tv Washington Journal 12112022 CSPAN December 11, 2022 7:00am-10:04am EST
>> this morning on washington journal, we will start with a look at news headlines and take some fewer calls. then, florida-based republican media strategist adam goodman joins us to talk about the future of the republican party and the rising profile of florida governor ron desantis within the gop. after that, anti-defamation league ceo and national director jonathan greenblatt will discuss the rise in anti-semitism in the u.s. and how to combat it. take part in the conversation, call us and send a text message, facebook comments or tweets. washington journal starts now. ♪ host: good morning, everyone on
this sunday, december 11. welcome to the "washington journal." a recent poll found a small rebound in approval of the u.s. supreme court. this morning, we want to know your view of the high court. republicans, dial in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. dependents -- independent at (202) 748-8002. you can also contact us via text. let us know your city and state. (202) 748-8003. go to facebook.com/c-span. and you can tweet us at c-span wj. a poll was conducted last month in november and this is what they found. 44% of adults approve of the job the supreme court is doing. while 56% disapprove. in september, 40% approved and
60% this approved. a small rebound, they say, for the court. approval declined sharply between july and september of 2021. and then fell further in may of 2022, following the leaked opinion of dobbs v jackson women's health. it overturned roe v. wade which had prevented abortion nationwide. there is a hearing on capitol hill this week and here is the headline from that hearing from in pr, a former evangelical activist says he pushed the boundaries in supreme court dealings. we cover that hearing here on -- covered that hearing on c-span. right wing christian activists sought to work their way into the meetings of conservative supreme court justices. offering meals to advance their policy agenda. the former leader of an
evangelical nonprofit told members of congress on thursday. reverend rob shane nick testified before the house. he led a group known as safe in action and he now describes himself as a dissenting evangelical. he said he recruited and trained stealth missionaries for a project called operation high court. here is his testimony this past week. >> operation higher court involved my recruitment of wealthy donors and stealth missionaries who befriended justices that shared our conservative social and religious sensibilities. in this way, i aimed to show these justices that american support of them -- americans supported them and thank god for their presence on the core and the opinions they rendered. our overarching goals were to gain insights into the conservative justices thanking -- thinking and show their
resolve to render solid, unapologetic opinions, particularly against abortion. i called this our ministry of emboldened mint. it was not an attempt to change minds. beyond small talk, our missionaries did not engage liberal members of the court. my recruits for operation higher court were older, highly accomplished, and independently minded. they did not take kindly to being told where to go, what to do or how to do it. successfully deploying them required their autonomy. i did suggest tactics to cultivate affinity. but otherwise, our folks were on their own. most of them limited their support to regular prayers on behalf of the justices families. assurances of goodwill at social functions and sending greeting cards on special occasions. but they might also host
justices or their spouses for meals at restaurants, private clubs or their homes and sometimes the justices reciprocated. the hobby lobby leak resulted in -- from one of these arrangements. host: that was the reverend testifying on capitol hill. we covered it on c-span. you can find the entire hearing on our website, c-span.org. a poll found that a share of democrats say supreme court justices do a poor job of keeping decisions free from politics. the number of democrats who say that nearly doubled since january. your view of the u.s. supreme court, that is our question for you this morning. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. an independents, (202) 748-8002. text us with your first name,
city and state at (202) 748-8003 . you can join us on facebook.com/c-span or on twitter with the handle at c-span wj. here is matthew on facebook writing it is much less activist than it used to be. the current court has shown a willingness to defer to the constitution instead of imposing its choices. it defers to the state. most people forget the constitution can be amended and wants to -- want to rethink things that are not in the constitution. more from that hearing this week . the event? -- the evangelical who is part of that high court, reverend rob schenck, being asked about specific outreach to justices. >> this campaign, which i think to most americans is shocking, there was actually a sophisticated effort to
influence, either by bucking up or by strengthening the views or changing the minds of justices on important issues, this is shocking to me. but, in addition to that, was there also travel with supporters of the higher court campaign, with justices of the supreme court, both to vacation day -- destinations and vacation homes? can you give an example of some of the trips the justices took? >> yes, mr. chairman. i was aware that justices alito and scalia had visited the home, the second or third home, i'm much or how they counted it, of the rights -- wrights in wyoming.
i was not aware of any other, in particular. >> were you aware whether the justices traveled with their spouses? >> i don't recall, mr. chairman. i will correct myself. i was aware of one trip justice scalia took with mr. don wright that involved hunting. i think they were quail hunting, perhaps in south america. i'm not sure. >> reverend robert shank testifying. your view of the u.s. supreme court is our conversation this morning. research conducted a poll in september and they found this. republicans and democrats increasingly view the supreme court as conservative. do you agree with that notion? or that they are too political? this past week or two, i have listened to a couple of cases.
they seem to have dropped the party politics and got back on track. i was actually proud of them, again. if you listen to oral arguments on c-span, you can find the oral arguments covered here. many of them, on our website, c-span.org/supre court. stella in new milford, new jersey, independent. good morning to you. your view of the supreme court? caller: good morning, greta. i'm not sure that opinions regarding the supreme court matter anymore. i'm not sure that opinions regarding congress or the presidency matter anymore. my deepest concern is i -- i have been stuck here at home and i am listening to all of these hearings and politicians.
i think our government has just become too big to succeed. there is so much. we have news reports about censorship. host: why do you say you are not sure it matters, the people's view of their institutions? why wouldn't it matter? caller: i think we have gotten to the point now, where our system is just too overwhelmed by everything. i was recently listening to a hearing, the information about committees. and they were saying that the way that the committees are scheduled, most of our
representatives, senators and representatives, can't even show up. so, i am just so confused. now, we have this cryptocurrency and president biden shined -- signed an executive order to pursue the federal reserve, of incorporating cryptocurrencies into our economy, in light of this ftx scandal. host: i will jump into say we should stick to the supreme court. next week -- this week coming up, we have coverage of two hearings related to cryptocurrency. go to c-span.com for more details. there is more to come from congress. what she is referring to is a conversation we had between a republican and democratic member of congress who served on the community to modernize congress. that happened recently here on
the washington journal. you can find it on our website, where they talked about committee assignments and how lawmakers don't have enough time to sit and listen to other lawmakers questioning during hearings because they have to get up and go to another committee assignment or they have fundraising, a meeting with constituents, etc. maxing in kansas, democratic caller. your view of the supreme court? caller: thank you for taking my call. i've had this opinion for a while and i think i'm right. of all of the three branches of government, the supreme court is the most powerful. the supreme court can overrule a decision made by the senate. the supreme court can overrule a decision made by the president.
the supreme court can tell the fbi how to investigate and who to investigate. the court can terminate anything. i think it is obvious that no one in this country is protected by anything unless the supreme court says it is the right thing to do. that's obvious. why would anyone think that the supreme court doesn't have the power that it does? host: your point about overturning what the president does, here is nbc news, with a story about a recent case. now, they have put their lives on hold. they reported more than 40 million borrowers were eligible to cancel up to $20,000 of federal student loan debt under the president's forgiveness plane. the remaining balance of $19,000
for one of the students that they profile, she had high hopes that she would get relief. instead, her debt and that of roughly 16 million applicants will never be forgiven. a ruling is expected next year in the summer of 2023. ron, a democratic caller in missouri. good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: you are. we can hear you. caller: the court has become politicized because republicans know the only way they will stay in power is to stack the courts and gerrymander and go to their normal means. besides that, when i look at the number, the 56 and 60%, look at
the voting. in the general election, it falls close into those lines. of course, the conservatives will approve of striking down abortion. let's see what they do with this north carolina vote. because gerrymandering is a big thing right now. it's the only thing that keeps republicans in power right now. host: ron is referring to the supreme court oral argument recently over the north carolina election map. we discussed that on friday. ron, go ahead. caller: i've just got a bad cold. host: we will let you go, ron. john on facebook says i am satisfied with the court, overall. to everyone yelling term limits for the court, how about we get
term limits for congress and then discuss term limits for the court. do you think there should be term limits for the court? your view of the high court is the conversation this morning. we will hear from richard in illinois, and independent. hi, richard. caller: i think we should stand behind our supreme court. they were picked, not because of the dirty things that people pick on. those are very smart people. they have good reputations. everyone of them, whether they are democrat or republican or independent, we chose them to be on the supreme court. it is a very important job. host: what do you mean, when you say we chose them? the president nominates them and the senate confirms them. caller: i realize that.
but we chose the president, didn't we? as far as i'm concerned, everything that happens in washington, d.c. is picked apart so bad that nobody trusts anything that is going on. what we need to do is stop thinking about what they did in the past and trust them with their decisions that they are making now. i trust the supreme court. they were picked because of their reputations. host: richard, do you vote on a candidate for president based on how they may choose the supreme court nominee? caller: no, i pick the president on his reputation of politics
reputation. i'm sorry i'm studying. host: it's ok. we understood. stephen in michigan texts us to say my opinion of the supreme court is that they -- there should be forced retirement at age 65. there should be a minimum age of 40. rhonda in jacksonville, north carolina, democratic caller. hi, rhonda. caller: hi. good morning. i just want to say that thomas, number one, was charged with sexual harassment. he shouldn't be on the court. after dr. plessis ford and deborah ramirez shared their stories of sexual violence against brett kavanaugh, the fbi received 4500 tips but has never indicated that they followed up on any of those tips. instead, the tips were referred to the trump white house.
the same white house that was dragging dr. ford through the mud for daring to speak out. this is the most honorable position -- to me -- almost more than the president. i think these people and the guy who just called said we need to look at their past. yeah, let's look at their past. they should not be on the supreme court if they have sexual harassment and attempted charges against them for sexual violence. when trump came into office, he put brett kavanaugh in there. they blocked merit portland -- merrick garland from being on there. i think everybody on the supreme court is fine except for thomas and cavanaugh. -- brett kavanaugh. they should not be up there. they probably would not even be able to get a good job with those kinds of charges. it is ridiculous that they blocked brett kavanaugh's sexual violence tips and trump covered
it all up so that he wouldn't be on the supreme court. -- would be on the supreme court. i think it is an honorable position and i think they should have a life term. host: lambert in new york, independent. we will go to you, next. caller: good morning. i have no problem with the structure of the court, even in terms of the different people. my problem is how it is hard -- the constitution and the laws of the land are agreeing between -- an agreement between
individuals. and if someone violates those agreements and the lower court, you will know if it is being violated. they make loss that are attractive loss and they apply to you as a person -- laws that are -- laws and they apply to you as a person. you can't take it to the court to get it resolved. as little people. only the big people are able to do that. host: understood. mark in new york, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. this is a loaded question. i think about this a lot because i think the supreme court is completely copper mice. there are three wonderful women on there.
