our callers, social media followers, all of our guests, for another great "washington journal." please continue to wash her hands and stay safe. we will see you again tomorrow for another great show. have a great sunday, everyone. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024]

♪

host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." house republicans are moving forward with an election year impeachment push on president joe biden. the gop brought it to the capitol hill for a closed-door question-and-answer session and are now trying to decide what their next steps are. democrats are calling for an end to this impeachment push, but some republicans say their need to be public hearings and an impeachment vote. what do you think? is this a waste of time by the house gop, or should this effort continue? that is our question this morning. give us your view of the house gop biden impeachment. we are opening special lines to this conversation. if you support the house gop and their push to try to impeach president joe biden, your number is going to be (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the house

republicans biden impeachment effort, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001. keep in mind you can always text us your opinion at (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading on social media on facebook, as facebook.com/c-span, and our next -- and on x @cspanwj. again, the house this previous week brought hunter biden in for a closed-door question-and-answer session as they tried to move forward with their impeachment efforts on president joe biden. pew did a poll recently to ask americans what they think about the efforts of the gop to impeach president joe biden, and i want to bring that poll you right now. pew said about half of americans, 52%, approved house republicans decisions to conduct

an impeachment inquiry into joe biden while 45% disapprove. these opinions and views about whether joe biden has done anything on grounds of his impeachment are deeply divided along partisan lines. 85% of republicans approve of the inquiry while 77% of democrats disapprove. but relatively few americans, 16%, say they are even following news about the impeachment inquiry launched by house republicans into biden's conduct and possible connections to his son hunter's business dealings extremely or very closely. this poll was taken earlier this year before one of the house republicans's our witnesses was accused of lying by the fbi. but even back then before that happened, it seemed like you americans were paying attention. once again, house democrats are

saying this impeachment push should end. the top democrat on the oversight committee jamie raskin's on wednesday told reporters he thinks it is time for republicans to abandon their impeachment effort. [video clip] >> the constitutional standard for impeachment is treason, bribery, and other high crimes of misdemeanors. we are still waiting for our republican friends to articulate what they think the high crime and misdemeanor is. in this case, we have gotten extremely far the constitutional standard. nobody can state on their side what they think joe biden did even as a private citizen that would constitute some kind of criminal offense. their most recent star witness is now in jail being held as a

flight risk after being indicted by the special counsel who was named by donald trump for lying to the fbi and creating a false documentary record so this has been a comedy of errors from the beginning. all of the revelations that are in the legal pleadings filed by david weiss now give a very strong whiff of a russian intelligence operation, so i think that our colleagues would do best at this point to fold up the circus tent and allow us to focus on something that would actually be of benefit to the american people. host: one of the things that republicans have been pushing for his testimony from president biden's son hunter, which happened wednesday behind closed doors in the u.s. capitol. the washington post had a story on thursday that talked about

what happened with the hunter biden testimony, and i will read a few paragraphs from that story to you. hunter biden delivering his long-awaited deposition before a gop led congressional impeachment inquiry testified wednesday that he never involved his father in any of his business decisions, and he accused house republicans of having built their entire house of cards on lies. at the start of what was seven hours with contentious questioning and adamant rebuttals, president biden's son gave a statement that was defiant, emotional, and combative. i am here today to provide the committee with one uncontestable fact that should end the false premise of this inquiry. i did not involve my father in my business, he said, according to a copy of the statement obtained by the washington post, not while i was a practicing lawyer, not in my transactions, domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist, never.

house republicans have not been able to uncover firm evidence that joe biden benefited from or played a role in the business pursuits of his family members. the asportation that is at the heart of their investigation of the president. once again, that comes from the "washington post" with their story about hunter biden testifying behind closed doors in front of congress. what do you think? what is your opinion of the house gop biden impeachment effort? you support it or approve it? let's start with the phone lines and talk to john who is coming from virginia who he supports the impeachment efforts. john, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, job. caller: yes. i definitely support it. we have, of course, first, hunter is a crook. his father, our president, is a crook. i feel like we are being held prisoner and we need this

inquiry big-time. host: so, john, you say both president biden and his son are crooks. caller: yes. host: house republicans can't seem to find any proof of it. caller: well, i mean, you know, they have a good way of hiding. host: unfortunately, in this country, don't we consider people innocent until proven guilty? caller: yes. that is my opinion. host: ok. let's go to someone who called from rhode island who opposes the house gop impeachment effort. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. what people don't realize is it takes 67 votes to convict. that will never happen in this lifetime or any other. i told my friends that wanted to

impeach president trump at the time you are wasting your time because republicans in the senate will never get the 67 votes to convict him. this is a total waste of time. i want to thank you for taking my call. host: let's talk to mark, who is calling from carlisle, pennsylvania. mark, good morning. caller: yes, i support it. there is a couple factors i have. first of all, the border. if you think about it, if you go to any other country, go to china, russia, north korea, cuba, and try to sneak in there. you will be sometimes executed. so hunter biden, joe biden, there is overwhelming proof that they were corrupt, they have always been corrupt. to say there is no proof, as a matter of fact, you said there is no proof. there is absolutely proof.

this is a complete scam. but only that, these congresspeople like mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi going to congress, making $200,000, look at how much they are worth. nancy pelosi is worth multimillion dollars, $200 million. mitch mcconnell is worth $880 million. another thing is, why are we trying to do this ukraine package? this is that where hunter got most of his money from? if you cannot see the facts, people need to wake up and let's get this corruption out of our government. host: mark, let me point something out. what i actually said was house republicans have not been able to find any proof. one of the things we need in this country, and i think you would agree, is proof before conviction. a second think of the countries you named with the borders, most

if not all of those are dictatorships. should we be following behind the lead of a dictatorship? caller: well, again, try to sneak in there and see what happens, first of all. second of all, to say there is no proof, where did joe biden get $240,000 in two different checks from his brother? there is a video out there if you look it up back in 2007, 2008, where joe biden is at some kind of a conference or convention or whatever it was, and they show you how it is done. hunter is sitting there waiting in the background, and joe biden , people are giving him business cards left and right, and he hands them to hunter. it is very simple. to say there is no proof is absurd as far as i'm concerned. host: all right. let's go to milton, who is coming from philadelphia.

milton opposes the impeachment efforts. milton, good morning. caller: yeah, i would like to make two points. an impeachment inquiry is a waste of time. they have no evidence. think of all the other problems we have. this is a waste of time. ukraine funding is not being done and the ukrainians are dying facing a brutal dictator. you want to talk about something we need to look at, hunter biden never worked for the federal government, but jared kushner, ivanka trump's husband, worked for the government, and he got $2 billion while working in the white house for his family business, and ivana trump, when she worked in the white house to him she got a fast-track patent approved by the chinese government to sell products over there. you want to talk about corruption, why aren't republicans looking at that? jared kushner was working at the middle east plan at that time and got kickbacks on it but nobody is talking about trump's

corruption and the fact that he had foreigners stay in his resort while he was president and they were doing business while he was in the presidency. you want to talk about corruption. to be fair. hunter biden never worked for the federal want to go after joe biden and there is no open joe biden took any money at all. host: now, the oversight committee chair who leads one of the three committees leading the biden impeachment inquiry is defending the republican investigation into the president and his family. here is what james comer had to say. [video clip] >> this investigation is about public corruption. the american people do not want a public official's families to panel access to the leaders to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. you may think it is ok but i can assure you the american

people do not. i have campaigned from embers of congress seeking reelection and running for election and everywhere i go, i hear the same thing, thank you for trying to find out the truth, thank you for trying to stop this industry of influence peddling. that is what this investigation is about. the purpose of this investigation if you go back to the first press conference was to get the truth to the american people because the american not have the truth. the media narrative only said it was russian misinformation, joe never talked to any of the people that sent him money, and none of this happened while he was president. all of this we have proven is false. we have been effective getting the truth to the it my job as chairman of the oversight committee is to prevent influence peddling from happening in the future and that has always been the purpose of this investigation, to create legislation, hopefully

bipartisan, that defines and stops influence peddling from happening. we need to stop them from enriching themselves in our public offices, and thank you all very much. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about their view of the house gop biden impeachment efforts. here is one post from facebook at says definitely overdue. president trump was impeached r at biden did. biden deserves to be ieaed, removed from office, and sent to prison for the rest of h miserable life. he is a post from x that says, how much time is the gop wasting by posturing, gas lighting, trying to impeach fono impeachable reasons, mostly made up? what happened to governoring? running out the clock is a bad trump hit that is what. he is another text that says anhing short of a successful impeachment vote is an admissio by republicans that they have no

firm evidence and president biden did nothing wrong. here is a post from facebook that says the best thing that happened to biden's when he gets impeached. one last facebook posts, a nothing burger with russian dressing. it is verging on pathetic. we want to know today your view of the house gop biden impeachment inquiry. do you support it, or do you oppose it? if you support it, your number is (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, your number is (202) 748-8001. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to michael, who is calling from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. and michael supports the impeachment inquiry. michael, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. and thanks for the question. i think that i agree with -- and thank you for that little blurb

from james comer, who i think brings it out well and explained some of the reasons for this impeachment inquiry. i also agree with the caller from pennsylvania that brought of some of the reasons. i am not going to re-enumerate them, but the house is doing this because it is their duty to do it. as house numbers, they are bound and determined to investigate anything that looks like it is a bribe or high crime and misdemeanor, and i think this qualifies. if all of these things that biden did in fact -- in front of the house of foreign relations -- the council of foreign relations he admitted to bribing foreign officials by forcing

them in ukraine, these things are things that need to be -- it is all a matter of what you are listening to, i think. i think that is why there is so much division on this. the american media was -- you will have more people supporting this at understanding why republicans are bringing this up. i don't think it behooves them politically. i think it may be a detriment, and it does not matter whether it is possible to get that done in the senate. that is not the point. the point is, is there a cause for impeachment? and i think there is. host: let's talk to ivy, who is coming from minnesota, and iv opposes the impeachment effort. iv, good morning. caller: hi, good morning, and thanks for taking my call. i just want to say that i wish

they would just stop with it because there really isn't evidence. i put aside my book that i am reading and started reading the script from this deposition or closed-door hearing they had. and i was surprised that hunter biden is, you know, a lawyer, schoole he h -- schooled. he has lots of experience. i can see why he has been on boards. made his living because his dad is president -- he has not made his living because his dad is president. all of these things happened before joe biden was president. sure, he was in government made his own way. there is just no proof.

