tv Washington Journal 06292022 CSPAN June 29, 2022 7:00am-10:04am EDT
about the food and drug administration's attempt to pull e-cigarettes off of the market. you can join the conversation by phone, facebook and twitter. washington journal, next. ♪ host: washington journal, june 29. yesterday on capitol hill, cassidy hutchinson testified on a number of topics. president trump's desire to overturn security protocols. she recounted about behavior exhibited by the president, also that the former was reluctant to call off rioters. in our first hour, we will get your comments we will get your comments.
and here's how you can reach out. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. text us at (202)-748-8003. you can post on facebook and twitter and follow the show on instagram. as a means of background, the washington post reports it was in president trump white house cassidy hutchinson had extraordinary access and inordinate power. some called her "chief cassidy." nancy pelosi staff asked white house aides why she was in legislative meetings. she testified against the same officials who have elevated her. that was the washington post right up -- writeup. the new york times write "a
26-year-old who was the aide to mark meadows provided crucial details about what the former president was doing and saying during the riot, painting the portrait of an unhinged president obsessed with clinging to power and appearing strong and willing to tolerate violence as a result as long as it was not directed at him." that hearing from yesterday still available at www.c-span.org. you can see it on our app, c-span now. here's a portion from cassidy hutchinson yesterday talking about security at the rally and particularly some of those attending. [video clip] >> offstage area behind the stage, he was very concerned --
[indiscernible] -- one of the reasons, which i previously stated, was because he wanted it to be full and for people to not feel excluded because they had come to washington for the rally. he felt -- -- were at fault, likely the primary reasons because he wanted it full and was angry they were not letting people through with weapons -- [indiscernible] -- offstage tent. i was in the vicinity of a conversation where i heard the president say something to the effect of i don't f -- care that they have weapons. let the people in. take the f -- mags away.
host: you can see the whole thing on our website. we will show you other portions as the morning goes on. paula, silver spring, maryland, republican about the january 6 hearing. caller: good morning. [indiscernible] the question no one is answering is why did this happen in the first place? this is not an endorsement of anything that happened. if you wish, condemned the acts that happened but no one is trying to answer why this happened.
president trump has been given too much power over his supporters. these people had questions about the election. there was arrogance on the other side. when citizens had questions, it is normal to try to answer their questions. people are tired of this. host: ok. paul, paducah, kentucky, independent. caller: [indiscernible] with the news media -- [indiscernible] -- save money. have three bobbleheads saying i hate trump i hate trump i hate trump. host: what do you think of the hearings? caller: they are a joke. you don't know if these people
are telling the truth or not. they are a bunch of trump haters. they are a bunch of liars. -- [indiscernible] gave secrets through a chinese spy. [indiscernible] -- piece of garbage from california. [indiscernible] -- allied for five straight years. you ignore all the corruption and people -- [indiscernible] -- host: ok. matt, mechanicsville, maryland. caller: you hear the ca llers. the way they are doing this hearing is horrible. the whole thing is a performance. there impeaching him a third time. i did not vote for that guy. i wouldn't vote for trump. he is not my candidate. you have over 50% of the population in the prior election vote for him.
this election goes through. the whole thing was mired in controversy. to the january 6 investigation, there was a piece of information they glossed over. the president wanted to go to the capital to presumably speak to the people again. somebody in the beast told him he could not go. think about that. that means the guy who was responsible for january 6 wanted to take responsibility for it! somebody said he couldn't take responsibility for it. that is why these people are mad. think about it. host: part of the testimony yesterday about things that happened in the presidential limo as it was driving away, apparently the president reaching out to stop the driver from going away from the rally and capital.
it prompted a statement from secret service. this is what they wrote according to cbs news, "the secret service has been cooperating with the select committee since inception, spring 2021, and will continue to do so including responding on the record about new allegations surfacing in today's testimony." that is according to a secret service spokesperson. lower down in the story, cbs sources confirm the secret service official and driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was physically attacked or assaulted by president trump. the former president never longed for the steering wheel -- lunged for the steering wheel. they don't dispute that he demanded to be taken to the capital. that is part of what happened from yesterday when it comes to events of january 6.
the president himself posting a couple posts on his true social platform saying he never complained about the crowd. "i don't want, i requested we make room for people with guns. who would ever want that? not me. there were no guns found or brought to the capitol building's? where were all these guns? sadly, a gun was used on ashli babbitt with no price to pay for the person who used it." making several statements on the presidents social platform. bill, orange park, florida, republican. caller: i don't understand why you even put that part on with the lady. she is a liar. she was coerced by them phony son of a butts in that court, especially that blackeye that comes -- host: stop right there.
she testified under oath, does that matter to you? caller: it was not a legal court. she was not under oath. five years if -- [indiscernible] host: stanley, florida, independent. caller: these guys don't realize she worked for mark meadows. she didn't work for donald trump. [indiscernible] -- police officers that got hurt. host: let's go back to the first part. why do you think she worked for mark meadows is relevant? caller: she was his assistant. she is a republican. so is liz cheney. this could have been bipartisan. it was mitch mcconnell who stopped it from being bipartisan. they could have been 10 people
with no ties to the democrats and republicans. donald trump is guilty as hell. he didn't have concern about mike pence. i live within a mile and a half from a guy who was at that capital. him and his wife are still under restriction. they have bracelets around them. host: did you watch the hearing yesterday? caller: i watch them all. donald trump should be in prison. that is treason what he did. if obama did that, these people would be biting like hell. host: let us know if you watched or did not watch yesterday's proceeding. still available at the website, www.c-span.org. our app, if you want to download it, which streams video of archived events we take for a certain. of time, all those hearings and related topics concerning
january 6 available at www.c-span.org. if you want to see those archives and watch some for yourself, including yesterday's hearings. charles, arkansas, independent. caller: you mean to tell me all these people -- [indiscernible] --tom cotton -- [indiscernible] -- this man been doing it for years. [indiscernible] host: did you watch yesterday's hearing specifically? caller: yeah. this lady is 26 years old. you got grown men in the senate and congress for years. this 26-year-old lady come out and these people still going --
[indiscernible] -- the lie this man told. host: in a related story, as of late yesterday when it comes to investigations by the committee, politico reporting john eastman, the architect of the last-ditch bid to subvert the election has dropped the lawsuit aimed at blocking the select committee from obtaining his phone records in a file, tuesday voluntarily dismissing the suit saying he had been assured they were only seeking his call log, not the content of any messages held by verizon, his carrier. the committee has long maintained they lack authority to obtain message content. last week, fbi agents seized his phone as part of a doj inspector general investigation related to the 2020 election and earlier this month, he was ordered to turn over hundreds of emails to
the committee. the judge had determined eastman and trump likely entered into a criminal conspiracy to obstruct congress. we will take your calls on yesterday's hearing, what you thought about it, what you learned, your perspective on it. earl, reading, california. caller: god bless c-span and washington journal. good morning america. obama went down the street after this election and opened up a second white house. he spied on the trump administration. one of your callers if you weeks ago mistakenly called biden -- host: what did you make of the testimony yesterday by cassidy
hutchinson? caller: i think she will go down in history as the next benedict arnold. host: why do you say that? caller: it is obvious. let me say this -- host: if you said it, why did you say that? caller: this whole thing is a dog and pony show. you know it is. i know. i can't believe washington journal is putting this on the air like a real production. i have never seen such a one-sided production in my life. please let me make my statement. host: you have spent a lot of time. i will just tell you, as these formal hearings take place it is our mission to cover aspects of congress including hearings like
the one you're seeing play out. we will continue to do so. you can watch some for yourself and make determinations for yourself as you watch. you can see them again on our website as well. south carolina, north charleston, lee, democrat. caller: good morning, pedro. it is so unbelievable how people are so retarded. they not interested in the truth and lies. they are interested in a bunch of common criminality. every last one of them that called in on that republican line. it is unbelievable. host: did you watch the events of yesterday? caller: yeah. i watched it. -- [indiscernible] -- got more coverage then any of you -- [indiscernible] -- whatever you want to call them -- they are just criminals. host: did you find her credible?
caller: i'm sorry. of course. host: why? caller: she had everything. you could tell it was fact. it was not hyperbole. it was fact. the criminals that keep calling every morning on the republican line, your day is coming. lock them all up. host: lauren, massachusetts, independent. caller:, hi good morning, i think they are doing a good job. my only other comment is i do not understand why we, as americans, have to be so divided. everyone has their own opinion about these hearings. everyone is entitled to them.
