these are dangerous times. host: the website is judicialwatch.org. tom fitton, thank you for joining us. another perspective is coming up from former federal psecutor jim zirin. he will discuss the case coming out of new york concerning former president trump. that conversation is coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> on thursday, to cap seal testifies before the house energy and -- tiktok ceo testifies before the house energy and commerce committee. watch it live thursday at 10:00 a.m. on c-span 3, c-span now or at c-span.org.

>> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. john resto offers suggestions on how to increase the value available are the education and bridge the divide between academic and american culture. at 10:00 p.m., science journalist angela zane explores origins of patriarchy and how it has spread. he -- she is interviewed by soraya shumway. quite a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. ♪ >> this year's grand prize winns in the student

documentary contest are from dr. martin luther king middle school in germantown, maryland. watch the grand prize and all leading documentaries online at studentcam.org. ♪ >> c now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from u.s. congress, the courts and more for world politics -- all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and finding scheduling information for c-span tv networks and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now available at the apple store and google play. download it now. c-span out, your front row seat

to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> washington journal continues. host: our next guest is former u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york and also the host of conversations with jim zirin, which can be seen throughout the new york metropolitan area and pbs stations. jim zirin, thanks for coming on the program. as far as your legal background, how do you look at the case that the attorney general in new york is earning against the former president? guest: i think it is a strong case. most of the facts are well known. there are certain legal questions that will have to be resolved, but i think the case has been outlined in the media clearly. it is a clear case of falsification of business

records with an underlying site which enhances the charge to a felony. host: as far as the strength of the case, what makes it rise the federal charges the da is trying to seek? guest: the state charge is substantiated by the witness who pleaded guilty to a federal offense, served time in jail, michael cohen. it is corroborated by evidence that concealed the true nature of the payment it is corroborated by the testimony which is expected of the stormy daniels. it is a simple case for the jury. the underlying crime for enhancement is the violation of federal election law, which is an issue because it is a federal

crime, not a state. whether it qualifies for enhancement, i think it does by analogy to other new york statutes. there were other charges in violation of the state election law. also, there is a tax evasion,. because the payment was camouflaged as a legal service and probably written off by the trump organization as a tax deduction on the state tax return. it was in fact a personal expense, which could not be deducted. host: when you hear the others i described this transaction as hush money and people saying that that is not necessarily illegal, how you respond? guest: it is accurate that the payment of money to someone who

is claiming they had an extramarital tryst with you, the claim was made by stormy daniels and the run-up to the 2016 election -- in the run-up to the 2016 election. the money was paid clearly to cover up her allegations because they came on the heels. the same with the billy bush tape, which showed a cavalier attitude toward women. they did not want any for the scandal. trump wanted to shut her up just before the election betrays -- because it would be adverse publicity to his candidacy. it was illegal because it was not reported as a campaign contribution. that violated federal law.

federal prosecutors decided not to prosecute top -- not to prosecute trump, because the charge failed -- paled in comparison to january 6 and other crimes allegedly committed. host: i suppose there is the question of why now. guest: why now? this case had been under investigation for at least two years under bragg's assessor. -- predecessor. this is called the zombie case because it kept coming back. host: jim zirin, our guest. we are going to continue our conversation with him.

if you have questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8000 for --(202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. text us at (202) 748-8003. also, if you want to post on our social yet excited, -- social media sites, c-span wj is our twitter feed, also on facebook. we are having a bit of a connectivity issue when it comes to jim zirin's connection. as we wait for that to be resolved, we will take your questions. as we get them, we will pose that to him. massachusetts, democrats line, go ahead with your question and

we will pick that up when we reconnect with the guest. caller: . -- double comment. trump should have been jailed two years ago. the first thing that happened when biden got into office with they said we've got to rest trump. he should have been arrested the moment he got out of the white house. trump should have been in jail a long time ago. one thing. i -- one thing, they think they're going to turn this country into russia. host: everett in colorado, republican line. caller: my concern with any of this is to any crack about what

is the statute of limitations in new york for both the misdemeanor, you can look online, or a felony? how long do we go after somebody? host: that is everett. jenna in ohio, independent line. caller: i was wondering out 3500 cases how many times has trump been found guilty? you are talking about taxpayer money going out nobody in washington cares about the american people anymore. this is ridiculous. i am 71 and have never seen such craziness. and some sisters in the vietnam war.