reading that transcript, they talk about these vague statements, and there are other people's bank statements, not hunter biden. there is just no proof. and i've got probably i suppose 100 pages more to read. it is over 200 pages, that transcript, but there is just nothing there, and it is just like the one democratic person, i don't member his name, said. it was really boring. i can imagine because it is not a very good thing to read. it is boring, but there is no proof, no evidence. things that they are bringing up are from before biden was even vice president. it just doesn't make sense. and when you listen to the whole interview of the republicans that are on tv, they don't answer the questions because they don't have the proof. they just say what they think

happened. host: let's go to marion, who was calling from new york. marion supports the impeachment effort. marion, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. yes, i am 100% and more -- i 100% and more support this. outside of all of the stuff going on with his son and all the transcripts and everything else they are talking about, what about the oath that biden gave when he became president? he stood up there and get -- gave when he became president? he stood up there and said he would protect the united states of america, and that caused an invasion into our country. he could not wait to leave that stand and go to his office and sign how many executive orders? over 90 executive orders to open up our country the millions of migrants that we don't know where they are coming from, what they want to do, if they are

bringing any disease into this country, plus all the crime that has been happening. the poor nurse that got murdered , and not only that, where is biden and his son getting all of this money? where did biden get all this money to buy his homes? and another thing. when he was a senator and vice president, he took classified items out of that room where he was not supposed to do that on you were president of the united states, and what did they do? they got enough to impeach him over and over and over again, and what do they do? the impeach trump for making a freaking phone call to ukraine, which there is nothing wrong with a phone call, nothing. they impeached him over a freaking phone call. i would like to know what biden did to deserve all of this money. what did he sell? at least trump's daughter and

son-in-law, at least they worked for the money they got. what did biden do? how did he get all this money to buy these beautiful homes? host: all right, let's go to gwen, who was calling from detroit, and gwen opposes the impeachment effort. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. the person who was just speaking, he is asking all of these questions. why don't you look it up in google it instead of watching fox? every time they call him, it is the same. don't disconnect me, but i am just saying they are talking points. they all say the same thing. but about this impeachment effort, what it is is looking up dirt effort.

they are still looking up dirt, still trying to find something against biden ever since trump told putin to find some information about hillary, whatever, but my thing is this is nothing but another delay tactic. they are delaying everything and that is the name of the game. his judges are delaying everything, the supreme court, they keep pushing the date back, pushing the date back. even with the family with income of that is just a delay tactic. they don't have any information like another caller said. they don't have anything. they don't have nothing, and they keep saying we are trying to look into this, we are trying to look into that. it is just ridiculous. what i would like to know, if you have a guest on, my question is, can states delay their

election in the state? are you here? host: i am. caller: can states delay the election just like if there was something wrong? you know, they would hold it. they never delay if it is something big, but this is an unusual election. we never had a president go off the rails like this one, so they are tiptoeing around everything. let's tiptoe around the election. can you ask somebody that? host: we will if we have a guest i can answer that. let's go to george, who is calling from ohio, and george supports the impeachment efforts. good morning. caller: yeah, i support it. there is more. i hear the democratic collars. sometimes i wonder if they are being paid to call in because it

seems like they don't know what is going on in the nation. this nation is in dire straits. i am 68 years old and i think we might be in our last year as a nation. i am serious. burisma, 20 about it and you. why did biden do all of this money to ukraine? it is clear he is becoming black male. how did hunter biden become chairman on the board when he had no experience? that is a good question. they had the military at the border of the olympics. we cannot forget that. it was all lined up. we knew they were going to attack. biden let them come in. if you wanted to stop something, wouldn't you stop it before it happened? remember the prosecutor. biden flew in air force one by the way when he was vice president and we are going to fire you if you don't drop this case. it is all on tape. the 10% or 5% to the big guy, what is that about?

democratic collars must be living in a cave. there is no excuse for it. they don't want the truth. talk about delay tactics, this happened when biden was vice president. you have to be living in a cave. host: let's talk to someone coming from portland, oregon, who opposes the impeachment effort. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i definitely oppose the impeachment effort. they have nothing. i watched the whole trial. i read half of the transcript. there is nothing there. joe biden is an honest man. he may be a little old, but he is wiser than donald trump will ever be. and he knows what he is doing with this country. when i see james comer on the screen, i automatically know

that he is trying to investigate or look into something or prosecute something. he is never that he has never ever -- he has never ever been anything for the american people. you talk about the border. biden should be impeached for the border? trump should be impeached because i remember him locking little children in cages on the border and then losing their parents. remember that? we tried to look for those parents for those children for years. some of them still have not been found. impeachable offenses. donald trump is a 90 time indicted criminal. he is a rapist. he murdered people during covid by having them drink bleach. high crimes and misdemeanors. the republicans have done

nothing but high crimes and misdemeanors. the democrats have a mile-long list of good things joe biden has done for this country. i am just disgusted by the whole impeachment. it should be stopped immediately. host: well, the white house press secretary came out earlier this week and commented on the state of the impeachment inquiry. and here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> i say this broadly, and we have been very clear that we think it is a start that has dragged on for months and months and months. it has uncovered zero evidence of wrongdoing by president biden. in fact, house republicans, this has refuted their allegations over and over again in the court permits of their inquiry continues to fall apart. you all have reported this at we have seen this for the past performance, so house republicans would be better off helping american families.

there is a national security supplemental that if it went to pass and that would help. our own national security, that would help. ukraine, that would help. making sure we get the humanitarian aid into gaza, making sure we continue to aid israel, and let's not forget the indo pacific. there is a potential shutdown. the clock is ticking. they need to do their jobs and get that done, so that is kind of where we are with this. it has dragged on. there is zero evidence. we think it is baseless. anything else, i would refer you to the white house counsel. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about their view of the hoe gop biden impeachment effort. text we got -- heree te we got that says tre a waste of taxpayer money. they havee on for so long and they can only find a lying i and a chinese spy evidence

against him. the gop has not learned when you dig yourself into a whole, the first thing you should do is stop digging. here is another that opposed from facebook sinthe republican impeachment effort is a sidesh. re is a post from x that says republicans are not fooling anybody. trump wants and -- a biden impeachment on the b he is nowhere. another says gops doing peach trump. the democrats did its 100% clear of corruption about sides and if anything happens,oulde done using the 25th amendmeause it is 100% clear biden is not well. too s to prosecute, get well enough to supposedly be running our country. really? one last post from facebme impeachment. biden has violated his oath of office for not protecting our

borders, illegally suspended license for the keystone pipeline by abuse of executive authority, so there is definitely more than enough reason to. once again, our question to you this morning is, what is your view of the house gop biden impeachment effort? let's talk to delbert is coming from new windsor, illinois, and delbert supports the impeachment efforts. delbert, good morning. caller: morning. thank you for taking my call. i agree with everything that supports impeaching biden. i tell you what, tony is the most honest man in the country, and they can follow the proof. he was right in the motel. it was biden and his son in california. they know when biden flew in their and tracked as the meeting went on. biden is putting up a $500,000

fence around his house now. i don't know if the president makes $200,000 a year. his grandkids are getting millions of dollars and stuff. it is easy. he needs to be more than just impeached. he needs to go for treason. host: let's talk to earl, who is calling from seneca falls, new york. earl opposes the impeachment effort. earl, good morning. caller: good morning. may i call you by your first name, young man? host: that is fine. caller: ok, jesse, my question to these people that support is, why is it that when donald trump was the president, they had -- the republicans had the house, senate, and they had this information back then? why didn't they start it back then? also, the department of justice,

the irs part of it, if they had all of this information, hunter biden, about messing up his taxes, why didn't they prosecute back then? oh, give me a break, you people that support it. it is going nowhere, and thank you, jesse for taking my call. take care, young men. host: by the way, if you are interested in reading the transcript from hunter biden's question and answer session on capitol hill this morning, you can find it at c-span.org. go to c-span.org and you can find the actual transcript of what hunter biden had to say to congress this week if you want to read it for yourself. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to barry, who is

calling from orlando, florida, and barry supports the impeachment inquiry. barry, good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to say in support of the impeachment inquiry no one is representing the interests of the people who died from the fentanyl coming over the border. known as representing the interest in the crime of the innocent children getting traffic. the woman called up and said they found the parents and they tried. this administration is not even trying. they overload the system. talk about the money that the cartels and the iranians are making. nobody is talking about the afghanistan think about what was discussed in. what kind of a minister she has a state department pulling people out of a municipal airport when the military is in control of an airbase? it is insane.

people that support biden have stuff stuck in the ears and they are not listening or paying attention. they are living in an illusion. someone has to represent crime victims, law-abiding citizens. it is unbelievable. billions of dollars to the cartels. billions of dollars to iran. it is obvious and is affecting ukraine. as far as impeachment goes, it is the direct result of the democrats lowering the bar on such things. they did the same thing with the senate with the votes and they created the problem with judges because they changed the ruling. come on. if you want to be an american, read the constitution and pay attention to what is going on. host: so what do you think the next steps should be? they brought hunter biden and and president biden's brother in. they have had question and with them. do you think this investigation

should go to a vote on the house floor? should it go to the center for a vote? caller: i think it should go to a vote on the house floor because it really is impeachable offenses. whether they find him guilty or not, it is a political thing, and the democrats have enough power in the senate to stop it, but that will not stop the information from going to the public so at least they will have the opportunity to see the facts. the media has responsibility. i constantly see the lines. they get repeated. they get repeated. they get repeated. it is america. you can indict a ham sandwich. an indictment is not a guilty or anything. in this case, it is manipulation of the justice department to fuel the election. host: all right, let's talk to

gary calling from pontiac, michigan, and he opposes the impeachment effort. gary, good morning. caller: how are you doing? good morning. look, i have a 25 year vet and also worked in law enforcement for a lot of years, dealing with prosecutors. i can tell you this, if they had any evidence, there would be no delays in getting the information to the american people. another problem i have, shouldn't this country have a right to know if the person is up for election for the highest office in the world is going to be a felon or not? he has a lot of nerve coming out waving the american flag when he stood up in front of the whole world and took putin's side against his own country. i have a problem with that. i really do. host: so, gary, do you think that house republicans need to

bring this impeachment effort to a vote and whatever happens, happens there? caller: if you have the evidence , that is all forget it is as simple as that. let it go. why keep going over it. the witness they base their whole case on was arrested. arrested by the fbi. he lied to the fbi every witness they brought income, they disputed everything the republicans tried to say. you know, like i said, this country deserves to know if this guy is going to be a felon or not, and my thing is the nerve of him to come out and hold up the american flag when he stood in front of the world and took putin's side. i am a 25 year vet and definitely would not want to be

on that guys command under any circumstances. that is all i have to say. host: the oversight committee chair james comer, once again, one of the three committee chairs leading the biden impeachment inquiry, has vowed to press forward with the probe following hunter biden's closed-door testimony on capitol hill on wednesday. here is what james comer says comes next. [video clip] >> i think this was a great deposition for us. it proved several bits of our evidence that we have been conducting throughout this investigation, but there are also some contradictory statements that i think need further review. inquiry will now go to the next phase about and that is something i think everyone in the media has been asking a lot of questions about, something that i know mr. biden and his attorney both demanded. just as i said when we said we were going to do the deposition first, we have a public hearing next, so i think the public

hearing hopefully will clear up some discrepancies between some of the statements that were made between some of the associates and what we heard today, but all in all, very optimistic, very excited about this deposition, and i look forward to releasing the transcripts as soon as both sides agree to that. hopefully that will be within the next two or three days. host: once again, that transcript james comer was just talking about is the transcript of hunter biden's testimony in front of congress. you can find that transcript at c-span.org. we want to know what your view of the house gop impeachment inquiry is. let's talk to cleveland, who is calling from georgia, and he supports the impeachment inquiry. cleveland, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, cleveland. caller: ok. i 100% and with the impeachment. look at covid.