i just don't understand. host: you said they are doing a good job. why is that? caller: they are bringing out certain things, whether they are true or not, they are bringing out things that go on. it is open conversation. host: when you said it is true or not, do you doubt some of what has been said during the hearings? caller: no i don't. everyone has their own way of seeing things. they've divided the country with no hope. it is not just the hearings. it is everything in the u.s. host: this is a viewer in social circle, georgia, democrats line -- orlando. caller: good morning. i was glad to hear the truth. anybody who watched the entire
video, the testimony, they know she is telling the truth because she put everything, her career on the line to expose donald trump and his administration for being an angry president and like a little kid. even the republicans, democrats, independents, everyone knows he was like that and was childish. this young girl, she had the courage to step forward and tell the truth and risk everything and everyone knows she is telling the truth. host: what do you make of the secret service questioning some of those accounts that took place in the limousine and willing to testify on that? caller: the secret service maybe
wanted to hide donald trump was really like that because they feared him. he is the president. he got money. he can make or break you. he holds your life in the palm of his hand. to speak against him or to say anything that might cause him anger, you know, like him throwing the plate, the ketchup -- that paints a picture about he really don't care about your life. it is all about what he wants. host: ok, got your point. one of the pieces of testimony yesterday from cassidy hutchinson was a story she heard about what happened in the presidential limo after the rally is the president was leaving. you can see it on the website. here's a portion of that yesterday. [video clip] >> when i return to the white house i walked upstairs toward
the chief of staff's office, i noticed mr. renato lingering out of the office. we made eye contact, he quickly waved me to go into his office which was across the hall from mine. he shut the door. i noticed the head of mr. trump security detail sitting in a chair looking somewhat discombobulated, a little lost. i looked at tony. he said, did yuo f -- hear what happened? no i just got back. what happened? tony proceeded to tell me, when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from mr. meadows that the off the record movement to the capital was still possible and might need to happen but that bobby had more information. the president had gotten into the vehicle with bobby, he thought they were going to the capital and when bobby had relate to him we are not, you
don't have the access to do it, it is not secure, we are going back to the west wing, the president had very strong, very angry response to that. tony described him as being irate. the president said something to the effect of "i am the f -- president, take me to the now." to which bobby responded "we have to go back to the west wing." the president reached up toward the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. mr. angle grabbed his arm, said sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. we are going back to the west wing. we are not going to the capital. mr. trump then used his free hand to lunge toward bobby angle, when mr. renato recounted the story to me, he motioned toward his clavicle's. host: the secret service
questioning some of that account and willing to testify on that front. you can see those stories online. you can make judgments for yourself. steve, west virginia, independent. steve, vienna? hello? caller: hello. i really don't watch the hearings. just parts of it. [indiscernible] i am independent. [indiscernible] i tell you what, the reason i don't watch the hearings --
[indiscernible] -- before he even became president. [indiscernible] it just took me two years to figure this out. [indiscernible] they didn't want any republican being there. that is why they went after him. [indiscernible] host: ok. bobby, oklahoma, democrat. hello? caller: yes. yes sir. i watched the woman. i watched all the hearings. if the people think about it, they have had all republicans -- [indiscernible] -- so far.
the woman is very credible. no doubt about it. trump is lying. meadows is lying. trump is lying. host: what do you base her credibility on? caller: what? host: what do you base her credibility on? caller: the woman is a republican. all the people testified so far were republicans. host: ok. they quickly plan hearing yesterday, we heard from legislators another hearing would not take place for weeks. this was organized within days. you saw it played out yesterday on capitol hill. some of the reaction from legislators, particularly
republicans, this is representative marjorie taylor greene. "why isn't the committee informing the american people how many times the president asked for the national guard and it was denied with all the known intelligent requests leading up to the sixth?" steven palazzo saying democrats in congress are upset. they haven't made any actions in congress. andy biggs with a graphic showing members of the committee , the title "partisan sham." that is reaction from republicans on their twitter feeds to the event of yesterday. diane, dolson, georgia, republican. caller: [indiscernible] how could trump --
[indiscernible] that she was in the backseat? that doesn't make no sense. i don't believe what she is saying. i think all the democrats destroy the world. people are having to beg and plead -- [indiscernible] -- they got no gas going. everything being set on that tv about trump, bring him on there and let him -- [indiscernible] -- because i don't think -- [indiscernible] -- all of this stuff, could not have happened. host: one of the stories to come out yesterday came toward the tail end of the hearing, as reported by axios saying the house select committee warned on tuesday about efforts to pressure witnesses, providing
false or untruthful testimony, under what they're saying, saying the easy courses to hide from the spotlight and deny what happened. that was from liz cheney. she said "we have evidence of one particular practice that raises concern. our committee commonly asked witnesses connected to trump's campaign whether they have been contacted by any former colleagues or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony." she then read aloud an example in which a witness described phone calls from people interested in their testimony "as long as i continue to be a team player, they know i am on the right team, protecting who i need to protect, i will continue to stay in the good graces of trump world." and reminded me trump reads transcripts, and just keep that in mind as i proceed through my deposition.
axios is picking up that story. let's hear from calvin, alabama, independent. caller: how you doing? host: go ahead. caller: i am a former marine. i have been watching the hearings. i had civics in class. this president is a criminal. 60 cases he has lost. obviously, he is angry because he lost the election. he is the same president that told people to drink bleach to cleanse them from covid. host: what specifically did you get from yesterday's hearing? caller: i believe the woman is honest. i think this president is unhinged. i think the questions about his
activities in the car, i would question that but basically she came across as a very honest person trying to do her civic duty as an american citizen to tell the truth. the news media today in america, you don't get the truth. you get pundits' opinions, who distorts the truth. that is a serious problem we need to address. why not call sean hannity? he was texting the white house telling him to stop doing this. why not call him in? host: ok, calvin in alabama. mr. hannity's name coming up in the testimony yesterday. when you watch these hearings on c-span we present them to you as they proceed without any
interruptions, letting you see them play out in real time. those archived at our website, www.c-span.org. yesterday, if you go to the c-span now at, you can pull it up and watch it on the app. we have that archived there for a short time during the day. if you don't get a chance to watch them on television. we will do this for the next half-hour. your thoughts on that hearing from yesterday featuring the former aide to president trump's steve of chaff mark meadows, cassidy hutchinson. let us know your thoughts. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. you can text at (202)-748-8003. let's hear from a viewer in kansas,, james, democrat. caller: hello pedro. how are you? host: i'm well, how about
yourself? caller: good. the main thing i took out of the hearings was for the longest time they said the rioters were blm members but trump even said "let my people in." that is clear they were not antifa members. host: anything else? caller: that is it. have a good day. thank you. host: doug, washington state, republican line. caller: good morning. if this were a court of law, everything she said yesterday and all these people that say they are all republicans, they all hate trump. everything she is saying, they wouldn't even listen to in court. all the democrats out there that think that she is so honest in
everything she said was true, it was all hearsay. if you were on trial, would you like to hear everybody say a bunch of hearsay you don't know is true? the secret service is already denying any of that happened. right there her credibility is shot. i can't believe this. i think everybody that went in that capital that day deserves anything they get. that was baloney. i don't agree with any of that to happen that day but this hearing is kind of silly. thank you. host: ok. let's hear from shirley, richmond, virginia, republican. caller: good morning. good morning everyone in america. i love you all. i watched the hearings yesterday. i watched all of it.
i kept switching back from nbc, cnbc. can you hear me? host: you are on. just watch on c-span but do what you want. caller: i watched c-span. i watched fox also. fox had everything on but what is going on with the hearings. everything. they degraded everything they could think of to degrade president biden. i just want to say, y'all need to look at other channels other than fox. fox leading y'all down a rabbit hole. host: what did you take away from the hearing specifically? caller: it was pretty much to me what i had said the first time i called in to c-span. donald trump was a crook. he lied to his people he said he loved. he used the republicans as
guinea pigs to try to make a means to an end. i cannot hear anything you're saying. host: if you are listening to your television, you will hear it on delay. caller: my tv is down. host: you are making your point. caller: all right. we are all americans. republicans, democrats, independents. we live side-by-side next door to each other. we go to the store, talk to each other, everything is cool. we have to get this man out of our head so we can move on and have a better america. host: she was calling on the democrat line, i made that mistake. frank, georgia, republican. caller: i haven't much listened to it. it is a kangaroo court. everything is hearsay. no cross-examination. already there are questions about the testimony yesterday.