you tell me, why after six years, you are still going after trump? he has never been found guilty of anything. >> that is jenna in ohio on the independent line. don't know we have him back. are we connected with them? >> here we are >> hello. >> in the first place, trump was impeached twice. there was a special counsel investigation conducted by robert moeller. the conclusion at that time of the trump justice department under attorney bar was that you could not indict a sitting president, so they had to wait until after he left office, so you have to take away the or years trump was in off this because the federal government was paralyzed it was not about

to indict him. there is nothing in the constitution that says a sitting president can't be indicted red as unseemly as that would be. he left office. we had a. of covid. delays are unfortunate. one of the great criticisms of our legal system goes back to shakespeare in hamlet. law is delay. now, these allegations have surfaced. there are allegations related january makes. that is not so long ago. they have been investigated by a special counsel, jack smith. there were allegations in georgia of being investigated by a district attorney there, during the election. i will grant you, some time has elapsed, but we are reaching a moment of truth appears that

charges brought against donald trump new york and possibly georgia, and possibly by the federal government. there is the issue of mishandling of documents which is being investigated by a special counsel. >> also, a previous column -- caller asked about the statute of limitations. this was her new york,. winder heard elsewhere? >> this doesn't apply because governor cuomo extended a stature of limitations for the. of covid because cherries were not meeting in court proceedings were delayed. in addition, a division of new york law sews that the defendant was outside the state. the statute of limitations was suspended, and after he left

office, it was largely in florida washington dc, but he was not within the state of new york or any appreciable. of time. >> paul is in arizona, democrat line. >> comported -- good morning. the last guy from judicial watch, i've never heard a parsing of words and dissemination of facts -- i'm telling you. a republican, they twist things around to make it look like the devil is god. i swear. trump is done so much, like your book says. 3500 lawsuits, but i'm not going to -- how do we know how many civil lawsuits he settled out of court after 50 years of doing illegal activities in your? >> thank you. >> we don't know because a lot of federal questions are around a seal, but 3500 was the figure

published by usa today, and the american bar association said he had about or thousand lawsuits, and that was after the 2020 election when i wrote the book. >> as far as the challenges that the da has, we talked about the theory, but what is the question if the cases brought? >> there are many challenges. the first challenge is presumed innocence. that is a fiction of law, but the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, and that never shifts. there is a heavy burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. the second challenges factually,

the case will rest in part on the testimony of michael cohen. he is a convicted felon. he went to jail. he is now test -- turned against trump, his former lawyer. he has testified as a witness, so they will blacken him in front of the jury. they will try to show he is a villain that he pretrade trump. that the scheme was something he himself devised with some purpose. whether that will be successful, we don't know. most criminal cases of any moment, there is a co-conspirator or a cooperative codefendant who testifies. in new york, that has to be corroborated. not in federal court but in state court. it has to be corroborated and the have to look to the documents and evidence to see

what cohen says and if it rings true. he testified before congress that a lot of dave ms. were all over the lot. shifting positions, switching versions of the facts, but that is up to the prosecutor. there are legal problems as well. >> let's talk about those. >> i mentioned, the fact that it is unprecedented to enhance a state crime based on a federal crime. there are state crimes as well that trump committed. you don't have to show he was convicted of those crimes, but you have to show that there was a violation of state law. the provisions, for example, with a conviction of a lawyer

provides automatic disbarment, relative to the highest court of deals as to whether the conviction of a federal crime would be sufficient for automatic does are meant, and the appeal of twice now would be sufficient, so those are arguments that undoubtedly the prosecutor would make, and we would have to see how those play out. >> if i have this right, the new york election law that is part of this is 17 -- a conspiracy to promote election. conspiracy to promote orrevent an election by unlawful means which conspiracy has acted upon by one or more of the parties had they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. whack certainly, the prosecutor will rely on that as one of the underlying crimes for the falsification of business