justices sotomayor, kagan and ketanji brown jackson is fantastic. however, the conservatives on the court committed perjury. i watched every one of the hearings. they all held their hand up and swore that they would not change roe v. wade because of settled law and that is what they did when they got the majority. i have real problems with this court. i think there definitely should be maybe a 12 year term and that is it. this lifetime appointment, they are not kings. i don't appreciate what they have done. especially walker, he shouldn't be there. mitch mcconnell denied president obama his rightful pick and would not bring merrick garland up for a vote. that is cheating. he didn't do his job and i don't understand why the democrats
didn't sue mitch mcconnell and take him into the court for that kind of nonsense. they pushed in amy covid barrett. host: coney barrett. caller: with only two weeks left on trump's time. i look at the court as the conservatives have taken over by cheating and lying. it's awful. it is terrible for our country. host: mark is a democratic caller in new york. both sides brace for new combat and abortion wars. both sides are taking on a stricter -- taking a look at how they did in the midterm elections. they report that antiabortion groups are pulling back from ballot initiatives as a way to restrict abortion, having failed with those measures in kansas, kentucky and montana. they are pushing to reinforce
abortion restrictions where they have had success and the majority in court jurisdictions and republican-controlled legislatures. it goes on to say after winning six of six ballot initiatives, abortion-rights supporters are pressing for more. especially in states such as ohio and missouri, with the legislations being gerrymandered and staunchly antiabortion. yet, ballot initiatives are not an option in every state. you can read more in the new york times this morning. wendy and connecticut, democratic caller. your view of the supreme court? caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: i agree totally with the previous caller from new york. the only thing he didn't mention was justice thomas's wife, who was part of the insurrection.
there is something going on. i don't think the av american knows all of the details. there should be term limits. host: rebecca in california. you are up, early. an independent, good morning. caller: good morning, everyone. especially to you, greta. the woman who never ages. [laughter] it must be the moisturizer. anyway, i wanted to make a comment on this morning's topic. i believe that they have turned into eight glorified think tank. it really isn't doing what it is meant to do. absolutely yes to term limits. that has to be. and then it has become way too political. i agree with some of the previous callers. most of all, it only took me
eight years to get through to you. host: wow. caller: yes! finally. anyone, have a good day and try to have a good holiday. host: thanks a lot. we hope you keep calling in. let's go to robin in santa fe, new mexico. hi, robin. caller: hi, greta. how are you this morning? host: good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. your view of the supreme court? caller: well, my view used to be i used to respect them more than any other entity in the country. and now, in the past -- i guess since trump, actually since clarence thomas -- my opinion has gone down, down and down. to the point where i now no longer respect them at all. like, zero. like, anything they have to say,
i don't want to hear it. i don't want to hear it, because i know it is crap. host: what would change your opinion? caller: what would -- host: what would change your opinion? caller: ok, expand the court. have oversight, so that clarence thomas can not take himself out of something that his wife is involved with. and also, this country is not made up of predominantly catholic. the supreme court, six out of nine are catholic. this antiabortion craft has -- crap has come from the catholics and the born-again christians. so, why do we have six out of
nine people that were raised catholic on the supreme court, making decisions for people who have other religious beliefs or no religious beliefs at all? that is a real problem. and we need to distribute religion or non-religion among the justices, if they are going to have any sort of legitimacy whatsoever. i also agree with the woman from north carolina, the guy from new york and the woman from california. with absolutely everything that they say. thank you. host: all right, robin. here is mike from robin. when the supreme court can accept gifts, how can they way justice -- weigh justice? here is david asking and ethics
expert about the rules for supreme court justices when accepting gifts or trips. >> our supreme court -- are supreme court justice is permitted to take trips, private trips with individuals that can be valued at thousands of dollars without disclosing that benefit? >> they are. there is a gift statute but the regulations that apply to lower court judges do not apply to the justices of supreme court. they are not bound by that. what you have is justices accepting gifts aced on whether they choose to accept them or not. -- based on whether they choose to accept them or not. at the highest court in our land, we should have a transparent process where the justices -- for the justices to resolve those conflict of interest. -- conflicts of interest. >> -- >> no.
>> can you describe for the american people, what is the consequence of permitting free gifts of any value as it relates to travel or other gifts? what is the potential danger of that? why does it matter? >> there is the potential danger of influence in the specter of wealthy activists using their money to get the justices to change their mind or decide in their favor. or importantly, an independent and impartial judiciary is what ensures that the law protects regular folks. like your host: from the house judiciary committee. if you missed the hearing and art interested -- and are interested in what happens in the supreme court and is it too political, you can find it on our website. there is legislation growing --
brewing out of the house judiciary committee that has not come up for a full floor vote. republicans will take over the majority in january. it reminds- ggests a code of conducr. disclosures forgive receive recuse -- disclosures wheno justices received and the close and -- and disclose who funded. it did not get a vote on the house floor. let's hear from jack in maine, republican. caller: you say you want to talk
to me, i am a republican. you haven't talked to anyone republican in the last 30 minutes. you say only democrats and independents. host: i didn't say that but we have to wait for them to call in. caller: i am the first republican caller in the last half hour? host: apparently. caller: i believe you like i believe twitter and all of the other mainstream media people. a half hour and you are going to tell me no other republican called in or if you did they are not taken calls. host: are you going to talk about the supreme court or this? caller: i am going to talk about the supreme court. the supreme court is great.
donald trump did the right thing and everybody else calling about this, open your eyes. host: are you done? caller: yeah, i am done. host: mary, st. paul, minnesota, democratic caller. caller: i have been listening to the callers and was surprised of the last one saying only republicans -- democrats are calling in. it is unfortunate the supreme court has lowered itself in the eyes of many of us due to the fact that it comes across as being quite political. i happen to be someone that
remembers that when franklin roosevelt was in his last term when he passed away on april 12, 1945. i remember the impact that had because for someone like myself i had never known another president. it had not occurred to me they couldn't serve as long as they were reelected. i think there is something wrong about having a lifetime ability to serve. i was shocked when i heard justice kagan say something about the italian jurist that
died. host: scalia. caller: she talked about that they were a friend, she talked about he was always after her to go on a hunting trip. he wanted to take her on a hunting trip. she had never hunted or handled a gun and as a result, she said i finally told him i would go. she went with him and had a lovely time and she went hunting with him several times. i was rather shocked, and it revealed something about her own self saying, i liked it. she didn't talk about anything she hunted or killed, but i would like for them to be going
back where we don't know that much about them and we can feel, they are trying to be as objective as possible and i do think being on there for an indefinite period is too long. i have had a lifetime of being able to watch and observe and i do hope they will put time limitations on that court. host: tammy is a republican in louisiana. caller: i heard that lady and the guy who said you are just taking democrats, and he is exactly right. you called eight democrats and four republicans. host: do you not understand how this program works? we don't call you, you call us.
that is how the program works. caller: i have the solution for that. all the republicans call on all the lines so they can't be biased. host: here is becky from san antonio, texas, texting, justices are doing a great job. democrats lose on some decisions and they whine until they get their way. courtney, independent. are you there, in georgia, independent? caller: i called on the publican line -- on the republican line. i was calling about the supreme court justices. it seems like in the 1950's we
had a high percentage of people who appreciated the court. i believe and they changed the rules in the house of representatives to change help many people it took to vote one in, that is when it started to be a problem. then they want to change the rules in the senate. when you start changing the rules, the percentages of approval will go down. there is something going on in the united states that i think people just don't understand each other anymore and are cold so far from one side to the other. the court has changed because of politics, yes, it has, but it should stay the way the constitution presented it. host: listen to california republican darrell issa from the past week or he defended the
integrity of the supreme court and other federal judges. [video clip] >> sitting in this body with all of the rules that we now want to add to the court, some of which i support, but all of those rules don't change the fact that on balance -- unbalanced the court has been and a group of individuals, nine at the top over 600 article three judges and countless more article one judges who for the most part deserve the public confidence of the american people, that the vast majority of them all of the time endeavor to do the right and honorable and ethical thing. it does us no good today to look at legislation by denigrating another body. the facts are, their event
mistakes, perhaps even lapses of judgment and of this body has on occasion and to remove a federal judge. that doesn't change the fact that although they are human beings and we should do everything we can to promote greater confidence, we gain very little by implying this is a bought and paid for organization or that their ethics, which were very high in everyone's mind on the others of the aisle when they decided with them on an issue or two, suddenly is fraught with unfair influence when they don't win or two of the last decisions. host: congressman darrell issa, republican from california at the hearing. we are getting your view. cj in buffalo, new york, democratic caller.
caller: good morning. a couple of things i think makes people's view of the supreme court a little negative, for me, personally, the fact that donald trump was so wanting to spike the football that he got a bunch of conservatives in their on social -- in there on social issues. we know on social issues he is one of the most off the chain people in public life, a total hypocrite. and, being,, -- and karma being karma, the nine months obama
looked at merrick garland for a seat that was denied, amy coney barrett, nine weeks and she was passed through. what people forget is, we were already voting -- some states were already voting for the presidential election, and that is what got donald trump out of office, because finally enough right-thinking women and men who appreciate women and what they have two go through with any medical, intimate decision, it came back to haunt, which is great. at least trump is gone. he shut his own self in the bone
spurs. the other thing that is sketchy is justice roberts, when the memo was leaked on the overturning of roe, he is like, we are going to get to the bottom of this. between the justices, they all have four clerks, 36 people to investigate and we still haven't come out who was the leaguer, but it was -- leaker, well it was roberts on how dividing that ruling was going to be. thank god -- i am an old irish catholic white i and all of my irish catholic sisters and
friends are actually pro-choice, not pro abortion. when it was time for my kids to come along, they came along, but i would never take that away from my wife and nobody really should. host: here is one from el paso texas saying i agree with the color from santa fe, new mexico, as in a lifelong atheist i've never been represented by scotus or congress. the story written about the justices and their religion, it wrote the justices in the abortion case are simply cradle catholics.
for all their differences, they failed conservative and strong opposition to abortion. it goes on to say, five justices voted to overturn roe. of the six, they voted to uphold the abortion restrictions in question. all six were raised catholic. bill in north carolina, republican, what do you say? caller: i am calling about the lifelong appointments. i think it is terrific, only because, could you imagine if the supreme court justices had to compete for some kind of election every six or eight or year as it was? think about your county judges.