let's talk about the mail-order president. 56% of the people in this country voted absentee. the highest rate ever. this is what has caused a lot of this. take your butt to the polls to vote, ok? 45% of the people in this country have no skin in the game. host: the topic at hand, specifically the hearings. how much have you watched? caller: 10 minutes. the first five minutes when the guys started talking about slavery, i said i am not watching the scrap. i was going to watch it. it is total hearsay. it is not a trial. it is a kangaroo court. to smear trump. they don't want him to run again. this is the whole problem. we are headed toward venezuela and cuba. it is coming. host: one of the other pieces of
info cassidy hutchinson provided, the former aide to mark meadows, about the rhetoric, the plan rhetoric for use at the rally, her concerns over some of that rhetoric. she also heard from others. here's a portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> were you aware of concerns white house counsel maloney or eric hirschman had about the language president trump used in his speech? >> there were many discussions the morning of the sixth about the rhetoric of the speech that day. in my conversations with mr. hirschman, he relayed it would be foolish to include language that have been included at the president's request, which had lines along to the effect of "pfeiffer trump. we are going to march for the
capital, pfeiffer me, pfeiffer the movement -- fight for me, fight for the movement, fight for trump. they were urging the speechwriters to not include that language for legal concerns and the optics of what it could portray the president wanting to do that day. >> we heard the president say he would be with his supporters as they marched to the capital, even though he did not end up going. he certainly wanted to. host: that hearing, the website, if you want to see it. seattle, washington, derek, independent. caller: i got the truth. the woman is telling the truth. what makes it so -- you keep reading statements from representatives in congress. they are not under oath. they have had the opportunity to
testify. i wish you would stop. please stop reading their statements because their statements is nothing but lies. host: we have a lot of impact from members of congress. caller: you are rebutting the truth. host: i'm recounting what is said. caller: after that woman told the truth, you are coming back with statements to rebut what she said. we have the facts now during the hearing. this is not debate. what we found out, trump and his administration, the main thing we discovered is the majority of white people in this country. host: back to her testimony yesterday, you said she was truthful. caller: she was under oath, pedro. they are not under oath. she had taken a deposition.
that is a way to find the truth. the majority of white people in this country follow trump. host: ok. republicans commenting yesterday, a lot of people commenting on these hearings. you can see them all on the website. the washington post reporting this morning the wife of justice clarence thomas is resisting an interview with the select committee investigating the january 6 insurrection. a lawyer told the panel he wants a better justification for why the testimony is relevant before he could recommend the activist complies to talk about her role in seeking to reverse the president's 2020 election loss.
it continues to focus on the actions of president trump on that day. democrat, virginia, orlando florida. caller: hello. good morning. i always watched c-span, especially during the hearings. there is no interruptions. first of all, let's get this young lady's age correct. she was 24 when this happened. she was not 26. i went to work for the government when i was 24. i worked for 40 years. i wanted to do what was right. she is doing what is right. i believe her. i believe she is telling the truth. she has no reason to lie. she made it plain to me when she said donald trump had grabbed the steering wheel, someone else had told her that. she didn't say she saw it. i am glad she said it. maybe this will bring more people out of the closet that
are hiding and that are not telling the truth. a lot of the things she said yesterday, they will want to come on and make a correction. i don't believe she is lying. i believe every word this young lady said. host: what do you make of the secret service questioning some of those accounts she recalled yesterday? caller: i have a cousin who works for the secret service, retired. i know what they do. i worked in a top-secret capacity for the government. . i know what they do i know how they would try to hold up for what they believe in what they do not want out. number one is this, we cannot trust all of the secret service people that were trump because a lot of them were supporting him. they still are supporting him. i am waiting to see what the justice department is going to do.
i just don't believe the justice department is going to come in and put this man in jail, in handcuffs like they did everybody else. he is a liar. host: ok. patty, connecticut, republican, north branford. caller: i'm calling because this is a kangaroo court. everything she said is hearsay. no cross-examination. they went after trump with two impeachments. he was innocent. this was another game they were playing. i am sick of it. there were guns. host: -- caller: let me finish. host: she said she heard some of it from others. did that make a difference to you? caller: they don't allow that in court. the only one there with a gun was the one who shot that poor woman who was protesting.
trump went in there to clean up the swamp and we are seeing it full-fledged. that is all it is. i can't believe they are getting away with this. liz cheney is a turncoat. i bet you see has the bush family thrilled because jeb didn't win. host: ok. yesterday, aside from the hearing, a host of primaries across the u.s. with your indulgence, i will take time to show you what happened on some of those as we lead up to november elections. mary miller began her career apologizing for comments about adolf hitler. rodney davis, tuesday in the gop primary in illinois, 15th district, a swing district survivor who fended off challenges in 2018 and 2020, could not overcome former
president trump's endorsement of miller and money, she had 58% of the vote. she will face paul laying in the genera election. taking a look at the governors race in illinois, jamie pritzker will face a bitter trumped back rival, bailey, and the governors race this fall. beverly miles, the challenger in the democratic primary, he racked up 90% of the vote. bailey was a front runner collecting more than 50% of preliminary results. the lawmakers had been at odds for years. this website reporting with hostilities hitting a peak
during the pandemic, governor pritzker implemented the stay-at-home order in 20 but bailey criticized the measures and filed a lawsuit. oklahoma, u.s. senator james lankford winning his primary, in the race for another six-year term. tw shannon advanced to a runoff in oklahoma's other u.s. senate race. jim inhofe's announcement that he would not finish his term, set off a flurry of candidates. that is being reported by the post. if you go to the state of new york, nine months after she stepped into the job of new york governor as a relative unknown, she locked up her party's nomination on tuesday.
she beat back challenges from the city public advocates and becomes the first woman to win election this fall. she will take on lee's eldon, republican representative from new york. that is some of the accounts of the primary races taking place from here on out until november. jean and, madison, wisconsin, independent. caller: thank you. good morning. i watched a great deal of yesterday's activities and it seems cassidy is saying things that are hearsay. hearsay is never allowed in a court. this is a committee meeting. i regret this transparent administration allows two
republicans and the rest all democrats. if there are two sides of a coin, there is no cross-examination. this is not a court of law. i think they need to be much more clear and fair in the selection of committee members. i hate to say it. it is a bit of a sham. the truth is what is important. i want the truth to come out. i say prayers for this country every day, which i love. i respect. i am fearful this very day is the best day our country is going to have for the duration of my days. host: keith, colorado, denver, democrat. caller: hi. i have been watching closely.
in line with all conventional wisdom, all objective reporting, because we do have objective reporting, and it is ridiculous to say we don't. we have objective truth. she said which parts were hearsay. this committee, which was kaboshed by kevin mccarthy, who tried to put jim jordan on it, and the senate also filibustered a select committee which would have been an independent committee of republicans and democrats and independents. that was filibustered. 58% of the american people before yesterday wanted to see a
referral to the doj for prosecution for people named. the objective is not to convince some of your callers. they are not watching. one of the things washington journal could do in my opinion that would help the discourse is only callers that engage, that have actually watched and can speak true -- host: you specifically watched yesterday? caller: it is my duty as an american. host: what did you learn from yesterday? caller: i learned that my disdain for republicans is a little out of place. host: how did you get that from yesterday? caller: because all the people
testifying, including the young lady yesterday, a republicans, insiders. her office is seven seconds away from the oval office. the callers who didn't watch don't know that. she could hear and see things in real time. she is mark meadows senior aide. host: we got your point. linda, brooklyn,, new york, independent. caller: thank you. i listened yesterday. what i don't find credible is the testimony with the young lady has said the former president lunged for the wheel. it doesn't make sense. i thought presidential dignitaries in the back of the
vehicle, that doesn't make sense to me. secondly, i understand now why hearsay is not permissible in a court of law. that is my concern. that picture does not make sense . host: republicans commenting on twitter yesterday, democrats as well. patty murray from washington saying this testimony is horrifying and shocking. she says on her twitter feed, again put trump's lack of fitness for the office on display. many continue to perpetuate the election lie. we also hear from liz cheney saying the white house counsel had significant concerns regarding the president's january 6 activities.
that is some of the things we have heard from yesterday, legislators, responding on capitol hill. you can comment on our own twitter feed if you wish, @cspanwj. the topic regarding those calls about hanging mike pence, from the reaction going on that day from cassidy hutchinson's perspective on what she heard and saw, part of that portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> i went down, i asked a valet if mark was in the dining room. the valet said yes. i opened the door to the dining room, briefly stepped in to get mark's attention. showed him the phone. flipped the phone his way so he could see it. took the phone talking to jim with the door propped open. probably was two feet from mark.
he was standing in the doorway going to the oval office dining room. they had a brief conversation. in the crossfire, i heard briefly what they were talking about. in the background, i heard conversations immobile dining room at that point talking about the hang mike pence chance. -- chants. >> that clip ended with you recalling you heard the president, mr. meadows and the white house counsel discussing the hang mike pence chant, then you described for us what happened next. >> it wasn't until mark hung up the phone, handed it back to me. i went back to my desk. a couple minutes later, him and pat came back, possibly eric hirschman. i am pretty sure he was there. i am confident pat was there.
i remember pat saying something to the effect of mark needs to do something more. they are literally calling for the vice president to be hung. mark had responded something to the effect of you heard it pat, he thinks mike deserves it, he does not think they are doing anything wrong, to which pat said something, this is f--crazy, we need to be doing something more. when mark had said something to the effect of he doesn't think they're doing anything wrong, knowing what i had heard briefly in the dining room, coupled with pat discussing the hang mike pence chants in the lobby of our office and mark's response, i understood there to be the rioters at the capital chanting for the vice president to be hung. host: part of the testimony from
cassidy hutchinson yesterday. liz cheney, vice chair of the january 6 committee questioning her. liz cheney will be speaking at the reagan library tonight. don't know what the topic is but it may relate to what the activities of what is going on with the committee. you can see that speech tonight at 9:00 eastern, watch it on our main channel, c-span, the c-span now app and on www.c-span.org. jason, south carolina, republican. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: find thank you. caller: first of all, i watched the hearing. the lady has no credibility. everything she said was to the effect of or in my opinion, and you just played a video of her saying she stepped to feedback from mark meadows. she took two steps back.