when it came around, you heard no more. no one has listened to that. this administration has been so crooked. going back to 1960, when the wannabe mafia came into the white house, they beat nixon. tried to run for governor of california because he was beat out of that election. the democratic party has been controlled by an organization since 1960. when donald trump was running for president, i sent i would not vote for a dogcatcher. but i heard him talk for about 15 minutes. i lived overseas for several years.

we are going to destroy america through things and latin america hates you are. they were talking -- i thought they were talking throughout their ear. americans were too stupid to realize you cannot let people in the country. they want to start a war between the whites and the blacks. we have the freest country that has ever been built on this earth. we have a lot in the south. i am from when used to be an all-white county. but america has overcome all of those things. we had a black president, martin luther king, one of the biggest black leaders. i personally met him, talked with him several times. and his friend from alabama come in the moment i cannot think,

but at any rate, most people said we have to blend in the past behind us and go forward. we have a lot of great black american citizens. they are americans. they need to be supported. if we get people coming in legally, they ought to be supported. that is only one in the country, people to come in legally and do the right thing. not just a giveaway. but joe biden has been a creek from day one. donald trump's son did one thing that hunter biden did, they would all be in jail for a million years. the man proved himself to me. when you talk about nato, -- they used to say uncle sugar would pay for it. all kinds of things like that. i don't know how donald trump

knew the information that i do. i cannot believe how smart he was when he talked about we are going to start making them pay their fair share. uncle sugar cannot pay for the world. host: let's go to michael from connecticut, and michael opposes the impeachment effort. good morning. caller: good morning. i mean, where is this going? comer, i don't know what state he is from, but he is doing a great job for you people in that state, isn't the? he is spending all his time doing that. there is all of this smoke, no fire. he has been doing this for god knows how long. that guy just mentioned covid. that was a trump virus. didn't he let that in the country? hasn't trump been impeached twice? the republicans could have gotten rid of him a long time ago but they didn't. they just kept him there. he should be done. now, hunter biden. what has he done?

compared to the trump sons and kushner, is insane. i don't know where these people are getting their information from, what are they reading, listening to, because it is all in the worlds of biden malarkey. i just don't understand it. trump is stupid and these people are stupider than trump. host: there is discussion in the republican party over whether an impeachment vote in the house would even be successful. there is a story in politico from last week that i want to bring to you that talks about the questions over the possible impeachment vote in the house. the story once again is from politico and says that even before those recent developments, the numbers were lining up against house republicans, who could only afford to lose two votes on the floor after democrats won a

special election in new york. all in short, a biden impeachment be another embarrassing bulletin point for a congress that struggles to square the ambitious demands of the right flank with the reality of ethan majority. i happen to know there are like 20 republicans who are not in favor of a biden impeachment. mainly because it smells bad what he did, it looks bad, but when you ask them what crime is committed, they cannot tell you set representative don bacon, republican from nebraska. a vulnerable disc and income and who raise doubts about impeaching mayorkas. he estimated that as many as 30 house gop lawmakers may be currently opposed to impeaching the president because they have not seen evidence of any crime. private briefings update numbers on the investigation have not swayed those holdouts, and republicans know it only gets politically riskier to try to

impeach biden as they headed deeper into the election year, possibly giving the president a polling boost even if they succeed. once again, that is coming from politico about the questions within the republican party of whether an impeachment vote would even be successful. once again, we want to know, what is your view of the house gop biden impeachment effort? let's talk to david, who is calling from texas, and david supports the effort. david, good morning. caller: good morning. your caller asked two good questions. why didn't they do anything sooner and why didn't they do anything with hunter biden? the answer is dated. devin nunes, the person in charge of the intelligence committee, which everyone he and schiff were uncovered should a report in 2018, i think shortly

before he was put to the sidelines for six months as the chairman of the committee because of laws that adam schiff and others had told. so he was being investigated and adam schiff was put in front of the committee, but the reports came in 2018. 100% accurate. one of the major investigators on the committee discovered the clinton campaign was the one that wanted the deposition. this has been known about for so many years that it is making me a little bit ill, but they have been working on this for years. it starts with the effort to get rid of flynn. they say all of the terrible things he did with the russians and all of that, but they hate what the conversations were for at least three years. i finally get a chance to read them. 27 compositions. almost all of them are playing phone tag. he was telling him he was a military guy and was going to do what was right for the country.

the only thing that came up from the foreign policy standpoint was him asking russians to hold off to a response to what obama was doing because that would create a situation where the trump administration would have only one choice when they came in, to deal with it. hunter biden, he has been under investigation for five years. it has been stalled. everything during the trump investigation, there were leaks every day and boxing reports every day, all of which that turned out to be reports. hunter biden, crickets, nothing. when it finally comes up, we have a deal, and this is all worked out. they purposely allowed, this was not an accident, 2014 and 2015, they were allowed to drop off because of the statute of limitations. the justice department had the right to extend that. it is an absolute concrete fact they have the right to extend it. they knew it was coming up that

way. wiseman refused. didn't allow that. the first question should be asked to joe biden or hunter biden, are you going to pay the $2 million in texas you owe for the 2014 and 2015 years when you were on the burisma board and $1 million a year there alone? are you going to pay your taxes from that? host: let's go to jay, who is coming from montgomery, alabama, and imposes the impeachment effort. james comer good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just can't believe how many disproven, how many old issues that were speeches and salacious when they were made that these people continue to remember. they are asking how these government people should be

worried about it is not illegal for them to use information they obtained. it is illegal for us to do it. but they should listen to some of the wonderful financial news assist we have in this country. there are tons of successful companies in this country that continue to make -- host: i think we lost -- are you still there? caller: i am here. i am here. host: all right, let's go to kirk, who is coming from anaheim, california. ed kirk supports the impeachment effort. caller: how are you doing? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call and opening of the airways. i appreciate what you do. host: go ahead. caller: trump said something years ago, and he said something like this, the democrats are

very good at winning elections. and i respect that. you are procuring a business, running a company, running a country we have to know your competition, the terms, the rules command have to run at the best you can. i just want the best for everybody. i don't care if you are democrat or republican. i just want someone in office that will stand up and support our country and meet other countries at the right needs and say i respect you, you stay in your backyard, i will stay in my backyard, but if you cross this line, this is what will happen. that is how you need to run a country, a family. tell them what you need to do, and be accountable. let us all go to work and make our money and support everybody. you know something? if i lived on the other side of the border to my would be climbing the fence, digging a hole, doing everything i could to be here because this is the

best place to be. i understand where they are coming from. i also put it because i think we need -- i don't support it because i think we need to have rules and regulations. god bless america. i can wake up at 4:00 in the morning, make myself a drink, what you already become and state my mind. thank you for what you do. god bless america and god bless everybody. i don't care what your drive is as long as you don't want to hurt somebody, keep moving, brother. host: hunter biden's attorney came out and spoke to reporters after mr. biden gave his deposition on wednesday, and he dismissed the republican-led investigation. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> after seven hours of questions, the republican majority ended the day with where they started. they have produced no evidence that would do anything to support the notion that there was any financial transactions that involve hunter with his father, period. it seems to be that the

republican members wanted to spend more time talking about my client's addiction than they could ask any questions that had anything to do with what they call the impeachment inquiry. as i said before, there is no evidence because there is no evidence, and today only confirmed that. thank you. host: let's see what our social media followers are saying one last time about the house impeachment effort. here is a post from facebook that says, it just shows republicans are not very smart. they did it to trump so they could impeach ben kind of like an i-4 and i. the difference -- kind of like an eye for an eye. republicans only have their childish hate. another post on facebook says impeach him, biden h violated his oath of office by not protecting our borders. he illegally suspended the license for the keystone pipeline by use of executive authority so there is definitely more than enough reasons. another post, another tweet from

x says both parti accuse the other party and presidential candidate of being a criminal, which tells me both parties are corrupt. look at the proof they produce as well. a facebook post as they have enough, not protecti t border. one last tweet fm x. when your best witnesses are arrest ijail, it is time to move on buthhouse well. it will continue to distract and delay passing any meaningful legislation. once again, we want to know your view of the house gop impeachment inquiry. let's talk to ron, who is calling from liverpool, pennsylvania. ron, good morning. caller: there is a lot of people coming and wondering where biden gets his money. he has written two books. his wife has written three books, and by the way, she is a professor. they make pretty good money.

you can look this up yourself. and trump was impeached for trying to overthrow the government and kill his own vice president. and these people think they have credibility. then i think he should have been impeached -- they don't think he should have been impeached. if people don't get impeached for trying to overthrow the government, what do you get impeached for? host: let's talk to bill, who is calling from beaumont, california. bill, good morning. caller: good morning. yeah, it is encouraging to be able to call in and speak our minds. it is the greatest country in the world. i would not want to live anywhere else. but it is so upsetting at the same time to feel like this is the best we have, biden and trump. i am very concerned. i don't understand why we can't get better -- well, i guess i

can. who wants to run for office with everything you do just seems to be -- they pull whatever they can on people. i cannot understand how people think that biden did not do some things wrong here. the ukraine thing where he had the prosecutor dismissed. they got it all on videotape. the owner is crazy, what it is doing to the country. his top priority is to keep the country secure, and to say that there is no potential bribery charges here, it just does not stand up. i am very concerned here for our country, and i wish we could get people of better integrity to run for office, but i can understand why they probably would not want to. this professional politician thing, i think that is what our founders wanted. they were farmers.

they wanted people to come in, do a couple terms, and be out. people come in for 40 or 50 years. how does biden pay $3 million cash for a beach home when he is amtrak joe? i don't get it. i think there is definitely some corruption there, and i just wish our country could get rid of it once and for all. host: let's talk to jesse, who is coming from newport news, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. about the impeachment of joe biden, i want the american people to know that it is a tactic that is being used election time for the president of the united states. we have had only one black president in history. no females at all. and we have to look at who has

actually been running our country for decades, centuries. and the gop, democrats mostly have been made of the caucasian or white males. so it is being used as a ploy against each other to confuse voters so that they can vote for the person they want, whether it be gop or democrat. so the country and the american people need to realize when it comes to the border they brought slaves here, again, you know, people here against their own will decades or centuries ago. and yet they talk about somebody

host: unfortunately, we have run out of time for our first segment. thank you to all of our callers to called aiden. next, jacob will be here to discuss his new book. the century long romance with dictators and later, in the waters will be here to discuss the implications of the supreme court decision on the role of reproductive issues in campaign 2024. stick with us. we will be right back. >> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are both in. they plan to vote on federal spending bills before next deadline.

watch our campaign 2024 coverage with 15 states, including american samoa casting their votes in primaries or caucuses and federal reserve chair jerome powell will be on capitol hill to deliver the federal reserve monetary policy report. first on wednesday before the committee and then on thursday before the senate banking committee. also on thursday, watch live coverage as president biden gives the state of the union address before a joint session of congress to outline his priorities for the country. watch live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or live on demand at any time. your unfiltered view of government. weekends been you book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest

nonfiction books. looking at research done by government agencies and the potential for alien life and his book ufo. on afterwards, sharing burn book , looking at a career covering the tech industry and key players. interviewed by rhonda. watch book tv every weekend on c-span two and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch any time online at book tv.org. be up-to-date with book tv's podcast. plus, bestseller lists, as long as industry news and trends. you can find about books on c-span now or wherever you get

your podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back and we are joined by jacob, the editor of the national interest and author of the new book. good morning. first of all, for our viewers, tell us what the national interest is. guest: it was founded in 1985 and it has followed foreign policy and international events, first as a bimonthly magazine and it now as a website publication. host: what will you call the national interest of foreign policy? guest: it is not supposed to be driven by ideological views, but whether you are democrat or republican, what are the

interests of the united states? host: when did it switch from a paper copy to the web? guest: we had both, but print is dying, unfortunately. i cannot justify it anymore. host: let's talk about your new book. why now? why did you write this book now? guest: right now, donald trump and the republican party are embracing both vladimir putin, the president of russia and victor or vaughn, the president of hungary. trump has repeatedly praised foreign dictators and i believe that he sees them as a model for his own rule, where he to become president for a second time, that he would try to become a strong one.