records to a felony. that is an important statute. >> this is darrell. he joins us from alabama. republican. for gas, from the southern district of new york. >> so, donald trump is not above the law, but you know who is? joe biden, cuomo, all those democrats. mike question is will do your hatred extend if trump doesn't get on the ticket to the next republican red will you jail this president? thank you. >> i don't view this as a political matter. many of us who don't like trump for many reasons, but prosecutors used to say in the u.s. attorney's office, a prosecutor is prevented from --

prosecuting someone he likes if they prosecution warrants it in trump's case, in this situation, the fact of the law warrants this so is a lawyer. not based at all on political persuasion. no one is above the law. not trump or biden. no one. we have a rule of law in this country, and that is the fiber of our democratic system. the law should apply equally to all citizens, and trump is entitled to no greater consideration because he is the resident, and no less, either. that is where this stands as a legal matter, and i feel most lawyers feel strongly about that because we are dedicated to the rule of law in the constitution. >> to that point, the editor of the wall street journal wrote this bid when it comes to the casing, we know that no one is

above the, but prosecutors their discretion not to bring charges for any number of reasons it is vowing not to charge. a previous president was a candidate for ite house, and their political ramifications that a prosecutor must consider the harm through the rule of law and bring a restitution that would be deed lyrical, in a charge against current candidates did their more serious offenses with indisputable evidence. >> the evidence is indisputable, and based on what's come out, these are serious charges. as of the other charges that have been discussed against donald trump, the act that he is a politician, the fact that he is controversial, the fact that he may be popular in some quarters does not immunize him from prosecution any more than it would any of us.

if any citizen did what trump is accused of doing in your, they would be prosecuted. if this came to the attention of attorney, what was said about jailing people and not prosecuting people for nonviolent crimes, a position which he later retreated from, that is absently relevant to this case. this case stands on its own feet. >> this is from kent in kentucky. independent line. >> hello. i think this whole debate from the warmer person that wrote this book, it rests on this concept that we are all citizens. i get tired of hearing republicans call democrats liberals, biden versus.

the law is the law. republicans, i have to admit, have been violating laws. they follow the textbook. the campaign. the demagogue. that was probably first implemented where they live, and then they double down on it, and as a former person, you do it to smuggle the truth. there are many true witnesses, and unfortunately for the republican party, all of them so far have turned out to be republicans with year integrity. the other matter is --. >> we will leave that to our guests and --. >> i agree with you to the extent that there have been violations of law by people who identified as republican or

whatever, but the political affiliation is irrelevant. what is relevant is what they did or what they failed to deal, and certain sent cash circumstances, and biden is a criminal. if someone holds up a bank, the answers not to say someone else held up a bank. that is deflection. in the case of any crime, the defendant may claim someone else to the same thing and got away with it, or everyone does it, but you wouldn't believe the number of people in the united states who paid off foreign stars to be quiet. to avoid embarrassment to families. all of that is not relevant here. what is relevant here is the concealment and falsification of public records and if there was

an underlying crime. what is the evidence that establishes that? we all have to discipline ourselves to think only of that, bearing in mind that trump, until proven guilty is presumed to be innocent. >> there have been comparisons to what is facing the former president, and quite a few years back, with 4 -- john edwards, he was a million dollars to eight pregnant mistress. there were finance violations, but are there comparisons >> that i think cases based on indiscretion on the part of politicians don't seem to do that well in court. i think people assessing the current conduct of officials consider indiscretions as well. it wasn't good for gary hart or for john edwards. even though he was acquitted, he

was acquitted before a favorable jury. he was a popular figure there. trump i not be so popular in new york, but that is the jury system. those cases are really not a precedent here, and we should not refuse to prosecute trump because john edwards is successful in front of non-north carolina juries. that just really isn't relevant. >> james is in chicago, democrat. >> i have one question for the guests. is it illegal for someone to call the state's attorney after the election and ask to find more votes? thank you. >> to call a states attorney --? >> he's going back to georgia and the calls the president made at the time.