was she on mark's shoulder to begin with? you have jamie raskin doctoring evidence. you have adam schiff who live for four years. i want to hear you admit to the democrats that they have been lied to for four years. they still can't seem to get it through their head. i am glad you are on this morning. you are the most transparent. you are my favorite host. you sir let everyone know how biased and filtered c-span truly is. whenever someone strays from the topic, they get hung up on but then you stray from the topic. host: let's bring it back to the topic. you said everything cassidy hutchinson said was a lie. specifically what? caller: let's start with the
testimony of the secret service. for four years we have been hearing donald trump doesn't believe his intelligence agencies. now the democrats don't believe them. you should have a body language expert. host: how does that specifically relate to the secret service and testimony about whether the president reached out for the neck of the driver? caller: what do you mean? they rebuked her statement. they offered to testify under oath she was lying. you are still playing it. your body language, your smart face, lets everyone knows how biased you truly are sir. host: we will leave it there. albert, democrat, oklahoma. albert? caller: thank you. [indiscernible]
host: you are on. caller: [indiscernible] host: you are probably listening to your television. i will hold off on you for a while, let's hear from another caller. go ahead and turn down your television because the tendency is to watch television, there is a bit of a delay. mark, tampa, florida. mark? caller: yeah. hi. i thought the lady was extremely credible. [indiscernible] she moved over to work for mark meadows. she was in favor of what trump was doing. she said that.
she seemed very credible. the story about the secret service is something she was told by the deputy chief of staff. all the details weren't true, it is not that she was lying. host: ultimately, what makes her credible? caller: [indiscernible] her office positioned in between mark meadows and the vice president and she can see down the hallway, and she had several conversations with sue pallone -- with cipollone, the white house counsel. and it is not hearsay when she
overhears the president saying that he wants to let people who have weapons come into his rally so that they can just come in with their weapons. and he knew they had weapons. they played the radio of the capitol police identifying people with rifles. host: that is the last comment we will take for this hour. thank you for all of you who participated. if you want to watch that hearing from yesterday, turn to our website to see those for yourself. we will turn our attention to the topic of religious liberty cases, particularly those stemming out of the supreme court, and to get some analysis of the specific cases on the overall issues related to religious liberty, daniel suhr
and rebecca markert will join us. jennifer maloney will talk about the decision by the fda to remove e-cigarette products from the market. we will talk about the decision and the larger implications for e-cigarettes. those conversations and more coming up on "washington journal ." ♪ >> american history tv, saturday on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, and honor of nancy reagan's birthday, we look at the first lady's legacy, he years in the white house through photography, staff member and says, and a new stamp on reg mrs. reagan unveiled by
-- stamp honoring mrs. reagan unveiled by first lady jill biden. exploring the american story, watch american history tv, saturday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch anytime at c-span.org/history. >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive a schedule of upcoming programs, festivals, and more. television for serious readers. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house chenier six committee hearings
investigating the attack on the capitol. go to c-span.org/january6 to watch latest videos of the hearings, briefings, and all of the coverage on the attack and subsequent investigation since january 6 2021. we will also have reactions from members of congress and the white house, as well as journalists and authors talking about the investigation get go to c-span.org/january6 for a fast and easy way to watch. "washington journal" continues. host: for the next hour we will talk about the issue of religious liberty, particularly as it stems from cases heard by the supreme court. two guests running as for this conversation get daniel suhr is with the liberty justice center. he serves as their attorney. >> it is a nonprofit law firm.
we are not a religious liberty offer them. but the two cases we are going to discuss today have important implications not just for bill of faith, but all americans because they go to the heart of the first amendment. in one of the cases they go to the power of parents to make choices in education. in the other, i think it really affects the first amendment for everybody. host: rebecca markert is with the freedom from religion foundation. a little bit about your organization in the position you take on these things. >> the freedom from religion foundation is a national nonprofit organization based in madison, wisconsin. we have over 35,000 numbers across the country, and we work to defend the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to represent the rights and views of nonbelievers. host: let's start with you. we heard several cases at the
supreme court, religious freedom being the center of them. if you look at those cases collectively, how would uss where the court is when it comes to issues of religious liberty? >> i think what we are seeing with this court in particular is that they are hell-bent on giving religious privilege to a certain denomination and not others. what we saw this last week was an enormous loss of religious liberty rights for individual taxpayers and young public schoolchildren who did not adhere to the majority faith. the court is really strengthening the free exercise clause to the detriment of the establishment clause. when those clauses actually work together to keep and protect religious freedom rights for all , those of religious faith, minority faiths, and of no faith. host: same question to you. >> i think this supreme court is the most predictive of religious liberty we perhaps have ever
seen. i actually would disagree with the characterization about minority faiths. in fact, the, because brief in the carson case talks about the number of non-christian schools that are available for children to choose is parents have choice in education. many times, the public school is forcing majoritarian values on students who might disagree or their families, and that school choice offers the opportunity for students of minority faiths or viewpoints to go to a school that actually shares their values, so school choice ends up empowering parents, including those in minority faiths, with greater torches that actually reflect their values. host: for those who were not following closely, and h with that case was about. >> the state of maine has a program that allows rural school children access to public funds to attend schools because in
some small rural communities, there are not enough students to sustain a public school. so the state of maine gives you a voucher that you can take to a private school, an independent school for your education. but maine limited it only to secular schools. if you were a religious school active in your religious faith, you could not qualify for the program. what the supreme court this week said is that the state of maine could not discriminate against, could not exclude actively religious schools from participating in this otherwise open program. host: what about that idea of limiting who can get these vouchers or who can't? >> in the narrative of that case, what has been lost is a right that was really at issue in the case was the right of the taxpayers to be free from government compelled tithing. the supreme court is not obligating taxpayers of all
faiths and of no faith to fund religious education for beliefs they may not adhere to or agree to, even if those schools indoctrinate their students into a particular radical form of christianity, and if they discriminate against lgbtq teachers and students, and that turns our constitutional principles on his head. we have never allowed to text payers, never forced taxpayers to fund religious education or religious worship, and that is what the court decided last week. host: was it a limiting factor in the case of maine's voucher system, or where their implications in how it applies to other schools and how they apply vouchers? >> is a very broad ruling and it will have important in many of
these schemes across the country. it is also going to incentivize states around the country to initiate these types of programs that are really going to divest public money from our public schools and diverge them into these religious education systems. >> i think three things are important to remember. first of all, we had a number of other programs where the government already funds private , nonprofit, including faith-based organizations. think of catholic services providing homeless shelters. number two, all these up in court is saying is if maine offers this program, it cannot discriminate against faith-based institutions. maine does not have to educate its kids this way. it can choose to only have public schools. but if maine is going to offer this program, it cannot exclude religious schools. third and most importantly, the only way public funds reach a faith-based school is if a
parent makes an independent choice that they believe that school is the best educational setting for their child. this is not about funneling public funds into private schools. this is about parents making this choice and the state not discriminating against people of faith. host: our two guests are going to be with us until 9:00 if you have questions. if you want to call us, you can do so on the lines. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text those questions if you wish to (202) 748-8003. let me ask you both about the larger impact of these cases before we go back into specifics , the establishment clause, and what these said about how the justices look at that clause and apply it in these decisions. what do you think these cases say about the establishment clause overall? >> in kennedy, the second case
we will talk about, the court is returning us to the history and tradition of how we approached the first amendment's establishment clause. over the last 70 years, the court has sort of lost its way and gone down a number of radicals that weren't rooted in the text, history and tradition of our country and the text of the calls. finally we are seeing the court returning to asking that question what is the text of the first amendment, how the framers of the first amendment understood it, and how should the history and tradition of our country inform its application today. host: ms. markert, same question. >> this particular court is not a fan of the establishment clause. they are not a fan of the separation of church and state, and they really want to elevate religious liberty's interest of the few. in our office we like to say that the motto seems to be
religious liberty for me and not for thee. the establishment clause exists to protect true religious freedoms. religious freedom rights are not absolute. the establishment clause exists to protect young schoolchildren like in the kennedy case who do not hear to the christian faith and to protect them from abuse of power by adults who want to indoctrinate those children. the courts have always jealously guarded the students in these public school contexts because of the nature of the public school system. the children are required to be there. they are young and impressionable, and they are really at a position where they are ripe for abuse by these
adults who want to impose their personal religious views on these children. those rights actually belong to the parents, like mr. suhr said. the parents have the right to decide what the religious upbringing of their children are, and we have always agreed that the state should not impose religion upon citizens. the establishment clause exists to protect us from that imposition. host: in the case of coach kennedy, which you brought up, you encapsulated it. was this more about coach kennedy going to the 50 yard line and praying, and your opinion, as far as the way the justices interpreted this opinion? >> i really think that the religious liberty rights of the public school children and their families were lost because the narrative around that case focused so much on the coach.