i think being appointed for life is terrific. i know my opinions of things have changed since i was 20, 30, 40, 60. my lifelong opinions have changed and i expect justices to also. whoever has been democratic or republican their whole lives hasn't looked to see how people's opinions change. the lifelong appointments keep them from being influenced and gives them an opportunity to mature in positions they hold. that is my opinion. host: james, who is a democrat, in new york. caller: i think that the lifelong appointments, they need to be annually checked out.
i just think that lifelong appointments is not a good idea, because people's minds do deteriorate as well, and we don't make baseball pitches for life. they lose their ability to pitch , and the same thing with people in general, as we get older, some of our minds slip. also, that is what i think it is a good idea. host: john, a republican, in washington, d.c. caller: people talk about being atheist, but they want to determine at what point does abortion turn to murder? obviously the day of the birth if you cut the baby's head off that is coming out, most people would say that is murder.
where does it go from abortion to murder? that is the question. the fairytale about queenie hilary and the tiny giant, rb g, they wanted to have a spectacular bonanza where the second woman chief justice appoints the woman president, and that fairytale vanished when the night in shining armor came in, donald trump, and saved us all from that the brokerage. host: john, a republican in d.c. and skip is an independent in d.c. caller: being an independent i can see both sides. the problem that was talked about with lifetime appointment is it is not the choice of
having people be on the court for life, but maybe term limits for the supreme court. no one is talking about having them elected. that is not even on the table. it is about having a term limit for supreme court justices, and i think that would be good. the problem with the current court is mitch mcconnell not allowing obama's choice to go through and then having amy coney barrett confirmed right before an election. that was the biggest problem. for people like myself who is independent, i had a big problem with that. host: mary jo writes in a text, the supreme court has decided to
put church into state and they are never, ever going to be fair. david, detroit, michigan, a democrat, what do you think? caller: good morning. i think this is one of those rare conversations where i am more than motivated to opine on a topic. it is not that i set my clock every 30 days but i am motivated by the conversation and this morning is one of those. in my opinion, i believe there should be term limits, because i believe the court, up until this court, has transformed into being political. i can see that one day, sooner than later, an individual like clarence thomas will wait to retire until they have a
republican president. so this going back and forth like that, and the justices are aging and as they age, they will probably wait until they have the party that favors them and then they will retire, guaranteeing the perpetual placements of a republican led or partisan judge. so the supreme court justice has transformed into a political apparatus. host: should there be term limits? caller: i absolutely think so. i think 12 years should be adequate and every 12 years, whoever is the sitting president should be able to have a candidate. host: a republican, jim,
maryland. let me try it one more time for you. caller: i believe there should be term limits for sure, 20 years max. i believe they are an activist court themselves. one of three equal branches of government, they need to follow some sort of ethics and step up and put a panel of ethics together and oversee them. i think we should add four more women to the court and make it fair. i am a democrat who called on the republican line because the woman said the republicans should call on the democrat line to clog it up. host: steve in florida, independent. caller: i think they should have
term limits because they are supposed to be three equal branches of government and two branches are subjected to the peoples' vote. there are two term limit like they do with the head of the fbi. he's got 10 years unless he gets fired. so the thing is that stacking the court the way trump did, you are not going to get the cross-section of american justice unless you put limits on it, because they go by 25 years anyway as a generation. there should be generational changes. those justices that would be appointed with term limits would be closer to and have been maybe
exposed to opinions of more people instead of just politicians and that is what i think and thank you. host: kathleen, democratic color in pennsylvania, -- democratic caller in pennsylvania. caller: when clarence thomas was attending tea party functions with his wife. it became news and everybody became upset about it, and then it just died away. to me, that was just impropriety. you can't be a supreme court jue d be aligned with a political party. and then went mitch mcconnell refused to even interview merrick garland and just waited and waited and then we got kavanaugh and gorsuch and amy coney barrett, and they all sat
there and they said we aren't going to touch roe.] it is going to remain, and since they got that, what happened? it went back to the states. there is no ethical standard. i watched the hearings and was shocked to know there is no code of ethics. it is up to the head of the court and robert doesn't seem to have any control. they can do pretty much what they want and they have a life term. there is no consequence. it is turning very political, turning very conservative, and it doesn't represent me. host: kathleen referring to thursday's hearing in the house judiciary committee.
she watched it on c-span. you can find it on our website, c-span.org. you can see gold stars that come up and that is points of interest from the hearing and you can quickly go through it if that is all you have time for. ithaca, new york, independent, we will hear from you. caller: good morning and thank you for a good conversation. i want to thank everyone behind-the-scenes who put all of us on every day, not only guests but the callers. this is pastor michael and i am in a motel room with my service dog because i couldn't get representation in upstate new york. as a person living with disability who has had three
homes lost because taxpayers and myself paid rent, like the ones in the white house. the discussion today has to be put into context. you are talking to someone who has served as a supreme court justice in 1969 when we were asked to project where we would be in 25 years, and i swore in a woman as the first president. what we are dealing with is we need to change our system and the fact is, all politics is local. our courts must start with us, the branches of government must start with us. that is why they are not bearing fruit. we need human rights courts that put people above poverty. -- property.
our whole system starts with property where they can take you in and take away your house. why can't we bring in bad cops and haters, because we have never had a system to reflect those self-evident truths. host: terry, dells, texas, republican. caller: i haven't heard a lot of comments, but i am pleased with the court. i watched the hearings with judge thomas years ago that was an attack on him and he is an extraordinary person. amy coney barrett is the premier legal scholar in the country, and i think they are all qualified people to be on the
court right now. we just need to back out of the politics on the court. i think it is fine the way it is. nine people is a good decision-making group, and that is agreed on by multiple judges over time. in my lifetime, the court was primarily democratic leaning, most of my lifetime. i think this is a wonderful court and we have an opportunity to hear the other side of arguments, pro small business, pro individual rights and getting back to constitutional basics. that is where i am as a republican and as a woman. i am pro-choice but only up to the first trimester. we need to respect each other's views, because in our church, we decided a long time ago we were
split 50-50, so you have to compromise. there are people of goodwill who believe that abortion but we need to make decisions early before the baby can feel pain. host: i need to give jim, ohio, democratic caller. caller: i am cautiously optimistic about the supreme court. i know they have more states rights that i would like to see. my objection of them is the cases they accept and they take no action on certain events. that is the main political issue i would have under roberts. they leave a lot of questions unanswered. host: weight will leave it there for now.
when we combat, republican media strategist adam goodman discusses the future of the the party and florida governor ron desantis' rising profile within the gop. and later, jonathan greenblatt of the defamation league talks about the rise in anti-semitic rhetoric in the united states and ways to combat it. we will be right back. ♪ >> this week on c-span networks, esday at 3:00 p.m., the senate rules committee holding a hearing on oversig othe capitol police following the attack on the u.s. capital to hearings investigating the llse of the cryptocurrency exchange ftx and the potential harm tosumers. tuesday, the former founder and ceo sam bankman-fried and the current ceo are expected to testify before the house
financial services committee. on wednesday, the senate banking committee a second hearing. wednesday at 2:30 p.m. eastern, fed chair jerome powell holds a press conference. . both chambers working to pass funding friday to avert a shut down. watch on c-span.org or on the free app or at the spin.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> tonight on q and a, journalist and author talks about walmart's effort to transform itself from a company know aggressive business practices and low wages to when -- 21 that is more supportive -- to on that is more supportivee.
>> they have done a lot, but at the end of the day, the average walmart worker is still taking less than $29,000 a year. that is not a living wage. it shows me that corporate america left on its own will never move far enough or fast enough on the wage crisis we have in this country. so many working people getting up and working hard and not being able to make ends meet. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q and a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: from florida is adam goodman, a republican strategist
here to talk about the future of the republican party. thanks for being here. let's talk about campaign 2022, finally in the books. what do you think the message was to both parties, particularly to republicans from this last midterm election cycle? guest: so many lessons, as always seems to be the case with any election. the two biggest ones are that the candidates matter and that issues matter. if you go beyond that, i was a character matters as well. that was a bit of a referendum for the midterms on those three things. historically, republicans as the out party were expected to do better in the u.s. senate, even though the races they were facing presented not a favorable race card for them. they should have done better.
there was disappointment the margin in the u.s. house now in favor of republicans wasn't bigger. after every election it gives you a chance to take a look at what happened and what didn't and make adjustments and move forward into the next cycle, which began the day after the midterms. some would say technically after georgia, but whatever your definition of the counter is, it is now on. 2 -- host: why didn't the red wave materialized for the republican party? guest: we had issues that transcended or competed with at least the economy, which was the number one issue all the way through, law and border security, the dobbs decision was something that helped the democrat party. frankly, the democrats made no
secret about the fact that they made the referendum on the former president and the senate selection is candidacy backed that did not fare well. that is what we saw what we saw. it is refreshing that in america those things happen, candidates, character, and issues still matter. americans were tuned in to the midterm more than any inch -- midterm i can remember. host: what does that mean for the former president' has influence in the party? -- former president's influence in the party? guest: he has been beset by other issues since the elections. he announced he is going to run for president soon after the midterms had close and a verdict
was essentially delivered. he has a difficult road ahead of him. what has happened in the republican party and more so every day is there is no longer a sense of a coronation than a contest. in american politics, regardless of what party you align with, that is a good thing, competition of candidates, ideas, to try to chart the best course forward. that is a healthy thing for the publican party that we are looking at that as a contest in 2024. host: cnbc has a survey with the headlines "majority of americans don't want biden or trump to run again in 2024." your reaction. guest: i understand this. we are a country that is not only divided but we are somewhat
feeling down the mouth on a lot of things about the president of the future. we are looking for something we have not quite found. oath president biden and former president trump are well known as entities and what you can expect or not expect from either one. americans are looking for what else is out there. we like a contest and this is baked into the american people's. that is why -- american ethos. that is why you see in the poll that we are looking for something different and that has yet to be defined. i joke that we are already into it. it is early in the contest and there will be a lot of twists and turns. when americans find something they are ready to rally around and they will rally around it big and we have not found it yet. host: the former president said
he is running in 2024. if the current president decides not to run in 2024, which democrats could beat the former president in a general election matchup? guest: this always gets me in trouble as a republican commenting on democrats. the democrats have a lot to choose from but let's talk about history. there have been 15 former vice presidents that became president of the united states but there been over 27 governors that ascended from the state capital to the white house, and only three u.s. senators. warren harding, john f. kennedy, and barack obama. if you look at it that way, you are thinking governors should have the edge in that contest. other than kamala harris, the
sitting vice president, would be the early favorite because she is the sitting vice president, you can see a lot of democrat names being thrown out there, some from the recent past of the last campaign, amy klobuchar, elizabeth warren, bernie sanders , but if you believe people are looking for something they have yet to find, they are looking were at people like michigan governor gretchen whitmer who has done a very good job as governor and democrats seem to love her and she did well and it midterm elections and what was supposed to be a tight race. gavin newsom has all but declared that he has want to run for president, given the idea that joe biden would not. i think there are a lot of people there. take your pick, but whoever in
his has to appeal to something as the go back to the beginning of this discussion that doesn't quite feel like it is in play yet. democrats as much as republicans are moving in that direction. host: which republicans could beat former president trump in a primary? guest: the one who will get the first audition clearly is the florida governor ron desantis. there are a lot of reasons for that. desantis is highly thought of in the state of florida, the fact that he won reelection by 19 points. let me put that in perspective. he ran against charlie crist, former popular governor on the democratic side, 19 points. in the last three elections before that reelection this past fall, the margin of victory in florida between a democrat and republican, .9%, less than 1%
the margin of victory this was 19%. for those who suggest the governor desantis is popular with republicans but really doesn't have the ability across the spectrum, i think that was put to rest with that number. you have a person also who is very unique, beyond the fact that i think he has accomplished a lot. he has a state that has a 20 do billion dollars surplus, records on -- $22 billion surplus and records on education, he is highly educated, yell undergrad, harvard law, taught history -- yale undergrad, harvard law, taught history. he runs government with what he feels right and goes to a deliberate process to go there intellectually. this is less ideological than intellectual with him and because he has almost no real
advisors, the normal political advisers, i think that makes santos very interesting -- makes santos very interest -- this desantis very interesting. some are on the fence and quietly starting to align behind him. he gets the first audition. others have been mentioned, glenn youngkin, haley -- nikki haley, and others. but ron desantis and the florida story is one of the hottest commodities out there and i think he would get the first look as an alternative to donald trump. host: to be clear, have you
worked for our been any part of ron desantis'campaigns? guest: not until now, but if i were recruited in a campaign to try to get america back, that would be something very tempting for me or anybody given what america is now confronting across so many issues and dynamics that have led to the divisiveness in the country. we need something to unite us and feel good again, and i think ron desantis potentially is that kind of player. host: you talked about how he has few advisors. is closest one is his wife, casey desantis. she plays a major role in her husband's success. can you talk about that? guest: absolutely chi is awesome and is his closest advisor and has helped him -- absolutely.