host: can you define for us exactly what you are considering a foreign dictator? foreign is obvious, but what do you consider a dictator? guest: somebody like vladimir putin who lockstep his enemies and terrorizes society is clearly a dictator. and hungry, that is probably the model for trump, where he still have elections, but they are meaningless, and you hand out big businesses and government contracts to your friends and cronies. and you stack the judiciary with your own followers, much like trump is promising to do right now. host: even if former president trump is admiring these foreign dictators, do you think it is even possible in the form of government that we have right now? is that even possible in the u.s.?

guest: he did pose a stress test the first time. he tried to launch a coup when he refused to step down for office. in a second term, he is much more capable and familiar with the way the u.s. government works, so i would sound alarm bells right now. host: do you think the republican party -- these are all american citizens, including former president donald trump. do you think they would truly accept a dictator type leader in the u.s.? guest: absolutely. if you look at lindsey graham who has morphed from a fellow of vladimir putin to embracing the trump program, the entire senate would prostrate itself before trump, the resignation of mitch mcconnell, no longer being the leader of the senate, donald

trump is consolidating his control over the republican party, as well as republican national committee. host: do you think democrats would sit back and accept this type of leadership, if it came to pass? guest: no, they would not. they would try to protest, but the question is, is trump disciplined enough to effectively pursue this path to power to becoming a strong man? that is the question mark. host: the final question is, with the military and police forces except this kind of leadership? guest: i think his aim would be to purge these institutions. he has already said he wants to go after the fbi and the justice department and stack them with his admirers. in the military, he could

appoint general michael felling to position. who is going to run the pentagon? the military tends to be very deferential. i doubt the military is going to actively oppose donald trump. host: i want to read a passage of your book and have you ret. this is what youro. i realize, that like the fellow travelers who celra castro and others as prophetic figures, a variety of politicians on the right have regularly embarked on quests for utopia abroad, whether kaiser wilhelm's ury or in italy. the desire to live in a personal dream palace has repeatedly manifested itself over the decade and usually ended and blaming rather than celebrating america first.

that makes it sound like you think there is more than just former president trump who admires these overseas dictatorships. am i reading that correctly? guest: absolutely. i am trying to show that the right goes back 100 years. curiously enough, it starts in world war i when they begin to blame america first for entering the war and they argue that we should have supported the autocracy of prussia rather than eating great -- great britain. after the war there is more blame towards america. you have politicians and journalists actively admiring adolf hitler. after the cold war, a south african apartheid --

that is why i am arguing that donald trump is not necessarily in aberration. -- an aberration. host: let me take one second here to remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation. we are going to open up our regular this morning. you can call (202) 748-8000 for democrat. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. independents can call (202) 748-8002. and you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. where you can reach out to us on facebook or x. one day i will get the twitterverse is x -- twitter

versus x thing straight in my head. can you give us some examples of where you have seen it lately? that worry. guest: the one that worries me the most is where figures are blaming u.s. for the war in ukraine, and you see this in right-wing media, and you see figures like josh hawley arguing that we should not aid ukraine. that it is a lost cause. even lindsey graham is bulking at 80 ukraine, which represents a 180 on his part. and then you have donald trump who initially called vladimir putin a genius when he first invaded ukraine. now trump is saying that russia should do whatever it wants with nato countries. to me, that is unacceptable,

dangerous and inimical to american prosperity and security. host: let's let our viewers take part in this conversation. sean is calling from north carolina. the democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call this morning. donald trump is very mistaken if he thinks he is going to come in as the president and destroy this republic. he is fooling himself. there are many veterans in this country heard us -- heard him call us suckers or whatever. there are veterans who took an oath to this country. all the people who took information from russian spies in our government should be removed from our government. donald trump will never destroy this republic because there are many americans out here just like me who will run to

washington grabbed him by his orange comb-over and drag him to a firing squad, where he belongs. this is unheard of, what this man is talking about and what he is doing. he will not do it in my country, that held him. host: that is a pretty strong response to your concerns. guest: i understand the apprehension and the fervor of the caller. there is good reason to be alarmed, however, when we talk about exercising sort of a reverse january 6 by the left or by democrats, i think we are heading into civil war territory. you talk to some journalists and academics, and they are worried that the polarization of the u.s. is reaching a point where we could be tipping into a civil war or breakup of the u.s.

i am not a doomsaying, so i'm hoping we do not go down that road, even though donald trump is trying to foment as much strife as possible. host: trump is an american citizen like the rest of us, so he has a right to say whatever he wants to say, and the government cannot prosecute him for it under the first amendment. any of his supporters say this is just hyperbole from him, this is just him talking. he just says things. that does not mean he is going to do it, but he says whatever is on his mind, right or wrong. what would you say to those who think that you are being an alarmist? that he is just talking? are you a doomsaying? guest: no. i'm just pointing out that he

has already violated the constitution. my fear is that the second term would see an even more unbridled trump. i would call it -- they are and fantasizing him. take the man seriously. since 1990 in his playboy interview, he praised the chinese for being as vicious as possible at the enema -- tiananmen square. donald trump has had consistent views on domestic and foreign policy. do not --do not underestimate him. host: talking to john calling from shiner, texas. caller: good morning, everyone. i do not know where to start. the clearest example, the

division in this country, everything they say about trump is a lie. he did not endorse january 6 and has not violated the constitution. jill biden told the court that he violated the rule by continuing to forgive student loan debts. we know that obama and biden committed treason by spying and trying to get rid of trump. we although what they are doing is actually going against the constitution, so they are trying to make trump an animal. this is pure propaganda and lies. this guy does not know what he is talking about. host: jacob, response? guest: once again, a strong response from the other side. the mueller report, i testified before the meal or

investigation. and mueller report found numerous contacts between trump and the russians. we know that that occurred. he was not prosecuted because he thought it could only be done after he left the presidency. i do not think i am being alarmist. i am taking him seriously and at his word. there is no comparison to biotin calling to pardon graduate debts and trump whipping up his followers to storm the capital. biotin abided by this approved court decision and did not seek to overrule it. host: this is a good point to ask you this question. you consider yourself a republican or a conservative? guest: politically, i have always considered myself to be moderate or conservative, democrat.

host: i figured one of our viewers would ask that, so i figured i would ask you first. rob is calling from westlake, ohio on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and special kudos to you. you guys do a great job. i appreciate the mention of dictators over the past couple centuries, but i am a little hard to understand the distinction of stacking the judiciary. how would you distinguish that from the left's approach? guest: thank you. there is no doubt that each side speaks with judges that are sympathetic to their view, but the republican party has taken

it to an extreme. i do not think there is a democratic organization that comes close to rivaling the federalist society that closely events the judges. trump appointed them off of the federalist society list. we know that leonard has been very active in pushing far right judges as far as possible. i do not see the same phenomena happening among the democrats. i'm not trying to argue that the democrats are uniquely virtuous. that is not the case. i just think the republican party has continuously shifted to the right. if you look at the records in congress, you can see political scientists looking at this. the republican party skewed more rights. host: one thing you write about in your book is donald trump's first attempt at office in 1999.

talk about that effort. we do not hear much about the effort. talk about that and what it revealed about his view of autocrats at that time. guest: he always was sympathetic towards autocrats, but he was more modulated. what is interesting is that he did enhanced -- denounced cannon for being too sympathetic to nazi-ism. i think he said something about, he has a thing for hitler's. he has a love affair with hitler's is what he said. trump was a little bit more cautious and measured then that he was now. trump was a democrat for many years and was pro-abortion. he is a master brand salesman who has essentially engineered a hostile takeover of the republican party. he is top of the republican

establishment and is now the boss of the gop. host: you sort of already answered this question, but what dcs the difference between the trump of 1999 and when trump ran again in 2016, and the donald trump today? is there any difference between the trump of those three eras? guest: he had the views that he has now, but they have become sharply radicalized. he was not talking then about setting up concentration camps on the southern border and using the virginia national guard and sending it into blue state, taking red state national guards and sending them into blue states to track down asylum-seekers or illegal immigrants. it has been written about recently and talking with people in the trump campaign. host: let's talk to caleb

calling from north carolina on the democratic line. caleb, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for putting on this program. i just wanted to go along with what you all are saying and point out, especially to my republican friends, that democracy -- sorry. that is my son in the background. looking back to world war ii and world war i, flirting with dictatorships is like the antithesis of what the american experiment is about, regardless of policy. i was wondering if you could go into more detail about how you can convince other folks that there is a little bit more danger here than just hey, we

are track -- we are attacking trump. how can you convince somebody that there is danger, other than january 6, which he lost an election and he basically said, let us go down there and stop the election, and put me in. oh yeah, we are going to do it peacefully, but we are absolutely not going to let this happen. guest: the approach i took in my book was to try to alert people that it is not just about trump. there is a longer tradition of this on the right, as well as the left, but right now we are facing it from the right. i wanted to show that trump is not necessarily an aberration. there is a context for him. my hope is that if people understand that this is an old

wine in a new bottle -- we have been through this before and we have survived it, and we can survive it again. i'm confident that the american bob -- dm merrick and public will not by the trump strongman message. host: let's look at the past a little bit and talk about some of these former leaders, the former strongman like kaiser wilhelm and benito mussolini. how did the americans -- headed the american public perceive them at the time, including the right? guest: there was genuine enthusiasm for mussolini. they were pro mussolini. they saw him as a leader he was decisive, who would create --

who represented family values. he believed that they needed to up the birth rate in italy. they made a big deal in the united states that we need more, essentially, i think white children, but they do not say that out right. but there was a strong belief that mussolini was the first wave of a new right-wing leader who could fundamentally reorient society. some americans, because this was 1920, believed that america had gone decadent because of the wild parties and the to world war i. they saw misleading as a family man. of course, he was the opposite. host: what about kaiser wilhelm? guest: there were millions of german americans who emigrated from russia and other german and they were leading intellectuals

got involved in presidential politics and tried to mobilize the electorate during the 19 -- during the campaign on behalf of woodrow wilson and the objective was to stay out of war and make sure that we did not support great britain. host: let's turn the camera and look at the media. how did the media treat then in their coverage of the u.s.? guest: the media was very cautious. the new york times wrote a piece about hitler's after he was incarcerated for a year they wrote a little column saying that his associates said he has moderated in prison and will no longer engage in medical right-wing anti-semitism. but do not ask -- do not

underestimate these people. they have a mission, a drive and a will to power. host: let's go back to the phone lines and start with john on the republican line. good morning. caller: i could not disagree with you more. first of all, trump was not charged with insurrection. an insurrection by definition is a revolt, and authority or government, usually by means of violence. he is being charged with making false statements to create a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 elections. it is exactly what happened in 2016. the heads of the democratic party knowingly made false statements that he colluded with russia, and in an attempt to create a conspiracy to overturn the election. they continued that for three years. everybody knew about the dossier

being false. they all knew about it and they were all in on it. in 2020, the democrat party used the fbi and cia to suppress information in order to help joe biden win. that is what the cia official testified to. the purpose of the letter signed by the people in the agencies testified that it was to help joe biden win and antony blinken was the impetus. in response, blinken came out to say that it was not his idea, he did not want it and did not solicit it. the democrat party is far more dangerous because they do things covertly. watch what happened on january 6 on television, but nobody watched what happened in the 2016 election because you did not find out about it until years later.