coach kennedy accepted the job at a public school, and when he did that, he agreed to assume certain responsibilities, and one of those things was to protect those children from undue influences. as his job required, he was appropriately restricted from praying in front of students and compelling those students to join him, whether directly or indirectly. so really, what was really lost in this case was the religious liberty rights of the students. there were players on that team who came out and said i went along with it because i wanted to play. that is a real problem. there was at least one atheist player on that football team who said i prayed because i wanted to play. >> in coach kennedy's case, i
think the court says correctly teachers are role models. we want teachers to be inspirations and role models for the students. but there are also people who have institutional -- but they are also people who have institutional constitutional rights. coach kennedy was some praying and some students voluntarily chose to join him. i think it is that voluntariness that separates this from previous cases where the entire gathering was incorporated into a prayer, for instance, praying over the public address system at the beginning of a football game. look at a different analogy. think about a teacher who might be picketing outside of a school because that teacher is participating in a union protest. a student might peel pressure to support that teacher to get a better grade, to get more playing time, and might feel pressure to go to a rally supporting the union in their protest, but that does not mean the teacher loses her first amendment right to purchase paid in that union activity.
teachers are going to be active in their community. they are going to go to church. students are going to see them in the community. that does not create undue pressure unless it loses that element of voluntariness which separates this case from the previous cases. host: daniel suhr and rebecca markert joining us. our first call is from woodstock, georgia, republican line. we will hear from susan. go ahead with your and or comment. caller: yes, i would like to speak to the lady that is on there. host: yes, they are both on, but i had -- but go ahead. caller: i went to a catholic school for eight years. i am 70 years old. i was pummeled by the nuns, and i had really a bad taste in my mouth for that. i just want to know, is my taxpayer money funding
catholic schools? is my taxpayer money going for those schools? >> according to the supreme court from the decision, it could eventually go to those public schools if your state is one that has a voucher program or one of these school choice programs. yes, if they are providing funding for these tuition assistance programs, the court cited last week that they must also provide that funding to institutions like you mentioned that may not only discriminate against lgbtq friends, but also abuse children. host: mr. suhr, care to comment? >> your funds already support low income scholarships called pell grants. we have a program nationwide that allows low income students access to public funds to go to independent and nonprofit colleges and universities,
including religious colleges and universities, and we have accepted that as a country for decades. in fact, pell grants are one of the most widely appreciated and supported scholarship programs that the federal government offers, and yet we have never heard constitutional objections. the supreme court has never ruled on pell grant's, and there is no constitutional principle by which we would distinguish pell grants in higher education from scholarship programs that affect k-12. it is all the same principle, that whether it is a student or a parent on behalf of a student, because there is that independent choice about what school is best, that scholarship can go to an end been in school, including a faith-based school, without violating the first them and meant -- the first amendment. host: in oregon, scott is next. caller: hi, thank you to c-span, first of all. i have experience as a teacher.
i am 55. i'm an atheist. i'm disappointed with the recent supreme court ruling. my understanding is it started out innocent. i have no problem with people praying in schools before a test and all of that, if a kid wants to pray. i thank that is great, and more power to them. but i am opposed to a teacher organizing a prior kind of thing because it is indoctrination. it is making these kids believe in whatever they are preaching. the guy on the football field, i think it started out innocent. he just did his thing. i'm cool with that.
but if it gets to a point where students feel obligated to join in, that is too much. so it is a fine line. host: thanks for the call. mr. suhr, you start. >> thank you for calling in. i think this up in court has drawn that line for us, and it is the point of voluntary participation. the court has two cases from the last few years dealing with similar but different situations. the first was a high school graduation where the high squinted to have a rabbi offer a relatively generic invocation before the graduation. because everybody at that graduation ceremony was going to be incorporated into that prayer and because students would feel pressure to stand respectfully and purchase paid in that prayer , the court said it was unacceptable. a few years later the court considered a case similarly where there was a prayer before
a high school football game that was broadcast over the public address system, and again the courts had because it incorporates everybody in the prayer using the pa system, that is unconstitutional. but there is a difference in this case, the court said, because coach kennedy is doing it on his own in his private time in his private prayer, and the students voluntarily student -- and if students voluntarily choose to join him, that is the court respecting coach kennedy's free exercise right and the choice of students to participate. host: rebecca markert. >> that last line that this was a private and personal prayer is a false narrative that has been spun in this case since the beginning. it is a lie. the prayers were not private and personal. they were at the 50 yard line after the game. he invited not only the students to join him, the opposing team to join him. he also invited the media to
come and see the spectacle that he was putting on at the 50 yard line. he also invited the state legislators. the other fact that is missing from this narrative is that prior to this litigation, he had also been having locker room prayer, which he did dismiss. the voluntariness aspect of this case is not truly voluntariness. as courts have said, in these situations when you're dealing with a secondary public high school, there is immense pressure to go along with what is going on, especially if it is by your teacher, your coach, or your hospital principal or superintendent. there is immense pressure to play along. now, you are never going to find out how truly voluntary their participation was because of the
context of being on that public school football team. coach kennedy decides when they play, how they play, and is going to be the one helping them cultivate their skills so that they can be eligible for scholarships. they have an immense coercive amount of pressure on these students and authority over these students, so of course students said they felt what they needed to go along. host: again, our guests are with us until 9:00 on these topics. jim in florida, boca raton, your next up. caller: yes, this question is to ms. markert. i find it very disingenuous of her to assert that all public education should be free of
religious connotations. first of all, i live in florida. our governor, who is just an incredible leader and is going to be reelected and probably be our next president as well, has intervened to stop the secular humanists from indoctrinating children in the secular humanist pro-homosexual agenda. that is a religion. she has no objection to that whatsoever. it seems to me rather disingenuous for her to assert that a prayer offered by a high school coach is somehow threatening her freedoms or the freedoms of the students. host: thank you. go ahead. >> well, i do not know of any of
these institutions that are teaching secular humanism. there are no atheist public schools or anything like that. a school that is neutral towards religion does not automatically equal being a school that is promoting atheism or secular humanism. schools that provide secular education are doing just that. host: from the majority opinion, you probably read it for yourself, but in part, justice courses -- justice gorsuch wrote "excursion of religion is essential, whether they take place on a field or manifest in a spoken word or bowed head. entities sought to punish an individual from exercising religious expression." the way that the justice wrote to this and the implications, what are you getting from that? >> really, they are turning all
of our constitutional principles on their heads. again, coach kennedy is a public school employee. when he is acting in that capacity as a public school employee, he is not allowed traditionally under our laws to impose his personal religious preferences upon the students. he was at the 50 yard line at the end of the game when his duties had not yet ended. this was not a time for private and personal prayer. he still had obligations to the students, to the players. his job was not done. he certainly has that ability if he is truly on his own time, but he wasn't in this instance. again, i go us to the fact that what was really lost here is the religious liberty interests of the students, the young children who we have always protected
from these types of religious indoctrinations. >> jim, you are absolute right. teachers should not be imposing religious views, but should also not be imposing a political agenda. i think that brings us back to carson and why it is so important that we empower parents with choices in education. for some parents who feel at their local public school is pushing a political agenda on their children, they should have another option. they should be able to go to a school that provides an excellent education or that reflects their values. in many states that is not possible unless you are wealthy. if you are wealthy you can afford to send your child to a nonpublic school, but if you are on the lower end of the income spectrum, you are stuck with your local public school, and it is only through school choice that parents have options, especially low income parents, have the opportunity to find a school that is going to serve their students well, reflect
their values, whether those values are faith-based or political or cultural or whatever it is. host: here's part of justice sotomayor's dissent. "the court leads us to a place where the separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation. any state that values its historic antiestablishment interests more than this court does will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens." >> i think justice gorsuch is absolutely right that we have to look at these clauses together and not separately or in competition. particularly to justice sotomayor, the phrase separation of church and state is nowhere in the first amendment. when the first amend was written, it starts out with what i call the five most beautiful words in the english language, "congress shall make no law." it was a federalism protection, saying that maryland, a bunch of catholics in pennsylvania, quakers in virginia, anglicans,
we are going to respect the rights of those state to their own unique religious backgrounds and cultures. it is about protecting the states from having one national government come in and establish a religion. that is so far from where we are today and with the court is returning us to is looking at the text and the original meaning, the history and tradition of our country. host: daniel suhr with the religious liberty foundation and a markert with the freedom from religion foundation. >> there's one case that the supreme court got right in a unanimous decision, and that is the case in which they slapped down the targeting of health care providers by the united states drug enforcement agency
and department of justice. host: is there a question on religious freedom here, sir? caller: no, i thought we were talking about supreme court cases, but i would've say this instead. i do believe in religious freedom, but please read our blog that talks about the case. host: ok, you made that point. talk about the legal aspect. there is something called the lemon law applied to these kinds of cases. for those of you who are lawyers, i want to get your perspective on what that law is and what the court did about that law in these recent rulings. >> lemon law is not about bad cars in this context. lemon is the name of a case from several decades ago where the supreme court set up this multifactor test to try to determine when the establishment clause is violated. ever since that case came down,