she is his closest advisor and is awesome and has helped him. she is good at understanding performance and the message and motivating people to follow and i think that has been very helpful for ron desantis. she did an amazing job after hurricane ian devastated big parts of the state, especially in the southwest. she took the lead on generating funds to try to deliver immediate relief, and i think that fun is over something like $40 billion, -- $40 million rather, and she is steadfast in her belief that someone that tells it like it is is now in vogue, she loves her husband and has a health issue that she is continuing to fight and fight courageously. there is so much to admire.
as a partner and advisor, i think ron desantis would be hard-pressed to find anyone better. host: we want to invite viewers, democrats (202) 748-8000, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents (202) 748-8002. our first call comes from dee in florida. caller: i have been wanting to get a hold of one of the republicans on the show. i have been a strong republican since 1969, and i would like to know that in the two years you in charge, you had pelosi and
schumer and we were still not in charge. there are the only guys in the whole garbage that get their noses out there and talk to the people. the rest of you have been like cockroaches. you find holes and go into the walls of congress and dig in and not seen until you are ready to be running for election again. when are you going to commodity holes and stick up for what is going on out there? we are getting trampled on by pelosi and schumer and democrats for six years and you do nothing. host: adam goodman, your reaction? guest: i hear you loud and clear. part of it is that republicans have had to deal with not having control of the u.s. senate or house of representatives.
let's start there. it is very difficult to make a big difference and move the needle quickly and dramatically when you are not in the majority, which goes back to the old adage, elections have consequences. for the republicans, they have to win and win more decidedly and more often to be able to claim control of one or both of the chambers in washington to make a difference. the people you referenced, ted cruz, tom cotton, a brilliant senator, they are very courageous and that is one of the ingredients i would say if you had to make a list, what would make for the ideal candidate for president in 2024, i think her jan strength are right up there -- i think courage and strength are right up there and whoever measures up has a ready audience in america.
the kinds of things you are hoping for in america can start to happen if we elect or people on both sides of the fence that. host: the washington post has a story about the centrist republican and in this article they report as house republicans prepare for the majority once again, more moderate members are banding together to present another ideological class with staunchly conservative colleagues. they say the party's lackluster performance in the midterms prove voters are ejecting the extremes in exchange for individuals who prioritize governing. guest: i couldn't agree more. rejecting the extremes, absolutely, 73% of america is millimeters away from the centerline. they want a government that works.
we want things to happen again and move again. we want government not to be stuck in their own tracks but to create new tracks and paths ahead that move the country forward. the extreme part has tremendous relevance. in terms of the republican party, that is part of what makes politics so attractive, different voices within the same party going at it. in the u.s. house, where the margin is going to be nine seats, which means that if republicans lose five votes on any particular wrote, they lose the day. there is going to have to be a reckoning of sorts in the republican, especially in the house, that moving the country forward must take precedence for the most part over sheer ideology and rhetoric. and if that is the case,
americans can look forward to a lot of things happening in washington as opposed to the frustration i think i can say most of us on this show feel and the lack of progress and lack of movement and the partisan divisiveness. that could be replaced quickly by getting things done, which is what america said it loud and clear in november. host: previewing the very first vote republicans will take eight majority, that is speaker. susan: -- guest: the speaker designate, mccarthy, seems to be well in position to claim the speakership. he has a lot of support from different factions within the were public and caucus so i think you can expect that. soon after that, my experience is we will have the election for the five major contested house committees, from ways
and means to homeland security. that will have a lot to do with the reality of what they can do under speaker mccarthy. he is popular within the caucus and the three priorities coming out the gate, border security, inflation, and law & order. when i say border security, i say that purposely versus immigration. we have been locked in this argument over immigration, legal immigration, what is the proper definition of citizenship? the first act should be securing the southern border, where there were record numbers of incursions over the past two years across our border with mexico. with title 42, which allowed for detention based on health concerns in the covid era
development policy, that is still in play and that still is governing a lot of the thinking about how to control what has been a mass migration from south and central america north. if mccarthy and the right place for most of the caucus in terms of those priorities, law, order, elation, security, yes. my hope is that they stay on that front. the temptation to now use the congress to investigate or super investigate all sorts of wrongdoing, which by the way is part of the function and importantly so, of the u.s. congress. i hope we don't get bogged down in that and instead free ourselves to show that a bipartisan government, in this case with the senate controlled by the democrats and the house by the republicans and the white house by the democrats that we
can achieve and get things done as opposed to wait it out again two years until we have a presidential election. that, as we set already in the show, is well underway. host: we encourage viewers to tune into the gavel-to-gavel coverage in the opening day. cnn says with the race could go to multiple ballots, something that hasn't happened since 1923, regard these allies are -- mccarthy's allies are giving up and if they can't get enough votes the first round than they move into uncharted territory. henry import huron, michigan, democratic caller, go ahead. caller: adam, let's start with an un-disputable truth. i'm am glad you mentioned immigration. first truth is that all europeans in this country are
members of the largest diaspora of illegal aliens ever amassed in history. once we take that hypocrisy into account and understand that europeans did not discover america. america was already here with people who governed themselves, this was their country, and we didn't have visas to come in here and take over their country. that is an un-disputable truth. the lord has given us several chances to pull ourselves out of this hypocrisy. i will start with the bush government. the lord freed us from the bush government, the iraqi controversy, the two wars. host: you have to get to your point. caller: i will try to get to my point but it is difficult with the history of the country and
the hypocrisy of the country and the republicans have exposed that. host: what is your point? caller: my point is that until we correct the original since we have done this country, they are not the people to do that. we have to have the young people. host: do you have any thoughts there? guest: many thoughts. thanks for the call. i understand what you are talking about. my opinion is we can spend our whole lifetime trying to correct sins from the past, things that happened in the past we weren't around for and had nothing to do with. the question is what do we do moving forward? it is a different world. he started by saying that the original occupants and inhabitants of america were
self-governing and had a certain way and suddenly we had all these, you call the diaspora from europe, overwhelming the continental united states. i understand that a lot of people ask for reparations, that is a popular word. i think what we need is reformation. we have to understand and learn from the past. one of my big rights about some of the silencing and canceling has gone over the last couple of years is about history. let's bow not to repeat the things -- vow not to repeat the things we did in history. for us to go back and say, because of that, how can we possibly talk about drawing any lines on the southern border with mexico as record number's of people trying to come across that line illegally, i think those are two different
arguments. we have to live in the now and decide what it is we want to do to secure the american way of life that is recent, fair, honorable, as opposed to we are continuing to punish ourselves over things that on reflection we wish we had done differently. host: beverly is in alabama, republican, welcome. caller: i would like for mr. goodman to address one thing about governor desantis. i am a nurse and if he got elected president i would be very afraid for the nation if we got another pandemic, be it covid or whatever, the way he had regulations in florida, no masking, he was in support of that or closing schools and
businesses when it needed to be. i think he would be a threat to america if we had another public health emergency. i don't think he would come up with vaccines or try to support vaccines. it is a scary situation. host: i will add to your comments from a text from a viewer who says, trump has a base that represent dirty percent of the electorate, ron desantis has -- 30% of the electorate, ron desantis has a lot of ground to make up. guest: i appreciate the caller for what she does for a living. she is on the front lines of saving lives. thank god for that. i understand her question about vaccines and masking. the one thing that florida
bucked the tide on is going quickly in the early days of the pandemic into shutdowns, the kinds of things that lead to potentially panic and hysteria, he tried to tread a different line. he was highly criticized for that. tony fauci and others were talking about what we needed to do in the face of a pandemic we never dealt with before. i think if you were to become president of the united states, i think desantis would tread a line that would put public health very much above normal politics, what with that said, he has a viewpoint that it is the idea of a mandate. mandated masking.
night -- mandated vaccines. he has a problem with the word mandated, not the idea of an event -- of a vaccine for those who choose to do that, but masking, even fancy has been on different sides of the masking issue. i do not think that is something to be concerned about desantis were to ascend. he would take public health very seriously. the fact that his wife is facing a real health test right now reminds him every day of the kinds of things that confront americans every day and trying to stay healthy and stay alive. caller: i have a comment about the republican party and california and another comment about the party nationwide. the hispanic electorate basically gave the democratic party a majority in legislature.