guest: nobody watched it because it did not happen. it is a baroque conspiracy theory. the steel dossier has been whipped out of proportion. it was not a dossier per se with his speculations and surmising, based on what was probably unreliable information. it was not treated by the u.s. government as some kind of definitive document. trump took umbrage when colby talked to him about it, after he won the presidency, and it sent trump into a tizzy because he thought james comey was trying to intimidate him with that document. the whole problem with russia hoax is that there is in fact some strange affinity of trump or russia and vladimir putin, and democrats have talked about

it. i do not know if the trump -- i do not know they have any information on trump or not. the simple explanation i give is that donald trump admires the kind of violence that vladimir putin is able to exercise and would, in theory enjoy having the same powers in the u.s. host: we have a question from one of our social media followers because we have talked about the white house and we have talked about congress. this follower is asking is question. do you think that the three coequal branches of government would make dtator difficult in the u.s.? as an independent veteran, i will not tolerate it, but we talked about the white house and we talked about congress. let's talk about the courts. do you think the courts would

sit back and allow an authoritarian strongman to attempt to change the government in the u.s.? guest: it would ultimately come down to the supreme court. i think the courts -- the courts have been very resistant to many of trump's shenanigans, especially during his presidency. but as time went on, he would seek to erode the courts and he might even ignore a supreme court decision. it really rests on people following its decrees. if the president just throws his hands in the air and says, i am not going to do that, who will? host: the supreme court has no army. guest: exactly. we have --

host: we have talked a lot about how the american public perceives authoritarian strongman in the past. how is the media doing covering them in the present? what should the media be doing differently? should we be doing anything differently when it comes to the coverage of these authoritarian strong? guest: i think they are focused on events like trump's meeting on thursday. that is a telling moment. since donald trump is already acting as if he were president right now, what is it that they are going to discuss? what is trump going to say? these things deserve attention. the media has done a good job of focusing on his ties to russia and his admiration for vladimir putin. i do not call out the media.

i do not think there has been a lack of coverage for this. maybe people are not taking on the implications of it all. host: let's talk to lewis on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning jesse and jacob. i do not support trump or biden, but i see democrats always attacking republicans as a group . deplorable's, neanderthals, always. anybody saying that a president could become a dictator, sir, you are a dope. good day. guest: well, i may or not they not be a dope, but i do not think that the attacks on

politics are confined to one party. it is, after all former president donald trump who referred come in a recent rally, to his political opponent as vermin, so there is -- if there is overheated language, i would suggest that it is emanating strongly from the vicinity of president trump, who is not known for being shy with his political adversaries. host: the book is america last, the romance with foreign dictators. i bring this up because one of our social media followers has rushed in that they want you to answer. this comesro rich in massachusetts. who is the audience for this ok? as a republican concerned about the direction of my party, i think the people need this information the most be turned off by the title. guest: i'm not sure that is true

because there is potentially a battle inside the american party . when i talked about trump representing older traditions, someone like nikki haley who is obviously not a serious challenger to trump, i doubt that she would have a serious argument. she is condemning trump for cozying up to vladimir putin. she is defending nato. the use of republican trent -- republican tradition. we may well see that from does not win the election, then you will see a battle between two wings of the republican party for supremacy over the future direction, including in foreign policy. host: what do you think that battle will look like? who are the two sides of that battle?

your supposition is that if president -- former president trump does not win the white house, there will be some kind of republican civil war for direction. who is on which side? guest: representative liz cheney is out there. nikki haley -- why is she running now? she is preparing for 2028. if trump loses or loses badly, she will say i told you so. this is a dead-end that we have gone down. we must we claim our strong hand on foreign policy. the republican party is -- it wielded that quite effectively against the democrats, portraying them as soft and weak against communism and now the republican party is morphing into an earlier incarnation, but yes, this

battle is already being joined right now. if trump loses, that it will erupt. host: who will fight against the liz cheney and nikki haley? guest: somebody like jd vance or senator josh hawley. they believe we need to attenuate our attachment to nato. it is -- they do not support aiding ukraine and some of them see china as the principal threat. overall, the mega forces -- maga forces are quite dominated. host: let's go back to our phone lines. calling from florida on the democratic line. carmen, good morning. caller: thank you, jacob for being on and for taking my call.

i am not a college graduate. i am part of the middle class. 70 thing is i am seeing have to do with the last episode that you had on joe biden. it relates to this topic. many comments were either speculations or something that they might have said or some projection of they think it might happen. i think truth matters in the sense that if i'm going to vote, i need to find out what will help me as an american citizen, as a worker, what will benefit me? i am kind of agreeing with the book before i have read it. this is not just donald trump. this is coming out like with

abiding keys, one example, the gentleman who gave the example. it has been proven. you listen to the way they come on the show right now. i could actually go and get the proof, bring it to their house, show it to them, and they would still deny that the truth is the truth. that is why i think it is important for people like you to come out because i do not think we are doing enough in this country to talk to the american people about how dangerous this can get. they saying it on the news once in a while. i think they are ignoring some of these messages coming out. guest: i appreciate that very much. i am not a fiction writer.

i'm not good enough to make this stuff up. the book is trying to explain to people what is happening the past. much of the book is not about donald trump. it is about the history of this tradition on the right. i am not inventing facts. i'm simply trying to show people that we came close to not eating great britain. it parallels with the past and is slightly unnerving. that is what i'm trying to show this book. host: let's talk about joe

mccarthy. how does he relate to the conversation we are having right now? guest: fascinating. donald trump's original mentor worked for mccarthy. i show in the book that he was sympathetic to nazi-ism. he called the nazi soldiers innocent jan jews. he attacked lawyers in the pentagon who had prosecuted officers, who had massacred american soldiers in belgium so there was real sympathy among some of the right. mccarthy is the model for trump. mccarthy became a national figure. as people pointed out at the

time, joe mccarthy was their best ally and discredited the cause. mccarthy flamed out because he went too far. he was the first national figure. people like buckley would never repudiate. in fact wrote a novel praising him towards the end of his life. i think it is mccarthy and buchanan who are the forerunners for donald trump today. trump is the first has master brand salesman ability. that is unprecedented and his unique accomplishment. host: let's talk about ginger patrick when she was appointed in 1981 by president ronald reagan. how did her influence change

foreign policy? guest: she was a heroine inside the gop. she did several things that i think went way too far. the first was that she defended the argentines when they invaded the falkland islands. she said, we should not stand with britain but in argentina. her theory was that right-wing dictatorships were better than left wing totalitarian societies. that they could eventually become semi-democracy, but really, she did not care. she was a staunch supporter who turned out -- he turned out to be a murdering thug.

another sort of authoritarian leader. that the right embraced. the point in my book was that the man who was a true leader was nelson mandela, who the right vilified as a communist. they got it completely backwards. host: how did our views of authoritarian leaders change around the first iraq war? guest: i think the key was you had a shift in the u.s. where people became disillusioned with the war is and said, we have been lied to. this is supposed to be a war for democracy. it was to get rid of the w and d which did not exist.

trump capitalized on this resentment and feeling that the form wars of intervention are futile. it is better to focus instead of going traipsing around the globe . enough is enough. host: did not bring a change? or did that inspire a new fascination -- the fascination with authoritarian strongmen in europe? guest: i think it led to it. if you have the strongmen visiting a country, they can bring stability. if you have vladimir putin in charge of the baltic states and central europe, the u.s. does not really need to worry about it. herbert hoover did the same thing. he said it would be a great thing if the nazis controlled central and asian europe.

those are the same arguments that we hear today. host: with all of our conversation about how former president trump likes vladimir putin, i want to point out that vladimir putin has said he prefers joe biden. i will have you respond to it. this is from cbs news. saying wednesday that russia would prefer to see president joe biden win a second term, describing him as our experience then donald trump. putin declared he will work with any u.s. leaders elected but noted he would prefer a biting victory when asked who would be a better choice. biden says he is more experienced and predictable. but we will work with any u.s. leader the american trust. vladimir putin seems to be saying that he prefers joe biden

to donald trump. d believe him? guest: when has bad food never told the truth. he lied about crimea and he lies about ukraine war. he lies about poisoning people abroad. he lied about murdering alexey navalny, but he is a devilishly clever man. he knows if you were to endorse donald trump -- he also has a perverse sense of humor. he actively worked in 2016 to help bring donald trump to power. the russians will do whatever they can to metal and the american election. it is our job to stop them. host: you believe that vladimir putin would prefer former president donald trump to come president again? guest: absolutely. trump has already said that the

russians should do whatever they want with nato countries that trump teams are not paying up. he does not want to defend the baltic states. he reviles germany and has condemned both germany and japan since 1990 as predatory countries that are taking aspirin economic ride. he is wanting payback. he does not want to help defend this country. host: let's talk to michael on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all i want to say that this person you are talking to -- he is a lie and a deceiver. i think we are living in today and what did chuck schumer say, change georgia, change the world.

what did barack obama say? fundamentally change america. what did big bad joe biden saint? build back better. you take on the part. what is joe biden doing on -- doing now? taking things apart. electric cars, electric washing machine, come on. this guy is a liar. i'm tugging right now, trump loves america. guess what joe biden does not do? love america. host: go ahead and respond to him. guest: he has launched a fusillade of charges at biden. i think that president biden does love america. you may completely disagree with him politically, but he has been in public service for decades. i thought his valley forge speech on defending american

democracy was quite eloquent. i'm not trying to sit here as a stooge for joe biden. i do not think he is the greatest president in the world. i believe he has done a highly competent job and it is easy to trash him, but i would take another look at his actual record. host: let's talk to richard calling from north carolina on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. just for that statement, you are a stooge for joe biden. who does europe get their gas and oil from? can you answer me that? guest: american production of oil is higher under joe biden that it was under the trump administration. it is not something that they talk about because they are afraid they will antagonize the environmentalists.

caller: where do they get their oil from? you're talking about them not paying enough to protect them, but they are paying them all this money for their oil and gas, and making them rich. the second thing, who sold our uranium to russia? who did that? who -- who lied about the dossier? the everything. you are a liar, and c-span you are just letting him do it. host: go ahead and respond. guest: it is unfortunate 70 people are hurling the word live. the caller would be interested to know that we continue to buy enriched uranium from russia and that we are just slowly building up the american capacity. a new plant just opened up in ohio, so i do not quite know what he is referring to is as we are selling our uranium.