next oh. that is going to be a question of fact. when he said to call the secretary of state and find more votes, i'm sure you'll take the position that he wasn't saying he was doing something improper. he was just asking if they could keep counting because i am confident i've won, and these figures are not correct. whether a georgia jury will believe them or not, i don't know, but that is the evidence that as strong as he said that. he approached the speaker of the georgia legislature to get him to overturn the vote, and the point -- appoint electors. whether asking to do that is a crime under georgia law, i am not qualified to say, but the allegations seem to be quite sensational. it's never happened before. in our history.

we will have to see how it plays out. a special grand jury made recommendations and now, it's up to the family to decide whether or not charges should be brought. >> our guest is james. he is the former assistant u.s. attorney for the district of new york. the book is portrait of donald trump. 3500 lawsuits. he also has a talk show. conversations with jim's iron. tell us about the talk show. >> because i am a lawyer, it feels more legally oriented, but we talk about foreign relations, foreign policy i just interviewed the former prime minister of australia who is now the australian ambassador to the united states, and if you talk to the cia director, i interviewed republicans and i interviewed the governor.

i interviewed three dzhokhar you, and a number of prominent figures, around the world. entertainment, journalism, and more. it was a half-hour talk show, available on youtube. nationally, and in the new york area, and it's available on public television stations throughout the country. >> our next call is from diane in florida, republican. >> good morning. >> good morning, diane. i am happy to hear you. >> i love it sometimes, and sometimes i don't. the reason i'm calling is because i want to commend you because i am a republican, but i

am not a donald trump supporter. i guess i would be called a rhino, that's what they call it. there is no one that is above the law, and as you stated, not even the president of the united states, whether it is joe biden or donald trump, but i want my public and colleagues to stop defending a band that they know in their heart is corrupt. that is it for the day. thank you. >> i wish i could disagree with you. here's a tweet from one of our viewers. questionable witnesses, hypocrisy, is not really a big deal, but going first, it will diminish following cases, and it was said that they let georgia go first. >> i think it will unfold in the order it unfolds. it will be very close to an indictment, and trump said he

would be indicted today. we don't know how close sammy willis is to an indictment if she files one in georgia. we have to take it in the order it comes. >> once all the grand jury testimony has been hurt, can you describe the next apt? -- step? >> first there will be an arraignment. it will be interesting to see if trump will be arrested and brought to court. as is the case, with a traditional perp walk of all the detectives and officers surrounding him as they led him into the courtroom. or, whether he will -- as lawyers will be successful in putting the matter on first surrender, in which case he is

not arrested, he just appears in court. he will have to be booked and fingerprinted, and he will have to be photographed. he will appear before a judge. undoubtedly, he will plead not guilty. that is an arraignment. trump will have a fixed bail because no one thinks he is a flight risk it then the judge will set a date for motions, and undoubtedly they will be brought. it will test a legal theory on which the cases brought. you've raised some of these issues, with the underlying crime and other related issues, and then the motions will be resolved or denied, and the date will be fixed for child. -- trial. there will be a trial of the century kind of trial because

this is unprecedented in our history that a former president is ever faced terminal charges. two vice president's have faced terminal charges. the first was aaron burr, who was indicted for treason, and he was acquitted. the second was euro agnew, who i believe pled no contest to corruption charges brought to him. brought against him and marilyn. unrelated to his vice president. >> to that end, is there a concern because the former president has been a declared candidate for 2024, and the timing of the case as the election date for -- forward? >> trump has criticized bragg as interfering with his candidacy for president of the united states. interfering with the election

process in 2024. that is the kettle calling the pot black because what did trump on january 6? there is absolutely nothing to prevent the indictment or the conviction of a presidential candidate. eugene debs in 1920 ran for president from jail. he only got one million votes, but there is nothing from the constitution that prevents either an indicted defendant or a convicted defendant from seeking office if he or she meets the qualifications. >> let's hear from lori. she is in california. >> hello? >> you are on. >> hello. i just want to focus on the