the republican party is encores to become a minority party, unless it is willing to give preferential treatment to hispanics in employment and education. i mean things like affirmative action. if you look at the republican party nationwide, look at the u.s., nationwide and its demographics are quickly becoming like the demographics of those of california. it would also apply to the u.s. in general. the republican party needs to increase preferential treatment for hispanics otherwise it will become a permanent minority party. i would like the opinion from your guest about my comment. guest: thank you for the call and for your perspective. hispanics in america are the fastest growing group, voting group, and because of that, they
are going to get special attention, in terms of their interest, their aspirations, and ultimately, their politics. republicans have made great inroads over the last couple of election cycles, and i think we will continue for a few reasons. i find the republican party is moving away from that moniker to being one that is generally and consistently supports the working class. if they do that and do that successfully, i think hispanics, among many others in the working class of america will respond powerfully. secondly, there is a cultural dimension. this was the original question from greta about desantis. you get to something that he talks a lot about, which is the
wokeness of america. there is a decided movement among many to discard and discourage opposing points of view in favor of theirs. that wokeness has pushed a lot of people into the independent ranks come away from democrats and independent because a lot of hispanics, especially those who are first-generation his antics came to america to escape that kind of state mindset. i think that california -- governor newsom was one of the people i mentioned as a possible presidential candidate. governor newsom talks a lot about the california way. there are record numbers of
migration. people are leaving the state of california in record numbers. they are going to other places like the state of florida, georgia, texas and other places in america where americans find that story is more compelling and brings more opportunity. hispanics, as much as anybody out there, are looking for that, a chance at the american dream. if they find they can get that opportunity better in another place, most likely they will move to that place and they will not be alone. you talk about california and governor newsom's challenge. he took on florida and paid television ads, saying, how can you embrace what is happening in florida? by record numbers, hundreds of thousands of people each year have moved into florida with
their hearts, their minds, and their feet. that says a lot. we talked about the reelection of governor desantis. a landslide election within the state of florida for the way things are being done there. caller: if the republican party does not change their view, they are not going to ever win another election. they believe is michigan. they will lose senator manchin, georgia, and they do not have a chance to win another election. host: if they do not change their view on what? caller: if they do not change their view about what a woman can do about her body and
everybody woke about this and that. how to become up with a word like that in the first place? guest: i appreciate the call. if you look at what you mentioned, there has been a change in america. it used to be let the state of florida was the ultimate swing state, the ultimate melting pot in america. maybe it is not so anymore. they are looking at michigan, wisconsin, georgia, pennsylvania, arizona as states where the true swing will happen, moving forward, but if you look at georgia, governor kemp won reelection, decidedly. at the same time that herschel walker ended up in a runoff and ended up losing to rafael
warnock. i do not think there is a one-size-fits-all interpretation in that state or any of the swing state about what is working and what is not. you didn't mention the right to choose, the dobbs decision clearly had a big impact. i think that the former president clearly had a big impact, but those states, the swing states we talked about will continue to be up for grabs for both parties, which makes the campaign fascinating and compelling. host: sydney, new york, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe the republican party will be looking stronger and stronger. voting has consequences, and in the last election, the biggest
reason a lot of the women voted for democrats is because they thought abortion was taken away from them, which it never was. it was turned back to the states, where it belonged in the first place. as people get more educated with their voting, a lot of people are not very educated when it comes to voting. they take a one issue at a time. with a high inflation, abortion, immigration -- they are going to see the democrat party for what it really is and i believe the future for the party will get stronger and stronger. just like in california, it is like johnny appleseed. drop the seeds and people are going to get smarter and smarter and see what the true democratic party is all about.
guest: it was one of the surprise stories in the name. the governor held off a spirited challenge, but republicans still fared well in terms of congressional pickups. they did very well in california, despite the fact that it took weeks to make that clear. what the color a saying, going back to the original thing that we talked about, issues matter and people basically the on both self-interest and self aspiration. what is best for me, my family, my community? aspiration in terms of what do you hope for head? those are the kinds of things that move politics. the republicans, which had
material impact on this one, i think that they are on the right side of the american public. certainly in terms of the economy and inflation come in terms of law and order, in terms of foreign policy. it is defined by standing up a little bit more to the china's, the russia's and others that are making it much more difficult for the rest of the free world. those matter. if republicans stay there and make it about those kinds of issues, those kinds of quality of life, making a difference in the world kind of issues, they will do well, as opposed to getting rounded into the normal partisan work. you're not listening and i am embracing the conversation of the country.
if we get away from that, from punishing those who do not agree with us, versus rewarding a nation of people that want to do better, i think republicans will continue to do well in the elections and i think you will see that in the 2024 contest. host: adam goodman, a republican strategist. good morning. caller: i have to be honest. i am doing what i can not to bust out laughing when i am listening to you. you are talking about these center projects. we gave money to poor people and that is smiley have inflation. we are not paying attention to the corporations making maximum profit. then you talk about quality of life.
patients are being denied medications that they need because of donald trump's mandating of the cdc guidelines that were released with the opiate commission. i blame democrats just as much for not doing anything about it, but we are killing people every day, driving them to the streets, and i did not hear one republican at all talk about this issue. i was a candidate in illinois for a county board seat because i could not do anything more, given the fact that i have been fighting for my medications. i was poisoned by statin. yet i have to suffer. republicans keep talking about this quality of life deal. we are two thirds of the people, sitting in prison right now, who haven't been convicted of a
crime, awaiting trial. host: talking about the opioid crisis. guest: first of all, i hope you take this the right way. i feel for you. i feel the pain and suffering that you and many americans go through every day, and it is unnecessary. that is something that should be blamed -- the first group that should point to is a group called all of us. we should do something about that, but we have not. that is one of the things i have referred to within the republican party is to embrace, to move away from the corporate biggies and into the working class. these kinds of issues come to the fore.
it is mind-boggling because it is something that we can do something about. msi. i'm hopeful that it will again, going back to the beginning of this conversation. people across america one things done. they want to get stuff done. they do not want the normal partisan rhetoric and they do not want the divisiveness. they want to see progress and progress helps people live better. i think this is one of the ways that we have failed ourselves. host: democratic collier. good morning morning. caller: so, i am 80 years old. up until four years ago, i have never voted for a democrat. that changed in 2016. the reason for that is the flag bearer for the republican party
is the most disgusting, despicable person that i ever encountered, one way or another. he said that john mccain was not a hero. i did not have to go any further. he spelled out his whole life and who he was. the fact that the republican supported this personality told me all i had to know. thank you. guest: thank you for the call. new john mccain. i knew him. i spent many years in the media part of the political business, creating, producing, directing television spots. one of the best memories was of john mccain, when he came in, he was running for president. he was in florida. in jacksonville, yet that
something about how the economy was found and it was teetering in the minds of most. he had to fix it, so he came over to my house, literally, before he came to an event, after all the security came through, and i got to meet him up close and personal. john mccain is he was, and he will remain a hero. anyone else who disputes that come gets you into that slippery slope of those who deny the worst of things in life, it puts the recent meeting the former president had with kanye west, the antisemitism, the intolerance, into that column. i'm not here to rationalize that, to excuse that. it was wrong. john mccain remains his moment,
a hero, and he did it because he is willing to sacrifice his life for his beliefs. i wish all americans could take note of that and be willing to do the same. host: thank you for your time and the conversation this morning. guest: take care. host: we will turn our attention to the rise of anti-semitism in our last hour. we will talk with jonathan greenblatt. before he gets that conversation, this morning, coming up after this break, we will get your thoughts on the hunter biden laptop story. there are the numbers on your screen. you can start dialing in now. ♪
>> preorder year, for the 118th congress. your access to the federal government with contact information for every house and senate member. important information for federal agent is and state governors. scan the code at the right to get your copy today. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation at c-span shop.org. >> middle and high school students, it is time to get out your phone as warding your chance to win the grand prize by enteri studentcam video documentary contest. we are asking students to picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress and tell us what your first priority would be and why. create a video showing the
importance of your issue from opposing and supporting points of view. do not be afraid to take risks. there is still time to get started. thedline is january 20, 2023. studentcam.org.te at >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. keep up with the biggest events with live streams of floor proceeding, white house events, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. stay updated & scheduling information for tv networks. c-span now is available at the apple store and on google playing.
c-span now, your front row seat ngton come anytime, anywhere. thiseek on c-span network, the senate rules committee will hold a hearing on oversight following the attack on the u.s. capitol. to be of hearings instating the collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange ftx and the potential harm to consumers on tuesday. the former founder and ceo and its curren c are expected to testify before the house financial services committee. on wednesday day, the senate banking committee will hold a second hearing. federal reserve chair jerome powell will hold a press conference. both chambers are working to pass funding legislation by next friday to avert a shutdown. watc alive on the c-span
networks. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information. c-span coming your unfiltered view of government. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back. we will spend the next 25 minutes talking about the hunter biden laptop story. an opinion piece in the washington post. the suppression of the laptop is a huge scandal. when president donald -- donald trump raised the issue, joe biden dismissed it as a russian plant, citing five former heads of the cia to say it is a bunch of garbage. we know that this was patently untrue. the laptop was authentic, but almost no one in the news media questioned. a question of whether there had
been misinformation. twitter suppressed the new york post story that broke the news of the existence, preventing users from sharing the story or sending it by direct message. other accounts share the story. they did not do this for someone who tweets holocaust denial. this is not -- it suspended the new york post. he goes on to write, this is a scandal to involve collusion between the intelligence community and social media platforms to block a valid new story that could have aided trump's reelection campaign. the evidence of interference in the election is stronger than the evidence that the trump campaign conspired to interfere
in the 2016 election. we now know that they suppress the story after intelligence officials warned to be on lookout for foreign disinformation. they write about the fbi time these needs to be on the lookout and in these meetings, they told the tech companies of rumors that a leak operation would involve hunter biden. it was in possession of the laptop, which it seized in december 2019 from the computer repair shop where hunter biden had left it. in addition to these meetings, a group of 51 intelligence officials released a letter. the story broke and had all the classic earmarks of a classic russian information operation.