we took a lot of it from russia after the collapse. host: let's go to omaha, nebraska on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i mostly just wanted to touch on how racism is intertwined with the need to be a dictator. i noticed you mentioned the thing about white babies already. the policies of innovation are on steroids. people coming from nonwhite countries almost off completely. not to mention, whenever there is nonwhite -- it exploded. in nebraska, there were two children strangled. other demographics happening.

host: go ahead and respond. guest: i am puzzled that anyone would think that is a threat. i think like reagan did in his last speech as president, we need more immigrants in this country. the washington post did a study. and immigration has rescued the economy the last couple years from the covid crisis. in 1924, the congress passed the act cutting off immigration from asia and south eastern europe. and there was a book called the rising tide of color in 1920 that helped whip up hysteria about immigration. i do not deny that the southern border is in chaos right now, but fears that immigration --

the plans donald trump has would wreak chaos on the american economy. the greatest asset of america is not that it is a white country it is that it is a unique and diverse country. host: let's talk to jim from manassas, virginia. caller: i just wanted to raise a couple of points. i was a law professor myself and i am just nostalgic that this guy acts like the biggest threat to wards arianism in the west right now is from trump. that is laughable. if you know anything about history, you know it is from the left. the fact -- you say you do not lie, but one of the biggest lies is a mission.

who is the most authoritarian? the left is far more authoritarian than the right. look at what they want to do with global warning. -- global warming -- global warming. their policies are divisive. they talk about stacking this up for when they cannot get their way. i have been independent. i am no fan of trump. i wish nikki haley was the person. i'm sorry, sir, you are not the political operative, when you have all those heads of intelligence agents is getting together and conspiring to write a letter that they knew was false. you can say that it is speculation, but if you say that is speculation, that is a lie. it is proven.

another conspiracy. i know you will say, here is a can. cd come up that is a live. it was proven that all the efforts to discredit that stuff was right out of the russian and authoritarian handbook from the left against the right. host: go ahead and respond. guest: my book does not focus on the left because somebody books and articles have been met -- written about this. i do not deny that there are authoritarian -- they would seek to impose their will. i -- i hope that i am a fair-minded person, but right now i just see the real significant threat coming from the right. maybe i am just seeing things, but the rhetoric, the language and the actions over the past year, couple years have been

real causes for alarm. that is what i'm trying to talk about my book. i did not concoct this you may disagree with my conclusion, but i do not think you can ignore the evidence. host: a call from metairie, louisiana. morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i consider myself a fairly intelligent individual. but i listen to this gentleman and i have heard that many dislike him. he says donald trump is an entity to himself. he is not. 88 million people. he is spearheading, in my opinion the effort against the administrative state against the government and all of its

ancillary committees who make these rules. also, i would like to say that i agree with him. the republican party dead. it has become somewhat more radicalized. the democratic party is dead. it has become much more radicalized. i would like to conclude that yes, i am one of the deplorable. i did not have a bible or a rifle and i can myself -- guest: it is fine to have those views. i would just look at the consequences. trumpet just announced he would resend funds for any school that assisted on vaccination.

we already have measles flourishing in florida. you want a 70% tariff on chinese goods? i hope americans are ready to accept the cost. when the dollar is no longer the reserve currency and you start having more wars abroad, i think americans have gotten very comfortable with the prosperity we have enjoyed since world war ii. it is not inevitable. it does not happen by itself. there is a web of arrangements constructed. when you want to yank down the federal government, good luck. host: we would like to thank natural national interest editor jacob heilbrunn for discussing his book. thank you so much. coming up next, heritage foundation's emma waters will be here to discuss the implications of the alabama supreme court

decision on ivf and the role of reproductive issues in campaign 2024. first, after the break, more of your calls and comments on our open forum segment where you can call in and talk about your most important political issue of the day. you see the numbers on screen. we are waiting for your call. we will be right back. ♪ >> two years ago, democracy faced the greatest threat since the civil war. today, our democracy remains unbroken. >> thursday, president biden delivers the annual state of the union address during a joint session of congress to outline his priorities for the country.

then the alabama senator will give the republican response and we will get your reaction by taking your phone calls, texts, and social media comments. watch the state of the union address live thursday at 8:00 eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> ♪ >> friday night, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round up of campaign coverage providing a one stop shop to discover what candidates are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data, and campaign ads. watch c-span's 20 campaign trail friday night at 7:00 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or on c-span now, our free mobile app.

c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> get project information from members of government in the palm of your hand when you preorder your copy of c-span's 2024 congressional directory with contact information for every house and senate member. important information on congressional committees, federal agencies, and state governors. the congressional directory costs $32.95, plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. preorder your copy today for delivery this spring. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in our open forum segment where you can call in and talk about your most important political topic of the day. we are going to open up our regular lines.

democrats, you can call 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. indepeents, 202-748-8002. you can always text us at 202-748-8003 and we are always reading on social media on x and facebook. let's dive straight intour phones and start with milton from maryland on the democratic li. milton, good morning. caer: good morning. i wanted to try to catch jacob. i wanted to drop some informatn like republicans always say how much drugs and fentanyl is coming across the border. but what i surmise is these are things people want. i had a friend.

i asked him, how does someone get fentanyl customer he said they get it because they want it. nobody is forcing it down their throat, up their nose, or in their veins. they are doing it because they want to do it. why these latinos, immigrants, or whoever come across the border? because people want them here. if people did not want them here, they would not be here. that is like a stupid argument for them to have. donald trump has been indicted for racketeering, a racket, and he is still trying to keep a racket going. we have to get out and vote. they want to vote on enthusiasm, negativity based on lies, we want to vote on preserving democracy in america. thank you. host: let's go to athens,

georgia, on the independent line. then morning. -- good morning. caller: listen, jesse, don't give me extra time. big jesse, don't hesitate to count me off -- cut me off. happy birthday to me. i love you, c-span. by the way, i love your tie. fani willis should have recused herself to stop the clouds show going on in the case with mr. trump. it was revealed last week the novel coronavirus virus, covid-19, was created in the lab. number three, big j, what is going on with the hype bomb from january 6 at the democratic national party where vice president elect kamala harris was there? what is going on with the fentanyl crisis?

i speak about it in my second published book. you can pick that up. lastly, i am so proud to be an american. we are going to do it so big that they cannot rig it. thank you so much big jay, love c-span. tell brian lamb i said thank you for all you do. host: let's talk to rachel calling from florida on the republican line. good morning. caller: hello. i wanted to ask the former guest,-waiting for a half-hour and did not get on with him, i wanted to ask if he thought about 9 million democratic voters to the united states so there could be one party rule and no accountability to anybody , one party rule sounds like communism or a dictatorship. that could be a sign of dictatorship and autocracy.

importing voters, that is my comment and question. host: let's go to harry calling from norcross, georgia, on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i seem to be hearing a lot of misinformation. i would like to support the last guest you had on. number one, i will say this. importing voters is a ridiculous idea because you cannot vote if you are not a citizen. they are not going to let you vote. number two, donald trump got a lot of help from russia in 2016. paul manafort admitted he was providing targeted polling information to the russians, to

the russian government. joe biden, when he went over to fire the prosecutor in ukraine, he was vice president. he was doing what he was ordered to do, number one. they were getting rid of that prosecutor because he would not prosecute. you can look that up. that is true. the dossier they keep talking about originated with sheldon adelson, paul fisher, and bernie marcus who did not want trump to get the nomination. they sold it to the clinton campaign after trump won the nomination.

by the way, he was also right, the fight and administration is pumping more gas and oil than any country in the world ever has. biden's economy, the growth in biden's economy is a lot better than any time during trump administration. host: let's talk to anthony calling from miller place, new york, on the democratic line. anthony, good morning. caller: thank you, c-span. i would like to interject into the discussion another topic because we have touched on so many things. december 28, 2016, the biden oval office shuddered two embassies within 24 hours, they had all the dignitaries, the russian diplomat sleeve the embassies. they have been long-standing

homes for well-heeled families in the bureaucracy. but to eject them overnight because they were russian paid that is where the russian hoax narrative originated, from the oval office. that shows you a cajoled effort. when you transpose that over the cia, the letter with the 51 senior analysts, the doj, the prosecutorial malfeasance that has gone on. not to mention, this is the tail end of a live or. how do we go on to destroy a civilization? so someone hold cheney's ambush's administration -- and bush's administration accountable? they have destroyed our country. when they shuddered the russian embassies, they destroyed years of cooperation. we had a space program with the russians. host: let's go to michael

calling from orlando, florida, on the republican line. michael, good morning. caller: i would like to talk about the democratic caller who talked about people want fentanyl or people want the illegal migrants coming into the country. i can tell you that is not true. california was cited last week that they are having 1000 people a month overdose and i from pennel -- die from fentanyl. 12,000 year just in california alone. fentanyl has been found in new york city. there was a case where new york had a daycare center and fentanyl was found in the carpeting. it resulted in a toddler desk. first responders are having to walk in and be very careful. they are putting narcan all over the place. if that is what people want, is

that with the caller is saying that we really should have? no, they found there was 62,000 pounds of this stuff, enough to kill everyone on earth two times over just in california in one seizure. no one is asking for that. this is not demand creating supply coming in. it is a ridiculous thought. host: let's talk to milton from hollywood, florida, on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to remind folks who wear the red hats and blue shirts that we paid high prices for all of these items, for what these companies are price gouging us out here. we can make a difference when it comes to what they charge us for this stuff. they are talking that they are going to move up prices on all

products for 28%. we are all getting screwed by them, basically. host: let's talk to dave calling from brooksville, florida, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: yeah, hi. winston churchill said the best case against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. when you listen to the callers on the republican line, you have to hand it to your last guest to be willing to wade into a septic tank like that. it is like the party of hate, and their hero is trump because they all hate the same person. all they have is name-calling, petulant psychobabble you might expect from a five-year-old. look at how patently delusional they are. the more time they get to run their mouths, there is rarely any fact-checking.

usually, there is not even any inquiry about what their sources are. they just run their mouths with the name-calling, hate, it is as though they are on another planet. your guest mentioned if he showed up at their door with all of the facts and proved, they would still refuse to believe it because it does not align with their worship of trump. there is no attempt whatsoever to challenge any of the profoundly disturbed rage fueled crackpots that calling on that line. 90% of the audience apparently is living in a complete state of delusion. host: let's talk to jeff calling from whitewater, wisconsin, on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for that guest. even though the republican line attacked him, i think what needs to happen in this country is for

people to pay attention to their news sources. when they are hooked into one network or a few websites and that is where they get their information and buy into. this border problem would have been much better off if they passed it could they did not because people are crazy trump lights or for kennedy or whatever. we just need to get facts and believe in the truth instead of what is pumped to us from our favorite source. host: let's talk to nina on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. there's over 300 million people in this country. am not buying the fact all of these people are going to go out and vote.