specific charges in new york. they might lead to an arrest. >> first, i heard the nondisclosure agreements were perfectly legal. the agreement was legal, and it is common among a lot of guys who have that kind of money like trump, but anyway, i think what i understand is what the charges are is that they believe he should have listed the money he gave to her as a campaign expenditure, and that is because it was to help him win an election. so, he should have listed it for that reason, i guess. a campaign expenditure. anyway, i just want to say about the student loan forgiveness,

right before election, biden would announce that he wanted to forgive all these loans. 40 million people. >> i'm going to positive there because that is not the nation of the conversation. go ahead. >> i think the student load's are off the point, and it is quite commonplace for an incumbent president who is seeking reelection to really up for candidacy. you have here circumstances, falsification records and deceit, and that is a prosecutor stream. the payment after she was threatened on the eve of the election to tell a national inquirer that she had a tryst with trump in the beverly hills hotel, that was papered up as a settlement agreement.

in the midst of a lawsuit, they had no claims against trump. it was not a settlement, but the parties were fictitious parties. i believe david dennison and peggy peterson. david dennison with donald trump and peggy peterson was stormy daniels. the payment came from michael cohen. there will be an indictment of his and a star witness. michael cohen borrowed on his home equity loan. it gives a hundred 30 thousand dollars, which is deposited in a bank account in the name of a consultant. the corporation didn't exist, and they admitted hundred $30,000 from the bank account. there is michael cohen out $130,000.

he is elected president, michael cohen goes into the oval office and talks to trump and says where's my money? trump says we will paper it up. it will be a legal fee. there was no -- he rendered no legal advice. there was a retainer agreement, and it was funny. there were invoices which were submitted with the monthly invoice, so, he could be repaid but that was for stormy daniels. there is a falsification of business records. that is a crime in new york. it is a crime is a prosecutor. many times, if you are doing that, you would be prosecuted as well. the question is a legal question as a felony or misdemeanor. it is punishable by one year in jail, and that is up to four years in jail. so there's a question of

enhancing the crime to a felony, because the underlying election law crime. >> a few more minutes with our guest. let's go to tom in michigan, democrat. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. i understand the visceral hate that everyone has for trump. i get that. when i look back, and this starts with the russian pollution with a fake dossier, the justice system use this for warrants. i guess i start with that, and there has been a seven year cool -- coup against trump. my question is this. white is an atom shift being prosecuted for his lies? >> what differences make? >> are you a democrat or not? >> i'm independent. i'm either or.

i am not a straight ticket voter. >> you are calling on the democratic line. we will let our guest answer. >> i think that question is the same type of deflection i referred to before. i rob a bank and i prosecuted. there is no defense being prosecuted. that's not the issue. the issue is whether trump committed a crime in new york. that is the issue we are presenting if he is indicted. he will be presented to a jury. that is the legal system. it's in the constitution. >> that's what you should be thinking about the rule of law in this country, and not adam schiff. >> this is david in north carolina, republican. >> go ahead. >> does the guest feel that donald trump is a private citizen and all the people that were prosecuted for january 6,

does he feel they have their rights under to process when people were held in jail for months, sometimes years, and specifically, it was mentioned that there was an impeachment. is there a cross-examination in the impeachment or january 6? i want to know his views on that? >> the january 6 cases so far have resulted in convictions. the legal system was adhered to. i cannot comment on the circumstances of bail or no bail, and whether there were flight risk, but all of these defendants have been before a judge, and i'm sure they will all ask for bail and the judge is entitled for bail, and they were admitted to bail. those who are not entitled were

remanded pending trial. i don't know the facts, but i'm sure the due process was adhered to. as to january 6, we don't know, because jack smith is the council, and the justice department speaks to the filing, there's been no filing against the higher-ups. those that might have directed them or incited them are conspiring. >> tell us what you are watching for, particularly from a legal career. >> i think the first thing we have to pay attention to is what will they do. who will file the indictment? it is very interesting. the charge of the indictment and

what process, we don't know. we don't know the legal theory, we don't know. i'm sure this will be filled with defenses. up until now, there was the issue of one of trump's lawyers, he was formerly approached about being stormy daniels. he was disqualified or limited in what he can do for trump. there will be a lot of interesting legal issues. this is an historic case being brought. this is the first time in our history that a former president has ever been exposed to criminal charges. >> the book is plaintiff in chief. the portrait of donald trump. he is also the host of

conversations that could be seen in the new york or metropolitan area or on pbs stations. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> we finish the program with open forum at 10:00. if you want to call and comment on these things or other things, the numbers are on your screen.