if we are right, this is russians trying to influence how russians -- americans vote in this election. these warnings gave twitter the pretext to censor the story and gave news outlets the opportunity to ignore it. mark. good morning. caller: first of all, i want to congratulate you on the question you did on the person that you had on this topic yesterday. this is a huge problem, not so much the laptop which indicates that joe biden and his family are corrupt, but the fbi has tried to take out a sitting president and has tried to put their fingers on the scale to withhold information from the public. the problem that i see, we can go to all of these hearings, but
what will get done about this? no oversight prosecute any of these people. the department of justice is corrupt. all of these problems cannot be resolved simply. you are never going to get anybody prosecuted that did anything to help get trump out of office, so we have a massive problem and it all stems from the fbi running rampant. there will not be any oversight to stop this. just go straight out impeachment, at this point, but they will not do that. they will be more emboldened to do this the next go around. it is petrifying, when you think about it that our country is being elected by bureaucrats who could care less about voter rights to determine who is the winner of an election. the median, the money that is pouring into the estates, it is
just insane and completely out of control. i do not know how we survived this. this one here, it boggles my mind. host: i'm going to leave it there so i can talk to darren, a democrat in new mexico. caller: good morning. firstly, i want to say that i really liked the show yesterday that you had about the guy in energy. those are the kind of topics that we need to be focused on as a country. literally, that is what we are going to spend the next two years concentrating on is hunter biden's laptop. it really america? this is what we are going to focus on. host: chiron marc's opinion piece by you? where's the outrage from the news media over the fact that they were misled by current and
former national security officials? what was the origin of that letter signed by intelligence officials? who wrote it and circulated it? -- caller: i agree that the mainstream media is corrupt, and i think that is my podcast that you have on and c-span is becoming more popular because people are sick of the lies. host: i want to read a little bit of the letter sent by those officials. a public statement on hunter biden's email. in it, they write this. it is for all these reasons that
we write to say that they purportedly belong to hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the board. it has all the classic marks of a classic operation. they said, we want to emphasize that we do not know if the males provided to the new york post are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of russian involvement. just as this experience makes us deeply suspicious that the russian government played a significant role in this case. if we are right, this is russia trying to influence how americans vote in this election and we believe that americans need to be aware of this. jeanette. what do you think? caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: this is just another bunch of bs going around.
instead of doing their jobs, they will stick with another one of these scandals. why don't they just do their jobs? i'm so concerned about what we have here in california. it is just a raging mess. no leadership. host: you are saying who is going to focus on this? republicans and they take over the majority? caller: yeah. at the least however many months or years on some other crop going on. why don't they just deal with what is going on in the country instead of this kind of stuff? crying out loud. host: writing a twice-weekly column on foreign and domestic policy, a fellow at the institute and a conservative think tank and a speechwriter for george w. bush. hello.
good morning. what are your caller: forget about it. that is the president. they need to clap -- they need to quit wasting all that money. that is my comment for today. host: he said republicans should get to what? what is on the agenda. caller: republicans, democrats, they need to get to work. they need to quit doing this for saying having scandals command all that because they are not going to do anything to hunter biden. they have not done anything over the next several years and his dad is the president. host: democratic caller. good morning. caller: what i -- i have a lot
of respect for c-span, but you are losing my respect because you are using false language here. he is not a member of the joe biden administration. the laptop they are talking about is trying to avoid what happened january 6. furthermore, the media there is no media anymore. you are trying to compete so you can get the audience to watch. for instance, c-span and cnn. you need to be asking as a reporter, what hunter biden did has nothing to do with joe biden. if you did something wrong, you are responsible for your actions. this is absolutely despicable.
have a nice day. host: john, good morning to you. independent. caller: obviously, nothing has changed in the 400 years of this country. you have international bankers like the rockefellers who funded the nazis, who gave you fascism, communism -- host: what evidence do you have of that, at what point are you trying to make? caller: we bomb all these countries -- host: hunter biden's laptop is what we are talking about in this story. we are getting your reaction and you are of it. in the wall street journal opinion pages this past week, a congressman whose name has come up with executives over their decision to block the hunter
biden story from the new york post. censorship might have helped my party, but it was bad for our democracy. defending free speech is easy. it is more challenging, but it is those situations that protect the free exchange of ideas and freedom of press. a foundational value of our democracy setting a supreme court case. they have moved online. attacks on candidates for office have continued. twitter's suppression articulated in that case.
arguing that they violated company policy. under the same logic, they would have to suspend any account. as silicon valley is represented in congress, i reached out to twitter to share these concerns. i wrote to twitter's general counsel that their actions seem to be in violation of the first amendment principle. twitter has come to function as a moderate public square. twitter has a responsibility to the public to exchange ideas in open debate. democratic caller. what do you think?
caller: thank you for taking my call this morning. the hunter biden laptop situation. i will talk about that. hunter biden's laptop is just a waste of time. we have heard that story for three to four years. just keep up with that story and he will keep losing. host: barbara from florence, alabama. good morning. caller: [indiscernible] i disagree. i do not think it was really searched. i think it should be. if it isn't true --
[indiscernible] not just stories, but what we are really dealing with. thank you. host: peter in morning. caller: good morning. i think the point is, if it is true, and it is tending to be that way that the laptop is true, the biggest problem for me is the doj, the fbi. if they are involved, that is scary. we fought world wars to make sure that we have freedoms. and to not be suppressed this way. i believe there were cia people. this is scary.
that they can just suppress one side against the other. a lot of people should wake up and not just think about the hunter biden story. i think it is much bigger than that. they are using the department against us. thank you. have a good day. host: democratic caller. good morning. caller: i'm a little confused. the hunter biden laptop -- the trump administration and republican party could have had a hearing about this during this time. the democratic base is already set. i'm not sure why the republicans are talking about doing an investigation into hunter
biden's laptop. we do not care. we would -- we would rather help out with the so-called recession, homeownership -- the hunter biden story, it is going to a place where it should not be going. department of justice went the way that the republicans wanted to go during the trump administration. now the justice is -- i'm so sick and tired of this. we need congressman in their, who are going to legislate. not doing public hearings like it is some sort of strategy. it is not. it is only pushing democrat who
would vote for a republican. we need to figure it out. they thought they would get control of the senate, but they did not. host: hunter biden allies are said to battle accusers. some are preparing to launch investigations. you can read this story about kevin morris at a strategy session last september. it was crucial for hunter biden's camp to be more aggressive and go after the people who would be investigating the president's son. bobby? your turn. bob and glenn, pennsylvania. your turn. your call is punched. are you there? caller: i'm side.
i had it on mute. i had it on -- i think the hunter biden story is something that illustrates the news media's bias for everything. i hope that the doj and its investigating like it should. they should be paying attention and not be dealing with a hunter biden thing. host: what are you saying that congress should do? what should congress be investigating? caller: they should not be getting into the middle of it. host: we know that twitter and facebook suppressed the story after law enforcement and intelligence officials warned
them to be on the lookout for foreign information. the head of oversight integrity set up regular meetings with the department of homeland security, the fbi and security. they communicated that they expected a hack and leak operation might occur shortly before the election. adding, i learned in these meetings that there were rumors that a hack and leak operation would love hunter biden. caller: i think it is bravo sierra. i am not impressed by this. let the investigation go. let the doj investigators doing it -- quite frankly, twitter,
facebook does not influence me. i do not use it or care about it. if you are using social media like that, it is a waste of time. i think you need to be looking at all the other stuff that you can get into. not be illustrated by how many followers everyone has. thank you. host: the fbi, when they were delivering these warnings was in possession of the hunter biden laptop. it what it contained and that it was authentic and not a russian plant. bonnie. caller: good morning.
thank you for your time. i would like to point out what trump, the former president gave us, is nothing but division. this country has been allowed to let their freedom of speech control their heads and their bodies. the hunter biden story is nothing. think of benghazi. think about the investigations that we had with hillary clinton. they did not dive into the real facts that a gentleman was killed. he chose to be in that spot. the character of a person. thank you. host: republican leader kevin mccarthy tweeting out. disclosing what the males were
like behind-the-scenes on this biden laptop story. we are learning how they colluded days before the 2020 election. we will get answers for the american and the accountability that they deserve. new hampshire, republican. what is your take on all of this? caller: thank you for taking my call. you can say this could save a lot of trouble. brenda devine originally found a lot of this on the laptop. she was quite knowledgeable on it. a lot of people calling in, saying it is garbage, saying it is this or that. i think -- if you really wanted
to know the facts on the matter, until then we will just have a bunch of democrats calling in, saying it is nothing. until then, i do not know. host: we will the ceo and national director of the anti-defamation league. we will be right back. it'>> tonight on q&a, author -- an author talks about walmart's efforts to trans self. trying to become one that supports them only -- >> my peak into on march me that this is a company that has made
a good-faith effort. it has done a lot. at the end of the day, the average walmart worker is still making less than $29,000 a year. that is not a living wage. corporate america will never move far enough or fast enough to reverse this wage crisis that we have in this country. so many working people working hard and not being able to make and meet. >> tonight on 8:00 eastern. you can listen to q1 day and all of our podcasts on our fee c-span now at. -- app. >> sinopharm our newsletter using the qr code on the screen. to receive a schedule of
upcoming programs, book festivals and more. both tv, anytime online. television for serious listening to programs on c-span just got easier. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events and weekdays at 9:00 p.m. eastern. listen to c-span anytime. tell your speaker play c-span radio. c-span, powered by radio. >> washington journal continues. host: the cno and national director of the anti-defamation league. thank you for being here. we are talking about the rise of
anti-semitism in the country. i wanted to talk about the statistics that you put together. anti-semitism reached an all-time high since the league began tracking incidents. a 34% increase from 2020. on average, more than seven incidents per day. what do you think is happening here? guest: thank you for having me on this morning. you sort of noted that we have been tracking this form of hate for generations. something has certainly changed in the body politics and public life. incidents that we have been tracking since the 1970's.
people in positions of authority -- sometimes that normalization comes from being aggressive and using their platforms. sometimes it erases -- they failed to call it out. but you see anti-semitism normalized. extremists feel emboldened. people on the extreme right or the left. they think is open season. social media has exacerbated and amplified the problem and ways that we have never seen before. literally, set to go to a faraway place to find a valley of anti-semites, now it is happening 24/7 on social media.