this is the first year i'm probably not going to vote because i don't like either candidate. the media would make more money if they would start charging the campaigns, especially trump, because all day yesterday, every time the word trump came up was every 10 minutes on every channel. they think they are getting ratings by that but they are really not because people are turning it off. we are sick of hearing the media talk about trump. just talk about the news on what is going on. don't put your trump stuff in it. host: let's talk to randy calling from wichita falls, texas, on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i really like watching c-span but i wish you would get some guest speakers on there that have to worry about the cost of a gallon of gas or what groceries cost instead of all

being millionaires, you know, wealthy people. if biden would not have cut off the gas supply for natural gas, our economy would be soaring because we would be selling it to other countries right now. that is the cleanest part of the energy you can get. thank you and i will listen back. host: let's go to david calling from port isabel, texas, on the independent line. david, good morning. caller: good morning, syre. host: go ahead, david. caller: one thing i would add that i just heard the last gentlemen say is we have several lng ports, some near my house. they are building a large one in corpus christi, texas, that has been calm the largest energy export port in the united states. lng ships are backed up getting

off the dock. it is like a hot sheet in a hotel. we are selling tons of natural gas. that is untrue. i see the ships every day. taking a broader look at this, i am 74 years old, i was born in 1950. it seems in the last 30 or 40 years, we have not demanded the integrity and honesty in public office at almost every level. the problems with that have come home to roost where people go to washington and spend the rest of their life there and become wealthy. it does not become public service anymore. it is a financial strategy to become wealthy. the power and the ego of those gentlemen in washington we see,

is undistinguished of a from somebody trying to help the country. whether they are on the left or right, this will be the second time we have had the two worst candidates in american history vying for the presidency. it does not bode well for america when the kardashians, people know more about the kardashians then they do about our public institutions. host: let's talk to miriam calling from texas on the democratic line. good morning. caller: oh, my god, i am so like freaked out. the republicans are so -- i don't know! like, they keep saying fentanyl, fentanyl, fentanyl, fentanyl. a bipartisan bill just passed in the senate that would have funded the border people from

where i live in on the border of texas. it would have helped them. the republicans know that biden wants to work together with the congress and yet the republicans are delusional because they keep saying fentanyl, fentanyl, fentanyl. but when it comes time to fix it, they say no. biden is trying to fix it? no. we are going to take his ideas and let our people die until he comes along and tells them to do it. host: we would like to thank all of our callers who called in for our open forum segment. coming up next, the heritage foundation's emma waters will be here to discuss the implications of alabama's supreme court decision on ivf and the role of reproductive issues in campaign 2024. stick with us.

we will be right back. ♪ >> this week>>, the house and senate are in. both chambers plan to vote on the first of two packages of federal spending bills to fund the government before next friday's midnight deadline. watch our live coverage of super tuesday with 15 states including american samoa casting votes for their nominee for president. jerome powell will be on capitol hill to deliver the federal reserve's semiannual monetary policy report. thursday before the senate

banking committee. also, watch c-span's live coverage as per the divide and gives the end will state of the union address before a joint session of congress to outline his priorities for the country. watch live. go to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live and on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. video of key hearings, debates, and other events feature points of interest markers that appear on the right hand side of your screen when you hit "play" unselect videos. this makes it easy to get a quick idea of what was debated. scroll through and spend some time on c-span's points of

interest. >> weekends bring you book tv featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. the journalist looks at research done by government agencies and the scientific community into the potential for alien life in his book. then, she shares a tech love story loong at her career coveri the tech industry and its key players. watch book tv every weekend on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and joined by emma waters, a research associate at the center for life, religion, and family at

the heritage foundation. she is with us this morning to discuss the implications of alabama's supreme court decision on ivf and the role every productive issues in campaign 2024. good morning. guest: good morning. thanks for having me today. host: alabama's supreme court has decided to protect embryonic human life in a seven-to ruling. what did the ruling say and what does it mean for in vitro fertilization in alabama? guest: the ruling was precise and narrow and was not even about in vitro fertilization itself. the decision said if fertility clinic wrongfully destroy embryos through neglect or carelessness, parents have the right to file a wrongful death of a minor lawsuit to hold them accountable. in alabama, a fertility clinic

left a storage unit unsecured resulting in the wrongful death of the embryonic children involved. host: ivf companies in alabama took the ruling to mean this was now illegal in the supreme court of alabama is now saying embryos can be considered as children. are they determining that correctly? guest: this is a major misconception. in no way did the decision say ivf was illegal or prohibited in any way. it did not even say that you cannot destroy embryos which is often a part of the process in in vitro fertilization. it only said if a clinic ask with negligence or carelessness with the embryos entrusted to their care by the parents, the parents should have some legal recourse. it is a natural and consistent extension of alabama law. alabama and other states ruled children from conception onwards in the womb should be protected from wrongful death claims.

they said this for homicide laws as well as wrongful death of a minor child. the alabama decision simply says children from conception in the womb are protected, which they already agreed on, and now children from conception outside the womb in in vitro fertilization should also be protected. host: opponents of the decision say that equates embryos with children, that they are the same thing, which by their interpretation means anything done to an embryo is the same as harming a child. do you agree with that interpretation? guest: yes, i think this is on the right track. the case says life begins at conception. both sides, the clinic and the parents, agreed on this. medical and biological texts will also say life begins at conception when the unique embryo is formed. with the pro-life movement and

those who hold a consistent view of human life, from the moment of conception, we hold that is human life regardless of the stage of development and that embryo deserves the same protection as everyone else's children. host: do you think the alabama legislature and all of the national and local groups who have descended on this decision are completely wrong in their interpretation of it? guest: there are things people have misunderstood in the ruling and have sought to use it for a much larger political narrative that does not reflect the facts of the case. host: what narrative do you think they are trying to use it for? guest: the push to say the alabama decision is anti-ivf, antiwoman, antiabortion ruling which is not the case in the slightest. what it is specifically saying is we want to parent -- empower

parents from a largely unaccountable fertility industry and protect the life of the unborn children and the parents involved. this is not about a fertility clinic and not even about ivf. it is about the millions of couples in the united states struggling with infertility seeking ways of having children they deeply desire. in the case of alabama, when a fertility clinic ask with such callousness to allow these future children of these couples to be destroyed, those parents absolutely should have a right to seek legal resource -- request. it has nothing -- legal recourse. it has nothing to do with the other things that are separate issues. host: i want to make sure our audience knows that they can join in on the conversation. we are going to open up special lines for this conversation. if you support the alabama supreme court ivf decision, we want to hear from you at 202-748-8000. if you oppose the decision, your

number is 202-748-8001. if you have experience with ivf, we want to hear from you at 202-748-8002. and of course, we will open up a special line for alabama residents because you are the ones that this particular case is dealing with. for alabama residents, we want to hear from you at 202-748-8003 . if you support the alabama supreme court decision, your number is 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001> if you have experience with in vitro fertilization, your number is going to be 202-748-8002. and for alabama residents only, we want to hear from you at 202-748-8003.

you talked about an unregulated ivf industry. i assume not only in alabama but around the country. what do you mean by that? guest: in vitro fertilization and any fertility services are largely unregulated through federal and state law. we only have one law governing it and it has to do with success rates. it requires clinics to report that to the cdc but it is not set forth any moral or ethical standards for the practice itself. we have very few states that regulate ivf beyond basic medical, technical regulations, how you create the embryo. the examples we have include louisiana which has an embryo protection act on the books where they say you cannot destroy embryos. ivf has continued to flourish in that state since the law was passed in the 1980's.

a similar law in colorado bands anonymous egg and's perm donation egg and sperm donation saying they have the right to know who their parents are. aside from a few of these laws, we have very little on the books directing the practice of ivf. this is quite unlike european nations. host: is a method of bringing children into families that want them, do you support the idea of ivf as a method of doing that? guest: ivf is only one of many infertility treatments available to us. i support the opportunity to use technology, to use the science we have, to help parents overcome infertility. ivf is one way we can do that. there are a lot of other methods

including methods that seek to heal the underlying causes. one thing important to note is infertility is not a diagnosis in and of itself. but it is a symptom that refers to a number of, many underlying causes. infertility in women can because by endometriosis, hormone imbalance, thyroid, and a host of other issues. in men, it can be caused by low sperm count, lack of mobility, and a host of other issues. underlying conditions can be addressed through other means. ivf is one way we can try to overcome infertility. it sacraments the problem altogether because at the end of the day when the child is born, the couple still has the medical issues they are dealing with. one thing i like to do in this conversation is focus on how we can heal the underlying causes of infertility to help that couple achieve the healthy level

and can naturally conceive a child and do not need ivf, or maybe they still need ivf but it will be far more successful now that they have addressed the underlying causes. host: you don't believe it should be banned? guest: no one wants to ban ivf. the interest is not there. interest is on holding the industry accountable so they are providing the best level of care to parents seeking to overcome infertility. host: do you think legally in rios should have the same rights and protections -- embryos should have the same rights and protections? guest: they deserve the full protection of the law. host: let's get some callers

into the conversation and start with soup calling from florida opposing the alabama supreme court decision. good morning. caller: that morning. ivf is very expensive. couples that go through this are spending tons of money. in alabama and louisiana, if you have an embryo that has a genetic abnormality and will not be viable, what happens at that point? do they have to transfer to another state to get destroyed because they cannot use it? guest: that is a great question and points at a major part of this conversation which is how expensive ivf is. on average, a single round of in vitro fertilization can cost $15,000 to $30,000 and yet the success rates on average based on cdc data are only 23% over

all age groups. this is a costly, time-consuming, and difficult process on the woman's body and the emotional state of the couple. what happens if you cannot destroy embryos question mark it seems like an easy way out of a difficult situation. when it comes to the process of in vitro fertilization and any humanlike, we affirm each like has inherent worth and dignity regardless of the state of development, embryonic or a born child. if they think an embryo may have some genetic issue that makes it unviable, it still does not justify the taking of life. we would not justify that if the child were sitting here and had some genetic issue or even if we knew the person would die in a couple of weeks. but instead, we have a moral duty and responsibility to provide the best possible care for all life regardless of its stage. host: let's talk to dan calling

from bridgewater, new jersey. dan has experience with ivf. good morning. caller: a lot of work we do with tissues and with organisms and so forth is basically to sustain a process. what you call it, biological or chemical, it is a matter of your point of view. the fact of the matter is a fertilized egg is not a person. there are still many stages of development that have to occur before you get to the point you get a person. i assure you the expense of burdens taken by the medical profession to save a person, an adolescent child, cannot be matched by the efforts made by our society to save a neonatal infant.

there is a wealth of history and experience and so on that makes the expense and effort to save that person's life and the sense of satisfaction from the life saved that is very different from every stage from before the embryo to the time you are a fully cognizant human being. we have reached the point in a lot of research where we cannot proceed further on human material. human material is in fact early stages of tissue states. this is the basis on which we should talk. if we want to form a scientific morality, we should make it scientific morality based on scientific facts, not one that just puts at conception. host: go ahead and respond.