>> washington journal continued you can participate in our open forums. to the case in your, being watched by many, including the house republicans in florida, yesterday, we've given a perspective from yesterday. >> remember when the dnc took a lawsuit, and we found out it wasn't. it's all about russian pollution. they went through and got investigated. it gets prosecuted and find, and hillary's campaign got fined $8,000.

the dnc got a hundred thousand dollars, even though you million dollars. they got investigated. i look at it from this perspective. we live in america. there should be equal justice. this was personal money. this was a statute of limitations. i think we know that it was political. were tired of that. >> we find this on c-span now, and also on our website. there is a political following up saying that president donald trump is fighting a determination that is communications amid a grand jury probe with a classification of documents contained in evidence of crime. the presidential campaign issued a statement, and a judge issued a seal ruling.

the statement followed increasingly detailed news reports about how they could be forced to testify and turn over documents because prosecutors had not shown sufficient evidence of a allege in effort to show differences. the trump campaign statement says that it goes on to say these leaks are happening because there are no factual or legal substance to any claim against president trump. there is more there at the political story if you want to read it yourself. reston virginia, we are starting with open forum, independent line. go ahead. >> good morning. my message was for your guest earlier on, so i will say my thoughts. it is ok. but i think in our country, you are innocent until proven guilty, but why shouldn't we put

him in the court of law, and let a judge decide. you are a friend, gentlemen. he acted like a judge. he does not want trump to go before the court to be convicted otherwise. maybe he is innocent. ok. great. we would love that. but we are divided because of this. and in regards that, let him face the judge and the jury. let them decide. >> tommy is next. democrat. >> thank you. i was just wondering why all of the reporters we have keep asking for connections. does the republican have trump, and they hang with them, with all of that. what i would like to know is why

don't they asked trump to find out. what is the main connection between all of these senators. jim jordan and all that, what is the connection. they defend trump no matter what. if jesus christ came down and told them this man was guilty of something, they would argue he is innocent i'd like to know myself, but i think it all goes back to epstein and all of that. we say check it out, and i would like to know why they dropped him. they don't tell where he went. they don't ever talk about that anymore. >> teresa in tennessee, republican, good morning. you are next. >> i have two points. one is a low bit long. first of all, joe biden was find 200 $19,000 in his 2008 failed campaign for president.

for campaign finance laws. but he wasn't arrested. and i didn't answer the guys before me. it had nothing to do with trump. this is not about trump. it is about fairness in the law. everyone being treated fairly and the same. lookout black lives matter got convicted for their crimes. but then, where this was, they go after donald trump for paying off a prostitute, but they didn't go after john edwards like your guest said. he had been in a friendly court, they didn't convict him. donald trump is a new york red so of course, they will convict him. all of the stuff with hunter biden. they're going after trump, and nobody, not one person is saying a word about the money to joe biden, coming in from china and

those dirty deals. hillary clinton. she never paid. >> terrell is in kentucky, republican. go ahead. >> nice having you on the air. i was listening here a minute ago. i would agree it all comes after president trump right here for something he did not do, but if he did pay her off, i never hear anything more than i care about joe biden, when they find documents, and they're not prosecuting him. or, the special counsel is looking into that, as well as president trump. >> well, that's true, but when they came out dear president trump's car going florida, they busted down his door and help themselves through there. i mean, you can't do that.