finally, anti-semitism, we need to understand that it is a conspiracy theory about how the world works. when government seems to fail, when people feel skeptical and afraid, they look for conspiracy theories. historically, they have been the scapegoat. as the gaps between the haves and the have-nots has grown, it does not bode well for the jewish population. host: we heard from a caller who started to go down that road earlier today. explain this theory and why it is wrong. guest: sometimes anti-semitism
is described as the oldest hatred. since the jews were sentenced to exile at the turn of the first millennia, the jews have lived in exile as a small -- in a small minority with a different religion, typically with different rituals, speaking a different language with a different culture. when things went wrong, whether it was the church, the crown -- the jews were in easy target, easy to blame. their lives, their situation was always precarious. this conspiracy theory, the thought that jews are to blame because they have too much power, because they killed
christ or killed mohamed atta, or did not accept their fate because they are not a legitimate people. it maps, morphs, and it adapts, but it seems to persist. anti-semitism is not just the oldest hatred, the oldest virus. it prevailed because of the church or in one into racialized anti-semitism, which sprung forth in europe and was personified, exemplified by hitler's. or whether it is the sort of political anti-semitism, where it is just the jewish state that has too much power, too much money, etc. they continued to bedevil humanity. we were founded 110 years ago to
protect the jewish people after the lynching of a jewish man in america. we have been fighting anti-jewish ever since. anti-semitism is an irrational hatred of an individual or institution, based on their jewish identity. it comes from all sides and it can be political in nature. people blame the bankers or the zionists for their problems. sometimes it can be prejudicial against different people. all of these trips, but an irrational hatred of jewish individuals and institutions. anti-semitism may start with the jews, but it never ins with jews. it is typically the sign of a decaying society. it is symptomatic of deeper
fissures. that is why i do not think that emmett -- anti-semitism is a jewish problem. it is everyone's problem. we have to fight it. host: can you be critical of israel? guest: of course. legitimacy is a trope that has been used for thousands of years. judaism is not a legitimate religion. now you have the jewish state. there is nothing wrong with these policies. it does not make them anti-semitic, but when you dehumanize, hold the country after double standard, not about
an issue but the existence, that is the kind of anti-semitism, the kind -- to critics who say it patriarchal or white supremacist, neither of those is wrong. they are a multiethnic democracy, more robust than any other in the middle east, but i would say, if you want to call out israel, you have -- do you hold the u.s.? do you hold the same feelings towards other countries in the world? if you do, if you are universal in your condemnation, that is one thing, but overwhelmingly, the people obsessed about israel are silent. they have a sort of hypocrisy and other forms of issue -- other forms of issues with countries. i find that very problematic.
host: the former president having a dinner with a known white supremacist, kanye west. what was your reaction to that news? guest: that dinner really exemplified the evil nature of anti-semitism. kanye west -- give me a break. him and nick fuentes -- and after he had dinner with trump, west was on info wars. he has quickly emerged as the most public unapologetic anti-semites in the u.s., and the reality is president trump to be giving these people a patent of genesee, even a shred of credibility, it is deeply problematic. to be frank, i do not have any problem with the president using his pulpit however he chooses.
there is nothing political calling out this kind prejudices owning. but comments about jews are vile and offensive. for the president to attend to purport antithesis -- anti-semitism is shameful. to suggest that the secret service did not know who nick fuentes was? it is an indisputable line. the only thing surprising about all of this was that people were still surprised. we have seen trump use anti-semitic means. we saw him dither in charlottesville. we saw him when asked about extending back and standing by.
finally, january 6, you had men and women marauding the capital, wearing sweatshirts that said 6 million was not enough. they looked for legislators to kidnap and kill, yet these people -- the only feedback that they revoked was, i love you come at the end of the day. there is a pattern of behaviors year which is incontrovertible. host: let's hear from michigan. caller: i was just calling to ask a question. i'm just an average citizen in america and it seems like every time we have one of these conversations, it is always bashing somebody. it is never getting to the heart of what is going on.
it seems like there is a disconnect because people in america, we do not really hate people. if there is such a place -- we are making it out to be a horrible place. people -- it is not good. it keeps going around and nothing is good, except it is going down the toilet. let's have jonathan greenblatt respond. caller: i am glad you called and it is right for you to hear. i believe in american
exceptionalism. i believe this is the greatest country, the greatest democracy in the history of humanity. i am proud to be an american every single day and i love everything about this country. and i am grateful for the fact it gave refuge to my grandfather when he was fleeing nazi germany. i am grateful for the fact it gave refuge to my father-in-law and my wife and my family when they were fleeing fascism in iran. i love this country. there are lots of issues in this country, tons of issues we need to work out. we need to improve the education system, more and better jobs for americans, there are so many challenges we face but blaming them on the jews or blaming the minority, that puts us in a circle. we go around and around and around. god willing we can have better elected officials with smarter
policies, the markets work better for all americans, and we will come together as a country, which is something we need more than ever. i appreciate the question and i feel like an average citizen too. just one who wants to make this country a better place for the jewish minority and all people. host: greg in california, democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with the last caller. there is a lot of gas lighting going on here. i think the people mr. greenblatt is talking about have legitimate concerns and they are not being addressed. instead you just want to shut down the conversation and do not want to have any conversation with anybody. i do not think that is a great way to move past these issues. some of those being you guys put israel first before american interests. what is racist about that, mr. greenblatt? guest: i do not put israel first
before america, frankly. i am born in this country. i am proud to be american. my family is here. all of my friends are here. i do not think there is any putting israel first. this is the kind of anti-semitism people try to promote. america has a relationship with israel like hundreds of other countries around the world. it is the only democracy in the middle east as well as shared values and a shared history and shared interests. there is a lot of things america has in common with israel. they do not always agree and there is nothing wrong with that. but when israel is the only country called out for condemnation, that is problematic. when israel is the only one demonized and we hold it to the double standards, that is problematic too. host: what do you say to people who think or perceive israel has
more influence with our country than other countries? guest: i mean, as i was saying, there are these old tropes about jews and power. sometimes we hear, well, the jewish people have too much power, they exert too much control. the jewish people are manipulating things behind the scenes. the modern anti-semites say, no, i love the jewish people. it is the jewish state which has too much power. the jewish state which is manipulating things behind the scenes. any country with relations to the united states, israel wants to encourage america to see alignments with its interests. whether it is the u.k., france, mexico, canada, germany, japan, any of our allies. there is nothing wrong with that. but the obsession about israel, as if it is somehow, someway
manipulating things. i would tell you and your listeners that is what modern anti-semitism looks like. host: you are a official and the president obama administration. guest: i was focused on how to use it innovation to boost job creation. years before that i was in business, generating economic returns and creating jobs. i was part of the domestic policy economic team. i had nothing to do with the middle east. i was not focused on fighting hate. but what i am trying to do is take what i learned in the west wing or what i learned did business with big public companies, or running my own startups, and apply to make adl the most effective, highest performing non-profit in the
world. host: how are you doing that? what are the lessons? guest: i worked at starbucks for many years after they acquired my company. i have tried to leverage what i learn from starbucks about building a brand. i worked inside google and tried to take what i learned about innovation from google and apply it here. in the west wing, i learned about crisp, clear messaging and policies that benefit everyone. i learned about crisis management. i learned about the value of partnerships. we do three things at adl. we protect communities, advocate on issues and educate. we protect communities by tracking anti-semitic incidents. which train law enforcement how to respond. we are the largest trainers of law enforcement in the u.s. we train almost 20,000 officers a year on extremism and hate. and we monitor. we are constantly monitoring
extremists from the right and the left, religious minorities, political extremists. we spent a lot of time working with law to protect communities. not just the jewish communities but black and brown communities. we advocate. we are lobbying in congress, we litigated in the courts. we are trying to bankrupt the oath keepers and proud boys for their role in january 6. we advocate in the court of public opinion, speaking out about companies or leaders. finally, we educate. adl is the largest -- one of -- the largest providers in america of antibias training. we reach 3.5 million kids a year because we want to fight hate. we want to beat back bigotry. you cannot arrest your way out of intolerance. you cannot lobby your way out. you have got to change hearts and minds. we protect, we advocate and we educate and we use partnerships i learned in business and in
government to be more effective, higher performing at the work we do. host: i want to show our viewers and get your reaction to an effort by this white house. the second gentleman led a roundtable with leaders of the jewish community, including the adl, to discuss efforts to address anti-semitism. [video clip] >> judaism is not defined by how much you go to temple or are often you celebrate traditions. it is who we are as a people. it is our identity. it is my identity. and i am in pain right now. we are all in pain right now. our community is in pain. it hurts. it hurts me to see what we are going through right now, what all people are going through. anti-semitism is dangerous. we cannot normalize this. we all have an obligation to condemn these actions.
we must, all of us, not stay silent. and there is no either/or on this one. there is only one side. all of us must be against this, against anti-semitism. host: jonathan greenblatt, what do you make of the effort? guest: i am so glad to see the second gentleman using his pulpit to call out this issue. he is the first jewish person to either be, i guess you could say, president or first lady or second gentleman as it were. we have never had someone like him in this position. he is right. i travel the country and talk to jewish communities across the u.s. and the anxiety -- i do not remember it being so high. people are alarmed. they are alarmed at the anti-semitism in public places. they are alarmed at the
anti-zionism on college campuses. they are alarmed seeing black israelites -- yesterday was the third anniversary of the murder of five people by two black israelites in northern new jersey. they went to a kosher supermarket and shot dead three people just because they were in a jewish business. whether it is black hebrew israelites, hard-core anti-zionists, or violent far right extremists, or ugly white supremacists, the threats are coming from all sides. i'm glad the white house is talking about it. i'm glad mr. emhoff is using his platform to talk about it. it is a real issue. people are really concerned and we need action. host: there are a group of bipartisan members of congress, about 100, signing a letter calling for a task force to address anti-semitism.
tell us what you think of it and what it will look like. what will it do? guest: i think the adl has been very supportive working with members on that letter. we have been calling since, oof, last may, for such an interagency effort. look, the only way we are going to beat anti-semitism, which manifests as a violent form of prejudice -- just so we are clear, all forms of hate matter. no racism or intolerance should be accepted. but keep in mind the jewish community, the jewish population in the u.s., is 7 million in a country of 350 million. how is it that 2% are targeted more frequently than any other religious minority? anti-jewish hate constitutes 60% of the religion based hate crimes in america, according to the fbi. it is stunning. i mentioned jersey city.
but this month we are also honoring the anniversary, the third year anniversary, of the stabbing of a rabbi attacked in his home. i am dealing with assaults against jews, orthodox jews, every single day. in recent years, we have seen charlottesville, the massacre in pittsburgh, the most violent anti-semitic attack in u.s. history. remember the hostagetaking this year by an isis radical individual who thought the jews controlled president biden. he took hostage in the synagogue and outside dallas, texas a rabbi and three congregants. what would an interagency task force do? it would marshall all the government's resources. the department of justice has a role to play to make sure hate crimes are being enforced, that law enforcement is being trained to understand these issues. dhs has a role to play.
it offers grants to houses of worship to protect themselves. we need more support for that and dhs to go after extremists. the department of education has a role to play. we need anti-semitism on college campuses, the ugly anti-zionism which discriminates against jewish students, to finally be addressed. if schools will not deal with it, pull back their funding. you can do that under title vi. we need the state department to be involved. the ambassador is doing great work bringing these issues globally. they all need to be coordinated. there is a lot that government can do. it cannot do it alone. it needs civil society and the private sector, but they have a critical role to play. host: roberta in houston, texas. independent, you are next. caller: thank you for having mr. greenblatt on. it is pretty bad here in houston.