guest: you are pointing out a common point of contention. what is really important to push back on his we are not just talking about tissue. we are not talking about some substance being manipulated that is not alive, growing, or developing. we are talking about an embryo which is a distinct organism, police separate from the egg and sperm it came from, that is allowed to continue growing naturally that will result in a child. if that conception occurs in the woman's body and is implanted on her uterus and walls to begin a viable pregnancy, that embryo is continuing to grow and develop. there is a level of clarity looking at the face of a child as a person deserving our protection. what if the child does not look like a child yet? what if it is inside the womb or at an early stage of development? that can be a hard jump for people to make when you cannot

see the thing. this is what makes sonograms such an incredible development in the 20th century. for the first time, we can see the unborn child growing in the womb. it was not just a pregnancy bump on the woman's body. that really connected the dots for a lot of people to realize this is not just tissue developing in a woman's body but this is a child who can hear, see, and feel pain. i think the same connection the sonogram allows for pregnancy is a similar connection that will need to be made when it comes to embryonic children created through ivf and other measures. host: one of our social media followers has a quethey want you to answer for them about the alaba supreme court decision. they want to know, doesn't it defined when embryos could be discarded? guest: to my knowledge, it does not get into the details of in vitro fertilization or the care of the embryos in the

preservation units. the decision is simple to say we are ruling on this one instance of holding fertility clinics accountable but it is up to the state legislature to decide beyond that. they left it open for alabama leaders and their people to decide the best way to regulate ivf. host: i want to note the alabama legislature on thursday past legislation to protect patients and doctors involved with in vitro fertilization in the event the embryos are damaged or destroyed. the legislation provides civil and criminal immunity for death or damage to an embryo to any individual or entity when providing or receiving goods or services related to in vitro fertilization. i want to see if you agree with that decision that the alabama legislature made to pass that

legislation and sent to the governor for her signature. guest: they said fertility clinics have complete immunity from any liability in the process of in vitro fertilization which means if this is signed into law by the government that if a fertility clinic throws embryos or destroys them through carelessness, not any other means, parents will have no liability. the embryos they have entrusted to the clinic, they have no legal protection that they will receive the best possible standard of care. one thing i will say is thank goodness mcdonald's does not have that same immunity from liability or else what happens if they somehow get something wrong in the production of food and someone suffers from eating bad food? they would have no legal recourse to hold mcdonald's accountable if that same law was passed governing food production. it seems a break from common sense accountability. we held every industry

accountable to provide best standard of care. if they fail to do that, they should be held accountable by law. that is all the alabama decision said. it seems the alabama state legislature misconstrued those things. host: you would ask alabama governor kay ivey to veto the bill? guest: i think a good policy analysis which show major concerns with the approach they took. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to loretta calling from ohio. loretta says she is not sure whether she agrees with the decision or not. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. good morning, ms. waters. i'm not sure whether i agree with this or not. number one, the 14th amendment says that only those born alive

are considered citizens. it did not say nothing about embryos. it did not say nothing about eggs. it did not say nothing about fetuses. second, we have men or women $13 billion in child support arrears. who is going to pay that? you are not making men take care of they babies but you are forcing women to have babies. just since this law was put into effect, over 200,000 kids were born through rape. what is the meaning of these laws? host: go ahead and respond to her. guest: three great points.

to my knowledge, the 14th amendment does not specifically say people born alive. they say "person." the definition of person is where there is a lot of legal debate. it is not actually dealing with people born alive. it is still consistent with that definition. the second thing is i completely concur with you. my first policy paper was on reforming child support law. we do need to better incorporate fathers in the lives of their children and hold both parents responsible for the care of their children financially and emotionally. we are totally on the same page there. the third thing i would say is it is so important to remember with in vitro fertilization that we are dealing with parents who desperately want children and are willing to go three caustic, time-consuming, and difficult process to try to make that happen through in vitro

fertilization or other infertility treatment. we are not dealing with unwanted children whose parents were surprised by their conception. we are dealing with people who likely for years have struggled with infertility and are seeking any outlet to have the children they desire. host: let's talk to yvonne calling from carson city, nevada, who opposes the alabama supreme court decision. good morning. caller: good morning. it is my issue that the definition of embryo or collection of cells is being washed over in my opinion. the definition was made by the supreme court judge about any -- without any scientific knowledge about this issue. it disturbs me. i think it is the most important part. can you talk about that? guest: to go back to the alabama

decision, the case was clear that both the clinic and the parents agree with the fact life begins at conception in the embryonic state. there was not disagreement in the court ruling about when life began or what the status of the child was. that was agreed on by the fertility doctors and parents involved. the main point of contention was what moral status was attributed to the embryo created. does it deserve protection from wrongful death or should it be treated like property? the parents were rightfully frustrated and said that is not my property, that is a child of mine at a very undeveloped stage. they wanted to have the same legal recourse when the child was wrongfully destroyed through the negligence of the clinic. host: let's talk to belinda calling from ohio.

belinda is also not quite sure whether she agrees or disagrees with the alabama supreme court decision. good morning. caller: good morning. here is my point with this. we talk about, when does life start mattering? i think life just matters. in the state of florida, statute 768 section eight states if you have no children under the age of 25 and no spouse, no one can file wrongful death or malpractice on a doctor or hospital in the state of florida. how come lives that are not born yet have so much value but lives that have already been existing have no value? host: go ahead and respond. guest: great question. i'm not familiar with the specific law. one thing that stood out in the

opinion is based on the fertility clinic, they were arguing life could only be protected under the wrongful death suit if it was conceived or grown in the womb or uterus. justice mitchell pointed out if you follow that logic consistently, children conceived outside of the womb and gestated in an artificial environment would never actually be considered children under alabama's law. i think it is important to keep in mind the alabama decision was simply saying wherever the child is conceived, in or out of the womb, that they deserve the protection of the law. i think that was certainly a step in the right direction of protecting human life. it is something many other states will have to consider going forward. host: you talked already about alabama. you mentioned louisiana. are there any other states that have similar laws? guest: not to my knowledge. there are many states that have

wrongful death of a minor child laws or something similar that holds people accountable for the wrongful death of a minor child. but when it comes to laws protecting the life of an embryo, i don't know of any states who have specifically done that. host: critics of the alabama decision have pointed the finger at the supreme court saying this only happened because of the dobbs decision. do you think their contention is correct? guest: no. national review had a fantastic article pushing back on that. he rightly made the case the dobbs decision and even roe v. wade from the 1970's has nothing to do with the alabama decision. those are two completely different legal precedents, completely different arguments. alabama is only dealing with neglect and carelessness in the industry. it is a narrow ruling that is not relate to the dobbs decision or roe v. wade.

host: since we are talking about those two decisions, it seems like this is the beginning of these becoming issues in the presidential election. where do you think this conversation belongs in the election, or does it belong? guest: i think if i was a democrat, i would want this to be front and center. looking at immigration, inflation, rising crime, it is certainly not making democrat leadership look good on the federal or state level. anything you can do to distract from the fact americans are struggling to pay for rent and food and basic services, even gasoline as an earlier caller mentioned, is something i would want to see. i think this will be an ongoing part of the debate as people wrestle with the question of life. the questions get at the deepest part of what we believe about humans and the value every person has. host: "the new york times" has

reported former president trump has privately expressed support for a 16-week abortion ban. do you believe he holds that view? if he does, what do you think he should do with abortion in a possible second term? guest: good question. i have heard a few different reports coming from insiders citing different leaks so i'm not sure where the former president currently stands. i think it will be a while before we know one way or the other. the goal or priority of the next administration -- republican administration should be the protection of unborn life. we should seek to do that in a way that protects mothers, fathers, and the children involved and gives them a chance at life. i think they are on the right track wanting to do that. it will be an interesting question to see exactly how that plays out in the coming months. host: let's take some more calls paid let's start with george. george opposes the alabama

decision. caller: good morning. yes, i definitely oppose it. man's problem is he is trying to determine with life begins. life begins before, during, or after conception. a seed of grain does not become a loaf of bread. an embryo is just an embryo. without the womb, it is just an embryo. frozen embryos are frozen embryos. there are no frozen human beings i know that are frozen and come back to life and live. that is just my opinion. the first man created was fully formed before god breezed the breath of life into him. sarah was 90 years old before she had a child. life begins when god says it

does. host: respond. guest: i think we are probably tracking on the same page. ultimately, children are gift from god and not an act of will from the parents. one of my favorite biblical examples comes from the new testament in the case of elizabeth and zachariah. elizabeth was mary, the mother of god, cousin. when they meet in the book of luke, we hear that the child within elizabeth's womb leaped for joy at the excitement of meeting mary. there's a recognition with a child in the womb that life has begun. i think you are right that god decides when life begins. what we can tell from natural law and good scientific research is the moment there is a distinct embryo growing independently of other forces, which is certainly the case inside the womb and even ivf, that embryo is on track to be born as a human and deserves the same protections just like john

the baptist leaping in elizabeth's womb in the book of luke. host: since we are talking about religion, i want to bring up the actual decision written by the alabama chief justice. i want to read part of what he says. the theologically based view of wife ences the following. god made every person in his image. each person has a value that far exceeds the ability of human billings -- human beings to calculate. destroyed without incurring the wrath of the holy god. section 36 recognizes this is tr of unborn human life no less tn is of all human life pretty before birth, all human beings bear the image of god in their lives cannot be destroyed without facing his glory.

does the decision belong in our court decision? guest: this is an important distinction to make. thomas jefferson makes the distinction there should be a separation of church and state. notably, this is not a constitutional document. it is a letter but it is something that can provide guidance that the church should not be in a position of governing and the government should not be in the position of the church. what he does not say and what we have never processed throughout american history is morality should have no influence on law. all law is a reflection of our morality and what we believe. there is no such thing as cutting out one's religion. your religion may be christianity. it may be islam. it may be no religion at all. nonetheless, there is a morality we each bring to the table when it comes to legal discourse. it is part and parcel of what it means to be human. there is no way of separating those two things.

what they are pointing out in the decision is alabama and the united states comes from a long line of western tradition that believes our rights come from god and not the government. that is an incredibly freeing reality for people. if all laws came from the government, if our rights came from the government, our rights are subject to change as the government desires to change them. think about segregation. if our rights come from government, the unjust laws on the books at the time, we would have no recourse against it. because we believe our laws come from god, sorry come our rights come from god -- sorry, our rights come from god, we can hold unjust laws accountable. we hold these truths that all men are created by the creator with certain inalienable rights. this is part of our declaration of independence, this affirmation there is an

inalienable right each person holds that should be protected by laws. it cannot be corrupted or changed regardless of what the government may teach at a certain time. host: let's get a couple more calls in. let's start with armond calling from florida. caller: thank you for accepting my call. if life begins at conception and it is the government contract to keep the baby viable until birth and into its life, should it not have the protections of the government to have a birth certificate and social security number which is a government contract so if the baby does not survive to 18, the parents have the burden of holding the baby to the life of the adult have the protections of social security from the day of skenes -- conception until the day of birth? i don't know.

i'm just curious what you think about a birth certificate at conception. guest: great question. i think it could apply to children inside the womb. do they need a birth certificate or social security number? from the early stages of conception and through pregnancy, they are kept literally within the body and protection of their parents. there is not a need for distinct paperwork or some legal standing when it comes to social security numbers or birth certificates outside of what it has within the couple's literal body in this instance. i think we could debate that as we learn more about conception and the process of creating children outside the womb. but i do not think there is any legal need for that war political pressure to go that direction -- for that war political pressure -- but i do not think there is any legal need for that or political

pressure to go in that direction. host: i would like to thank emma waters for coming on us this morning and talking with our viewers. thank you so much. we would like to thank all of our callers, social media followers, all of our guests, for another great "washington journal." please continue to wash her hands and stay safe. we will see you again tomorrow for another great show. have a great sunday, everyone. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024]