that is the fourth amendment right there. they would find documents. they were down in the basement, but they've been under lock and key. they knew where it was at. they didn't have to break down the man's door. just like joe biden. they found documents in his garage. nobody prosecuted him or anything. i don't see anything is been done about that. they cover that out. >> that's darrell in kentucky. later on this week, the ceo of tiktok is going before congress to ask questions about the foreman concerns about it. it will pick up the story, saying the threat to ban tiktok takes aim in what has been the most popular smartphone app in the country. tiktok scale presents in a norm is changed to the threat, outweighing the wishes of millions of people who use the app, and it's been downloaded more times than any other social

apps with music, in august of 2018. the app is expected to generate more than $11 billion in u.s. avenue revenue by 2024. it is outpacing its rivals, and all of this centers around the fact that tiktok has a ceo that plans to highlight the app growth on thursday. those will be released earlier. watch out for that on c-span. a lot of things going on in washington area particularly, with a lot of this. the best been to follow along as our website. you can go there with a house and other places. let's hear from stephen in fort lauderdale. democrat. >> good morning. you get what you vote for. you voted in the greatest con artist in the history of the world. donald trump. you voted him in the sector time, and say goodbye to our

republic. dear republicans. i love this country more than you love the con artist. have a great day. >> brenda is in indiana. independent. >> thank you for taking my call. when trump was campaigning, he said, do you want a president with legal baggage that will consume our government? look what we got. he made a laughing stock of our government. of the republican party. now of our judicial system. please, bring this man to justice. we can get on with running our country. thank you. >> the new york times is reporting that delaware is overseeing dominion voter systems. $1.6 million in defamation. a pretrial heel -- pretrial hearing will issue a summary judgment for either side of the case in the hearing and lawyers

from fox news and dominion post -- both push the judge to rule without a jury. dominion is an election technology company, accusing fox of spreading widespread voter rigging in the 2020 presidential election. they say quote i made a decision. the case centers on the fox coverage of the election. president and his supporters have spread false claims about widespread voter fraud. this is ray. ray in michigan. republican. >> i want to know what happened to our government. our government in washington. they are only working for themselves. the democrats have been after donald trump for two days after he was elected. they have spent six years fighting donald trump. there is supposed to be work for us. do they realize how stupid they

can look in front of everyone? they should be in office no more than eight years in any place because they are so corrupt down there. everyone of them that goes in are not rich when they go in but they are always millionaires when they come out. they are not doing anything or the country. they could go back to bill clinton. did they do anything to him? did they do anything to obama when he spent $450 million per ransom? nothing. but when it comes to donald trump, donald trump was running the government. that is the problem. you don't have anyone running the cover meant. -- government. >> that was ray in michigan.

from fox news, the story about washington post, a fox staffer was told to be evasive with the content of timing and lawsuits on tucker carlsen tonight. all an unexpected wildcard in the $1.6 billion defamation case. spurious election fog -- fraud cases. a woman at fox said she was overworked, undervalued and denied opportunities for promotion and subjected to vile stereotypes, but her most explosive allegation was being coached to make misleading statements in a defamation suit to shift blame. it created an opening for dominion voting systems. they were suing fox over false claims on the 2020 election. in wisconsin, let's go to john. this is robert in massachusetts. robert, any panetta line, good morning. >> thank you. i just want to say that our

country is really going to help. if anyone is standing behind donald trump, after all of the trouble this guy has covered, even when the press conference is a troublemaker, and he wants to run the country as a mob man. he is going after people. they don't agree with him. i just understand white people would compare antifa or any other group that is protesting peacefully in comparison to the insurrection, or a guy that was help, and in the republican party, they are still behind him. i think, probably, they all compromised with russian money because the conman would take people to light, and a conman would compromise all of the

republican party, and they have money that they knew would spill the beans, saying that they were compromised with money from russia. they cannot support a man like this. >> let's go to john in wisconsin, republican. >> i was calling about the bankers out there in california. i was wondering, why weren't they charged with insider trading since they knew the company was going to fold and they sold off all of their stocks? i was curious why they weren't charged? >> that is john in wisconsin, democrat. the wall street journal reports that president biden announced the creation of two national monuments set in nevada and texas did they designated a national monument honoring a tribal place in southern nevada. they also established a national monument which the white house says would expand access and

honor military veterans and servicemembers. you can find the whole announcement from yesterday where he talked at a conservation summit and talked about the creation of these two monuments. here is the president. >> i am proud to use my authority to establish -- and i want you to know, it's a big deal, i'm having trouble. thank you. i got it. spirit mountain. it nevada. one of our most beautiful landscapes. one of largest contiguous wildlife corridor doors -- core doors in the united states. 500,000 acres. right there. breathtaking death valley mountain range.