we used to have a holocaust museum. now people are denying the holocaust. that is how bad it is getting. earlier i heard on the radio -- by the way, it is going to be rebroadcast at 9:00. if you could listen to it or your people could listen to it, you would be shocked. people actually say -- let me put it this way. it is very revealing. we must all do something about it because it gets worse by the day. i wish mr. greenblatt would come back in a month or so and give us a progress report. here is my idea. please have a hotline. i can report this to you guys and you can refer here in houston where we have the local chapter. i have already reported
something to them. i have not heard from them. you can tell them roberto so and so. it is getting really bad. but we have a holocaust museum in houston and people are calling in denying there is a holocaust. guest: right. caller: thank you. guest: thank you so much for your question and comment. i think it is very heartfelt. i appreciate it. adl has 25 offices across the country, including houston. we are responding to incidents, reaching educators, training law enforcement, working with elected officials, standing shoulder to shoulder with other community groups. i do not know about the program on houston public radio. i will have my staff look into it. greta, he touched on something that i think exemplifies this. the rise of holocaust denial and holocaust distortionism.
people wearing yellow stars and comparing themselves to the jews being forced to follow covid guidelines is obscene. activists claiming israel is like the nazi state. entirely fabricated and obscene. those who now deny the holocaust never happened, like that film that kyra irving tweeted about last month, obscene. there should bein a public society for people who did not the truth and do so not with an interest in legitimate inquiry, but in order to denigrate a specific group of people. to marginalize them and hold them out for harassment and violence. that is the bottom line of this holocaust denial.
roberto, i appreciate your feedback about the hotline. i will take that under consideration. host: the adl put out this tweet recently. "findings indicate a 61.3% increase in the volume of tweets, excluding retweets, referencing judaism and anti-semitism following the two weeks since elon musk took over twitter." have you had discussions with elon musk and twitter executives about what you are seeing? guest: great question. let me answer by stepping back and writing a little context. yes, we have been fighting hate over 100 years. yes, we show up in all the spaces that bigots and extremists try to penetrate. today i will tell you social media is a super-spreader of hate. facebook is the front line. in 2017 we opened a center in silicon valley.
it is headed by a former meta executive, software engineers, data scientists, working for us today. we work on a daily basis with all the companies and the valley from amazon to zoom, apple to youtube and everything in between. we have been working with twitter for years. the old regime, which i was not found of, and yes, elon musk. and we are talking to the new leadership at twitter. we want them to get it right. i think all of us benefit if twitter can be a true public square for debate rather than a firing range where certain groups are under siege. yes, we have been working with them. i am hopeful they will get this right and yet, it has been alarming to see the ascent of nazis and people who were taken off the platform for breaking
the terms of service. for harassing jews and other minorities. for spreading antisemitic lies and fiction that lead to real-world violence. at the end of the day, i think the jury is out on twitter. but some of the patterns we have seen in these first few weeks have been concerning. i am hopeful that twitter will get it right. we want them to get it right. we need them to get it right. i think elon musk or someone dead describe it as a health hellscape. i want it to be a legitimate source where people can debate. host: paul, go ahead. caller: independent voting republican, not trump. the thing that concerns me about your presentation, first of all,
context. we have a society here that is biased against political opponents. guest: yeah. caller: dastardly. you can throw whatever terms you want on it. also, you talked about israel's, you know, political decisions and it is ok to disagree. one of the biggest failures of the israeli government has been to sanction israeli-russian oligarchs and millionaires connected with putin. a lot of countries joined the u.s., but as far as i know israel has not. that is a legitimate criticism. my question to you is, is it a legitimate free speech issue to engage in boycott activities against the israeli government
in holding these international companies? you have missed treatment of palestinians, does treatment -- distreatment of palestine. what about all these laws such as what you want to push through with the department of justice that goes after political opponents on campuses? is that antisemitic in your mind? guest: these are good questions. let me try to answer and clarify. number one, i do not know anything about israel's policy toward the russian oligarchs. i am not an expert in all the policies. i cannot answer that specifically. but there is nothing wrong with criticizing politics of the israeli government. nothing. but there is something that is unmistakable when we have individuals, activists, organizations that obsess about
israel's policies. that is a little bit different. and you can see this again and again by virtue of the activism of some of the anti-israel groups, who decry israel. there are definitely things to criticize. there is room for improvement. but ignore the fact that israel's democracy is far more free than any in the region. and there is something about those that decry muslims. in the last israeli government, you had a member of the muslim brotherhood in the coalition. an arab islamist and again, israeli muslims have all the same rights as israeli jews to participate in civic life, to work. you would be amazed if you visited the country to see how diverse and just how cohesive it is. so, i do not have a problem with those who criticize policy.
i have a problem about those that obsess about the country. the adl is not trying to push laws into the department of justice. but we do incest that the department of education -- insist that the department of education look at title vi . it protects national origin. it is not just the religion that makes jews unique but our ethnic identity. the jewish people are unique that have survived for thousands of years. when they are held to a different standard, when they are uniquely discriminated against, yes, that deserves attention and rebuke. not just from university president but the federal government in the way we would do the same if black or brown students or muslim students or hindu students were
marginalized. as it relates to boycott in terms of law, greta, for your viewers, the boycott is an international movement against the boycott of the state of israel. why i find it problematic for someone whose grandfather's business was boycotted in germany, while boycott may be accepted as a form of free speech, in this country the courts have proven that. but they are singled out for demonization and denigration as a means not to achieve a peaceful solution. the goal of the movement is not a two state solution. palestinians could have dignity and equality while israelis have safety and security. that is not what it wants. what it wants to do is to end jewish democratic state of israel. that is wrong no matter who is pushing the idea. host: jonathan greenblatt, mark
from colorado wants to know, mr. green black and sinew it's former president trump as being anti-semite. yet how does he correlate this to moving the embassy to jerusalem? supporting mr. netanyahu? what is his opinion of representative rashida khalif, elon omar and their open antisemitism? or his opinion on the political party of who is calling an anti-semite? guest: my opinion of antisemitism is that it is not unique to any political party. there is nothing partisan about this prejudice and president trump is complicated. he has jewish children and grandchildren and he did good things. i agree with those things and i praise those decisions when he did them. and yet, you cannot deny he
admitted white supremacists into the white house. you cannot deny he trafficked in anti-semitic tropes. you cannot deny he regularly used the myth of dual loyalty. i think yesterday or the day before slammed american jews who he does not think are sufficiently supportive of israel. it is not for the president, any president, to tell me how i should be jewish. no way. at the same time as your reader texted, i want to be clear. you definitely see antisemitism from some folks in the democratic party. yes, congresswoman rashida to khalib and elam omar. that is antisemitic. i have called that out again and again and again. it is true and member of
congress, like a freshman member of the house, has a smaller bully pulpit than the president. but all of it deserves condemnation. none of it is ok in your political party or your religious identity or your familial ties do not shield you. i would hear from people in president trump's camp, his daughter and son-in-law are jewish. i would hear from people, oh, some of her staff are jewish. it does not matter. by the way, you can have jewish people who promote anti-semitic tropes intentionally or not. i see this among the anti-zionists and some of the maga types that cry about globalists. that is not ok no matter where it comes from. host: mark in fort lauderdale, democratic caller. caller: good morning and thank you for having mr. greenblatt on.
i am mainly calling to say thank you for your work and keep it up. i admire the fact you have been able to take these calls today with their underlying anti-semitic feelings while denying the anti-semitic. you take it calmly and you answer them so well. i called because your first couple of calls -- the first call was, i am not anti-semitic, but how can you call everybody else anti-semitic? you had another where he is talking reasonable and his last statement is, but you belong to israel. you support israel more than you support the u.s. it goes to show this stuff is endemic. all i can do is say thank you to mr. greenblatt and the adl. keep up the good work and go get
them, although i had my doubts about whether things will change. it seems like it is getting worse now. i'd better get off the phone and let you answer. as they accuse many of us jews of being, i like the sound of my own voice. [laughter] guest: thank you for the call and the kind words. even though the incidents have never been higher, as we started tracking it 45 years ago, and as you noted we find antisemitism lacing the questions. the reality is i am incredibly hopeful. america is the most amazing democracy in the history of civilization. it is resilient. it is extraordinary. we have worked through global conflicts, civil war, economic upheaval, social unrest and pandemics. do i think antisemitism will go
away? no, i don't. do i think there is a better society equipped to deal with antisemitism? i don't. this country can overcome and has again and again. this issue of political polarization, that is one of the worst issues we have. people on the right hate people on the left. it has got to stop. i think we need to address that toxic partisanship even as we address the persistence of antisemitism and other forms of hate. i know we can do it. host: jonathan greenblatt, a good way to end. michael vienna with the text. what is the solution to the problem? when the catholic church was under threat, they went under crusades. what is a nonviolent solution? guest: here is what i think all of us can do to address antisemitism and to the person who set the question. speak up.
address the persistence of it is a -- jonathan: herejonathan: is a good way to end. -- interrupt intolerance whether it is at the water cooler or the locker room especially when it comes from your inside liberals need to call out antisemitism conservatives need to call out anti-sermon to some in their own camp less pointing fingers and more accepting accountability so speak up. whether it is on twitter on facebook speak up. share facts. i believe in council culture not cancel culture. when someone makes a mistake
call a meeting to explain. you do not reject them do not excommunicate them but you do so by sharing dispassionate facts by making people understand what they did was wrong. number one's big up number two share facts and share strength lean in. the reality is democracy is a participatory sport. we all have a role to play. we all get on the field to make our country better to make our society stronger so whether you lean in again by tagging a bad comment on facebook -- host: jonathan greenblatt, thank you for the conversation. that does it for today's washington journal. thank you for watching enjoy the rest of your sunday we will be back tomorrow morning 7:00 a.m. eastern standard time. ♪
>> c-span is your on third you of government. -- unfiltered view of government. we are sponsored by these companies including charter broadband. >> charter has invested billions upgrading technology and powering opportunity in communities big and small. it charter is connecting us. >> charter communications support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪
>> c-span's washington journal. every day we take your calls live on air on the news of the day and we discussed the issues that impact you. coming up monday morning next cohen congressional reporter talked about the week ahead in congress. -- max cohen congressional reporter talks about the week ahead in congress. a journalist discuss his newest piece on the military retirees. watch washington journal at 7:00 a.m. on monday morning. join with your calls, texts and twee. >> this morning nasa's artemis to one spacecraft over returns to earth after orbiting the moon. watch live coverage as mission control guides the unmanned aircraft's dissent and splashdown on c-span.org