and number of justices have criticized it, first of all because it is not rooted in the history and tradition of the first amendment, but also what ends up happening is that judges can look at the lemon test and if you hold it up to the light at exactly the right angle, any justice can find whatever outcome they want. what we should have his judges constrained by the rule of law who are rooted in that text history and tradition. lemon has been criticized for decades by a number of justices on the court from the right and the left because of its intellectual bankruptcy and it's on workability. so finally, the court has put lemon to rest. there's a great line from justice scalia that it is like the goal that keeps emerging -- the ghoul that keeps emerging from its casket. but i think this case will finally put to rest the idea that lemon is good law on an ongoing basis and instead direct judges and lawyers to look at the text of the first amendment
and the history and tradition of our country. host: rebecca markert, your thoughts on where it stands today. >> i think david is exactly right, this is a test from the 1970's that allowed us to analyze establishment clause violations and whether the government violated the constitution. it was a three-part test that analyzed whether the government action had a secular purpose, whether it endorsed advanced, preferred, or inhibited religion, and whether it caused excessive government entanglement with religion. it actually was a case that culminated a number of standards from previous decades of looking at these types of cases, so all of these principles from these cases prior to 1971 were really put into the lemon test. it is true that the justices
have either ignored it completely or deviated from it since the 1970's. but what happened this week did not exactly overturn it. they did not directly say the lemon test is overturned like they did on friday. they related shells it and replace it with nothing. there really isn't any sort of standard by which we can evaluate these cases now. they mentioned in the majority opinion looking to a test of history and long-standing principles come but that is also sort of unworkable because as mr. suhr pointed out, if you look at the original text of the constitution, separation of church and state is not there, but thomas jefferson, one of our founding fathers, wrote that
that clause actually did erect a wall of separation between state and church, and that is how our founding fathers envisioned it. he also is the one who wrote when he was writing the virginia religious freedoms statute that it would be sinful and tyrannical for the government to compel a citizen to fund religious worship, and now education. so it really does not make the case is easier by shelving the lemon test. the lemon test actually did provide a good guidepost by which the lower federal courts were able to assess these claims. i just think these justices did not like the outcome that lemon would give because it was saying that governments need to be
neutral with regard to religion. host: our next call is in south carolina, independent line. caller: good morning. thanks to c-span. it is a great program. my issue is i don't understand the controversy about tax dollars going to religious schools. it is everyone's tax dollars. religious people contribute. nonreligious people contribute. so as long as it is distributed fairly and evenly, i just don't understand the controversy because once you cut out religious schools, then you are excluding them and you are taking their tax dollars and distributing it towards the public schools. so let's just distribute it fairly and evenly, and i don't understand the controversy.
host: thank you, joseph. i appreciate the question. >> our constitutional principles and the founding principles for our american democracy is that we possess a freedom of conscience. like i said earlier, we should not be compelled to fund the religious activities of another person, particularly when we disagree with that religious belief. these schools are indoctrinating students not only in religion, but discriminating against people that they do not believe adhere to the morality principles that they aspire to. they abuse children. we have always said as american citizens we should be proud of the fact that do not compel our
taxpayers to fund religious activities, especially when they don't agree with them. this is a core constitutional principle that we should be proud of the separation of state and church as an american original idea, and this past week we have really seen the supreme court turn it on its head and evis a rate -- and at this rate -- and evis a rate -- and eviscerate that idea. it is what we should be striving to protect. >> trust me when i say the government spends my money on a lot of things i don't believe in. i think that is true for many americans. and yet we still pay our taxes because we elect our representatives, and it is up to them to spend our money. if you are a pacifist and your money is spent on aircraft carriers, that is just the way it works in a democracy. i think your point is the important one, which is we cannot discriminate against religious or faith-based
institutions when the government offers a generally available program. another great example from earlier this term is a case where boston has flagpoles outside of city hall and allows nonprofit groups to raise flags almost flagpoles to celebrate various events that are special to that community. one citizen of boston came along and wanted to raise a christian flag on open community flagpole to celebrate his bible camp. the city of boston said no, thinking that that would violate this supposed separation of church and state. the supreme court earlier this year ruled 8-1 that that would not violate the separation of church and state, that when the city makes available a forum for the community, it is unconstitutional to discriminate
against faith-based community groups when they want to participate in that open public forum. that was the opinion of justice breyer and justice kagan. host: miss markert, i want you to comment on that one as well. >> it was a free speech case where the city of boston had a divisive policy that would allow individuals and organizations to put a flags on one of its four city flagpoles on city hall grounds. the problem with that case was the concurring opinions that came out of it that sort of talked about how the establishment clause has been misinterpreted and how it is the so-called establishment clause, a lot of the things you are hearing mr. suhr say. but it was a free-speech case. it is one of these cases that
ends largest can -- in the alarm -- in the larger scheme of things because it was pretty fairly a free speech case. religious liberty issues were adjacent to what was going on there, but there was not really a claim that the court had ruled on four establishment clause analysis. but it is also a unique situation. there are not a lot of cities, municipalities and governments that allow any person to go and put up a flag on their flagpole. the flagpole is something i think that many americans recognize is so intimately related to the government and the seat of government, and that raising this christian flag at city hall really does confer this endorsement that makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable because many americans agree that the government should be
neutral when it comes to religion and should not be preferring one religion over another. host: this is john in georgia, democrats line. caller: hello. i would just like to ask the people there, what do they think would happen if the coach, and sit of having the old at the 50 yard line, had asked the players to bring their prayer mats and play to mecca? i think it is critical to say this is about religion. it is about christianity. as far as allowing the government to subsidize religious education, we have all kinds of religion. david karesh had a religion. some religions believe in white super missy. so if you are going to start financing religious schools, who is going to be the one to determine that some religions are a little bit too far out and other religions are not too far out?
so think about that a little bit before you start your hypocritical idea that it is ok to allow a coach to pray in the middle of the 50 yard line. >>'s coach kennedy wanted to bring a prayer mat to the 50 yard line, i am fine with that. it is his religion. it is what he believes. it might not be what i believe or others in his community believe, but that is ok. if other students honored to join him, that is ok, too. i think it is wonderful that many schools in other parts of our community are accommodating people from different faiths by having prayer rooms available during the day so that people of varying non-christian faiths can have the space they need. that is just part of the fabric of america that we have a wide variety of religions and we should embrace all of that, and the government should respect the religious liberty of every american to believe their religion, whatever that religion is. host: using this court is biased
towards judeo-christian religions? >> i don't. this court has been protective of all religious exercise. there have been a number of cases in the past few years where we have had people from minority religions and numbers of the court from both sides of the ideological or jurisprudential spectrum to respect inmates who want to pray before their execution with their designated spiritual advisor, saying that states need to respect the rights of adherence to minority religions to access minority religious faith chaplains in the prison context, and it is altogether -- all to the good. host: miss markert. >> i think if coach kennedy had brought a prayer mat to the 50 yard line and pray to mecca, that would have been a very different case. i think that we have to be honest about that.
that case probably would have never made it to the. to the u.s. supreme court. the court has been taking more ledges liberty cases than it has in previous terms, and it is true that when it is a christian plaintiff, they are more apt to take that case. obviously my organization has been litigating cases for over 40 years, and we have been thrown out of court on much less , particularly in the coach kennedy case. what is interesting is that that case is actually moot. he moved to the state of florida during this litigation. he does not live in washington state anymore. he sold his house in washington state. he moved to the state of florida. he registered to vote there. he was on facebook talking about how he is a resident of florida now. if that had been any other
plaintiff, christian or non-christian plaintiff, easiest plaintiff, they would not have gotten their day in court because they would have said there is no remedy that this court can give you because you don't live in that state anymore. we really have to be honest about that. the court is setting up a system by which there are preferred litigants, and that is based on religion. host: we have about 15 minutes with our guests. another floridian joining us. caller: yes, good morning. the guy from south carolina kind of took my little piece. there was something about the people did not want to be compelled to pay for any kind of public religious forum going on out there, but the thing of it
is we all pay taxes. we pay taxes. if you don't want to be compelled to listen to the religious people, we should not be compelled to pay taxes for what you want. that is the way i look at it. you are paying taxes for something you said we cannot be included on. number two, pack in the 1970's when my children were going to school, we had every wednesday, the teacher would get up in the classroom and say anybody going to catechism class can leave now. this was in schools. so i don't know what happened to this country since then. it has fallen to hell someplace. but in the 1960's and 1970's, the kids were called on by the teacher in the classroom that anybody going to religious
classes were relieved, which stated. a lot of christian kids would go there. so when did we start turning upside down? ms. markert, you've got a problem, lady. host: go ahead. >> sure. i think what she was talking about with her kids doing to catechism class and having the teacher say it is time to do that, that is a specific situation where religious instruction was deemed allowable so long as it is done off-campus, and it can be done during the day. it came from some cases from a long time ago that allowed students to leave for religious education. those systems still exist today.