biodiversity, sacred land, central to the creation of so many tribes who have been here since time in memorial. you know, it's a place of reverence and spirituality. it's a place of healing, and now, we recognize it significant to be preserved forever. i look forward to visiting myself, and i want to thank you friend in congress who fought so hard for this data become possible. jacky rosen. jaclyn cortez. our representatives. being indicted. such a thanks. for your partnership. look. the second thing we are doing, we are protecting the kastner range in texas. thank you, our representatives.

i hope you still have reason to call me. there's a lot to be called for this one. >> more of that at c-span.org and our app at c-span now. it is open forum for the next humans. let's hear from dan in oregon. republican. >> yes. i just picked up my phone. the weather happens as it comes from oregon and california and washington. back in 72, the weather was better, they were flowing in the river, and people were not running to the government there.

they took away the onc, and now they have more problems. goodbye. host: eric is in alabama, republican. caller: i would like to know the relationship between trump and the government -- governor of new york, cuomo. what i think we are seeing is to wings of the same bird, and bird is at phoenix. host: the governor of new york is kathy hochul. governor cuomo is the previous governor. caller: throughout trump's presidency, he bashed cnn a whole bunch. that is cuomo's brother. when you look at -- trump also started a state force. why did he start the space force? if you look at the history, they havoc company called tele metrics. they do tell, treat data. -- telemetry data.

host: let me tell you about what's on the networks starting in a few minute from now. secretary of state anthony lincoln is set to testify on the senate side, taking a look at the senate appropriations committee with topics of china and other foreign policy priorities. he will come up with that, starting at 10:00 it the abbott c-span is where you want to go. there is a hearing of vaccine prices with the ceo of maternal set testify about the increase in prices with the company's vaccine, and the health committee will be on c-span3. the app, or website. if you want to start off the program today, the federal reserve will gbere cameras. the question is whether to raise interest rates are not. you can see that at 2:30 p.m. on

our app. en is in pine city new york, democrat. hello. caller: can you hear me? host: you are on. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to say about donald trump that if you had a friend in -- and you knew he was married and had a beautiful wife at home, and a child, and then you found out later that he was involved with a born star and they had a relationship with her, how would you feel about your friend? were not even talking about donald trump. what was he doing in that situation? what made him make such a stupid decision? it just -- it amazes me that he is running for the highest position in government, and he

would make a stupid move like that. >> ok. republican line, michigan. excuse me. hello. >> hello. how are you? thank you for taking my call. i just want to make a couple points. the first is on a classified document. president trump is the only one how to pence, trump and biden that was able to declassified documents. you may have had classified markings on his documents, but he declassified them. the fact -- second thing is that donald trump is not about donald trump. it is about the deep state covering up their crimes. it has been seven years. it is really getting to other people. the same thing for barack obama when he signed an order that allowed the media to use propaganda and analyze the

american people. host: what order was that? what order was that? caller: i'm not sure what order it was, but it may have been legislation. barack obama did sign legislation that allowed the media to give propaganda to the american people. host: legislation that went through the house and senate and went to the president's desk for signature? caller: i'm not really sure on the details. but if you look into it, barack obama signed something that allows the media to give propaganda to the american people. host: that is taught in michigan. the department of homeland security's intensifying efforts to stop fentanyl trafficking across the country. the southern border is launching an operation with hundreds of u.s. agents and officers. they are using scanning technology and other detection tools to ramp up the interdiction efforts in criminal

cases, according to officials. much of the effort will report on entry. it will be more than 90% of seizures along with the southern border since the start of the 2023 fiscal year. on october. judge is in grand forks north dakota, independent. caller: good morning. i want to talk about her former president. i don't understand why republicans, if you excuse me for saying so, but why they can't record highs a crook when they see one. he was found guilty in his phony school for nurses. he was found guilty for -- i don't know. about three or four things. it slips my mind. talking about