i disagree that isaac what she was trying to get out here was that because we took todd out of schools, everything has gone to hell. i don't think that is true, and i am not sure how to respond to that other than she was on a tirade. host: mr. suhr. >> miss markert's right, the release time programs are alive and well in the schools that offer them. they have been upheld by the supreme court as constitutional, and it is a wonderful option for parents to be able to raise their students in their face if they are in a public school and also want to have religious allocation -- religious education alongside it. totally constitutional. the other point i absolutely agree with is that we should fund students, not systems. when we have public funding available for students, that
should be tied to the students. when students are going off into the world, we want to fund a great education for each kid at the school or setting that is best for them. for some students that might be a neighborhood public school. for others that might be a charter school or choice school or home school. there's a variety of educational settings out there, and it is when we empower parents to make that decision that kids get the best outcomes, deciding among that variety rather than locking kids into a monopoly of just a public school. host: from colorado, and the pendant line, ray. go ahead -- independent line, ray. go ahead. caller: i'm a registered libertarian who will always vote for pedro, but beside the point, i want to ask about the establishment and free exercise clauses. back when ron paul was in congress, he wrote in one of his columns that the way that he saw
it, the establish clause was meant to prevent the establishment of unofficial national religion what the church of england, and the way he saw it was there were some who were misinterpreting the establishment clause at the expense of the free exercise clause. i was wondering what both of you had to say in regards to that take. host: thank you. >> i think you are absolutely right. when the founders were thinking about establishment, the experience they were coming out of was the british experience, where the queen is the head of the church of england, the queen and the prime minister appoint bishops, those bishops sit in the house of lords, the government is collecting taxes that are the equivalent of tides that are supporting local parishes in their ministry. that was what the founders meant when they said no establishment, that congress shall make no national establishment. a member of states actually did have establishments into the
1800s. various states had established churches, but that was the framework the founders were guarding against. the first of may meant was really a federalism prevention -- the first amendment was really a federalism provision to allow different communities that wanted not to have a national religion that would override each of those states and their freedoms. what ms. markert is trying to extrapolate from that text into excessive entanglement and empowering judges to strike down things that the founders would have found entirely acceptable in the time the first amendment was written. so we need to go back to that history, that text, and get our decisions based on the rule of law and respecting what the framers actually put in the constitution. >> well, it is not just me extrapolating that. we have writings from the
founders that say what they meant by the establishment clause when they wrote it. and sure, the prohibition against establishing a national church is one of the things behind the attachment clause, but so is erecting this wall of separation between state and church. like i said earlier on this show, thomas jefferson was writing a lot about what the establishment clause meant and what the government could and could not do, and one of those things was not compelling its citizenry to fund religious activities, especially when they do not agree with those activities. he called it sinful and tyrannical. so it is not just rebecca markert saying this. it is the founding fathers. host: rob, hello. caller: yes, good morning. i've got three questions concerning media, religion, and
free speech. a couple of weeks ago a reporter was assassinated in israel. in senegal a person was beaten because of their religion. [indiscernible] -- the they cannot speak any thing negative about israel. in texas, the printable gets dusty principal -- the principal gets fired because they were going to express that a certain ethnic group cannot be preferred over another. host: ok. ms. markert, do you want to start? >> i am not familiar with the international exam for --
international exam that the caller brought up, or the example in texas. if he is still on the line -- host: he's not, i apologize. >> i'm sorry, i don't think i understood what the question was. >> i will do my best. i think you are talking about some of the legislative initiatives to ban what is called critical race theory from classrooms in various states. ultimately, i think we always have to keep in mind in these public education context that teachers are employed by the state to deliver the curriculum that the state or school district set. so it is a response ability if you are going to catch your paycheck, if coach kennedy is going to catch his paycheck, that he needs to do what the cool district -- the school district hired him to do. so if the school district defines its curriculum to teach
american is three a particular way, that is the right of the school district and employees need to review sans of -- to be responsive to that. what makes coach kennedy different from the principal in texas is there are times in the school day when people have flexibility to use their personal time as they wish. in the opinion, justice gorsuch said coach kennedy could have checked his phone. he could have seen what is new on facebook. he could have responded to text messages. he chose to pray, but he had a public time that was flex he bled the end of the game before he was responsible to be in the locker room. some of the players might be showering, might be singing the school fight song. he chose to pray. in those instances, an employee of the school had some personal or private time during the school day ordering their work time that they could use for themselves. that is different from when you are teaching the curriculum that the school has designated for you to teach, and if an employee does not teach that curriculum,
it is the right of the school district discipline them for not doing what they are paid to do. host: ms. markert, do you want to have any response? >> i think the example with coach kennedy, yes, there is a difference. while mr. suhr was talking, i thought, how does he get to the conclusion that he's allowed to pray on the field with everything he had just previously said with what the school district was well within their rights to do because he is a public school employee? the problem is that his duties were not over at that time, and he still had obligations to his team into the school district as an employee, and the school district was well within its rights to say actually, you can't check facebook. you can't take that personal call. you cannot pray because you are still working for us. i think that is not entirely
clear that he was absolutely free to do that. the school, in fact, said he was not. host: bobby in kansas, democrats line. caller: good morning. isaac we have all sat at a dinner table with people of other faiths, some one closed their eyes and said a quick prayer. i don't know why people can't do that even in a school setting. keep it private. keep it to yourself. mr. suhr, can you tell me, what is the function of schools? is it to teach religion, or to teach asthmatics, science, and out of those things? you have churches, you have your home time. parents should be doing the job of teaching the children religion. why are we forcing schools to teach to be religious? do you want your children to only focus on religion in schools? we need to make a choice and start taxing churches, especially the mega churches.
joel o'steen lives in a multi-million-dollar home. jesus christ never lived in a multi-million-dollar home. it is political, and the supreme court in the recent decisions have delegitimized themselves. host: mr. suhr, you start. >> i don't want parents to only teach their kids religion. i want parents to teach their kids everything. i didn't the parents should be the primary attic agers -- primary educators on science, en masse, on reading. i think parents are responsible for their children, and the school's job is to support parents in educating their kids. that is why i believe in school choice because it allows parents to find the school that reflects their values and that is going to give the best education for their children. the other thing that is important to remember is coach kennedy is a public employee still has rights.
he has rights -- his rights don't end of the school door. all the supreme court is saying is that his religious liberty does not evaporate the moment he shows up at his job. that is not just true of religious liberty. that is true of free speech and all the other rights that public employees enjoy just like every american. >> i think the caller is right. there is a way to pray privately and truly in the coach kennedy case, there was a buddhist coach who went and did a personal prayer and it was truly private. it was not at the 50 yard line, it was not in sight of prayers and the opposing team. it wasn't with the invitation to media and legislators and it wasn't the public spectacle that coach kennedy did. if the coach wants to pray, he
can do that in a private and personal manner, not at the 50 yard line stop host: ffr.org is the website. to both of you, thank you for coming on and talking about the largest -- the larger cases. coming up, we will talk with the recent fda decision to pull juul cigarettes off the market and that conversation is coming up on "washington journal." >> book tv features authors discussing their latest nonfiction book. join our live conversation with
carol anderson who will discuss race relations and her latest book. also douglas murray, the author of war on the west. discuss attacks on traditional western culture. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find the full schedule any that tv.org. listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker to plate c-span radio and listening to "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 a.m. catch washington today for a
fast-paced route or on the stories of the take and listen to c-span any time. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america watching on c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jennifer maloney joins us now. she keeps eyes on the tobacco industry.
thanks for giving is your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: a recent decision by the fda concerning e-cigarettes manufacturer, can you set up with the fda decided on this and why they did it? guest: the fda last week ordered juul labs to take its e-cigarette products off the market. it's one of the biggest e-cigarette brands in the u.s. and the action by the fda as part of a broader view its conducting of the industry. all e-cigarette manufacturers had to submit their product or fda review. it was to see if they were appropriate in the fda has been issuing decisions on these products and whether they can stay on the market or not. host: so they turned their attention to the juul cigarettes, why specifically so? guest: they said that juul
provided insufficient or conflicting data -- as part of its application. they say the evidence is hazardous but juul did not provide that information step juul has gone to court and gotten the temporary stay and they are pursuing an appeal. host: when the fda looks for information, what specific information are they looking for from the manufacturer about its product? guest: juul and other manufacturers submitted scientific studies and evidence showing their products were less hazardous than cigarettes which is an important factor they had to present to the fda but also information on whether or not it would present some kind of hazard to the user specifically the fda was questioning juul's
submission on the question of toxicity and whether there were michael's that might lead from the refill pods and whether or not those chemicals might get transferred. broadly, the fda has been waiting the potential benefit of these products for adult cigarette smokers against any potential risk for unintended consequences such as appeal to underage kids or other hazards proposed to users. guest: host: here are the specifics about the decision. after reviewing the companies's applications, the fda determined that they lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate the marketing of the product and the protections of public health and some of the company's findings raise concerns due to insufficient convicting data including toxicity and potential harmful chemicals leaking from
their proprietary liquids. what was juul's response when they got this response from the fda? guest: they said they submit an application and said their products were appropriate for public health, in other words that there is a net benefit to public health and the benefits to adult electronic cigarettes outweigh potential risks. they have also said the fda overlooked 6000 pages of data in the application. in a court filing yesterday, they said the fda claims that juul had cemented no information on its aerosol and juul said we submitted 6000 pages. there has been some question about what the application did and did not cover. host: our guest is with us until 9:30 a.m. and if you want to weigh in, you can call us.
also text us your thoughts. if i understand correctly, what did the lower court do? guest: it granted juul a temporary stay and juul has asked the court for a longer stay that would cover the entire appeals process and that proceeding still under right in fda has to respond to the motion step host: for the ability of someone who uses these products, does that mean they cannot get them or for a limited time? guest: in the immediate aftermath of the fda's announcement last thursday, products came off the shelf. the fda's order was that
retailers had to stop sales immediately. however, juul got an emergency stay. the sales can continue for now and will wait to see whether the court will grant a longer stay that will cover a prolonged appeals process. the emergency stay was enough time to let the court measure the argument for a longer stay. it's also notable that juul and its court filings, the fda in denial acknowledged the fact that juul's products were less harmful than cigarettes so juul 's hinges on the totality of the evidence they submitted. juul says they demonstrated their products are less harmful than cigarettes and that's with the fda should be focusing on step host: you said it's part of a larger review of these type of products. if i were a company that
manufactured this that was not juul, i what i look at the decision from the fda? guest: it depends on whether you have an authorization for your product by the fda. some of juul's competitors already have authorization for some of their products and they can remain on the market. other e-cigarette manufacturers are waiting for a decision. this could raise concerns about whether or not there applications might be contingent on data. the fda didn't say they determined that juul was not the standard for public health. they said they didn't have enough information to make that determination. i imagine other e-cigarette companies are hoping there applications check all the boxes the fda is looking for. host: this is jennifer maloney from the wall street journal joining us so let's hear from
stephanie in indiana, you're on with our guest, go ahead with your russian or comment. caller: i am concerned about the regulation of these e-cigarette products and these they think products that they are promoting to our children. it's a big problem and they are spending a lot of their money and every kid affects the next kid and sometimes they find one kid can smoke it while the other is passing out or having side effects. guest: that is stephanie from indiana, go ahead step is an important point and one that the fda is considering as it reviews these applications. when it -- one of its primary tasks is to weigh the potential for for adult cigarette smokers.
it's against the appeal some of these products have to young people. we have seen a steep rise in under age e-cigarette used followed by a decline. e-cigarettes took the u.s. by storm in 2018 and then they became 18 status symbol overnight. juul became a verb among young people. they were doing it in the school bathroom so it was a concern for lawmakers and regulators and school administrators. there have been some federal policies implemented that have helped cut the decline in the numbers. the minimum tobacco purchase age increased to 21 years old. in the fda also put in flavor restrictions on cartridges so
they could not be fruity and sweet and other flavors they deemed appealing to young people. we have seen a decline in the vaping numbers but there is a big concern for many lawmakers and regulators. the fda has ordered off the market, more than a million vaping products and many of them are liquids that come in all sorts of candy and fruit, flavors that might be appealing to young kids. it's definitely something the fda is weighing. host: the ftc did report on these things and they found that sales of these type of products was 304 million which grew and the fruit flavored carter sales jumped 1600% from that time as well and it says when it comes to nicotine coming 2015, 25 milligrams of nicotine were
found in that concentration they grew to 60% so clearly this is a sector that has grown over the years. it has grown in appeal? guest: right and they are marketing these two adults as well. they became popular around 2018 in part because of jewel which presented a product on the market which has an appealing design and it was shaped like a usb drive and the engineering was unique. it also had a proprietary recipe let's call it that gave cigarette smokers enough nicotine in a way that satisfied the nicotine craving so they can actively switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes and it was different for products that had been on the market before. many cigarette smokers had tried earlier versions of e-cigarettes
in the couldn't get the nicotine they needed for their dependence. they tried them and they went back to cigarettes and juul was different because it ushered in a new generation of vaping that was more satisfying for people who needed that nicotine stuff the products were really appealing to young people. regulators now are trying to weigh the risk of gens the potential benefits and they are reshaping the vaping market. it had been unregulated until recently. the fda is trying to rein in this wild west of they can products. host: is the regulation just in the biden administration where did this start in previous administrations? guest: it started in previous
administrations. the obama administration asserted regulatory authority on e-cigarettes for the first time in 2016. these had not been regulated by the fda previously. that was a priority of the obama administration to say we will regulate this. there were several years that they got companies to submit applications. there wasn't action for several years. the process moved forward and there was a lot of discussion under one fda commissioner in particular who talked about trying to encourage cigarette smokers to stick to less harmful options. also during that time, vaping
became a significant problem. the fda took several actions to try to rein in the underage vaping than the oh biden administration came in and they have several policies looking at the industry from the cigarette side and the e-cigarette site. host: jennifer malone is joining us from the wall street journal. this is from aaron in michigan. caller: i'm wondering why the fda is such a vendettas against juul but they don't go after flavored disposables which are taken over the market. and why are disposables allowed? guest: that's a good question. this goes back to 2020 when
under the trump administration, the fda grappled with vaping. they looked at these fruity flavors that were dealing kids. they were working on crafting a policy that would take the most appealing products for kids off the market temporarily until the fda completed its review of every product. there was some back-and-forth with the trump administration about how to pass this policy initially they thought they would take all the flavors off the market and all device types but there was concern about how this would affect small businesses and fake shops and it was an argument that the vapes shop catered more to adults. it was about to e-cigarettes that had cartridges you could
attach and at the time they were popular. the fda made a targeted policy that would have only put the flavor restriction on products like juul that had refill cartridges and it did not apply to the vapes shop diy and didn't apply to disposables and there was a concern after the policy was rolled out the disposables would be a loophole and then people could switch from devices like juul to a disposable. with most e-cigarettes, you just are the amount. disposables were available in 30 flavors in the fda said they had other tools at their disposal to address that. many of the disposables ended up being on the market. they had been introduced to the market after the cutoff date in 2016, beyond which no new products were allowed or put on
the market without prior authorization by the fda. the fda individually went after these manufactures and said you have to take this off, they are not legally being marketed in the u.s. that was a time consuming and laborious process. one of the popular disposable e-cigarettes that attracted the attention of the fda was tough bar -- puff bar. they said you have to take your products off the market and that has in the fda approach with disposables but it has not have the same sweeping effect as the policy that says no fruity flavored e-cigarette cartridges. it has been kind of whack a mole and many retailers still carry the disposables. host: we have of you on twitter who asked --
guest: i don't have the number offhand but it's certainly lobbying has been a concerted effort. we've seen that juul has had limited success in washington. i remember covering it juul when was public enemy number one in 2019 and they had lobbyists working for them and they ended up alienating regulators and lawmakers. they attracted the ire of their regulator. they have since tried to mend the relationships and regain the trust of the public and of the regulators and lawmakers. they have voluntarily taken the pretty flavors off the market. they have voluntarily stopped most of their u.s. advertising and shut down the u.s. facebook page.
they have set they want to be responsible and transparent and regain the trust of the public. they have been trying to really pick -- rehabilitate their image and demonstrate they can be responsible but this decision from the fda is a big setback for them was to host: let's hear from nico in massachusetts. caller: thank you so much for the questions. i have three but i will start with the first one. do you have evidence that political pressure contributed to this order? if so, what does it say about the fda credibility? guest: no, i do not have any evidence that political pressure is part of the process. we know there was political pressure and there were lawmakers that were actively calling on the fda to take juul
off the market but i have no evidence that influenced the scientific review process and the fda has said their decision was based on scientific evidence on the application that juul submitted and called it insufficient. host: how much regulation does the cigarette industry have compared to the tobacco industry? guest: that's an interesting question. there were many of -- are many things they are left to do that the cigarette industry cannot. for example, dating back to the 1990's, cigarette industry was barred from sumps -- certain types of marketing like tv and radio and billboards and free swag t-shirts and characters like joe,. camel. many of those were barred for cigarettes and have remained
illegal -- remained legal cigarettes also the fda issues authorizations for cigarettes to stay in the market. in each of the authorizations, the fda is still exercising certain marketing restrictions. they complete those reviews and determine which products can stay on the market will step host: how does the tobacco industry view the e-cigarette industry? guest: the tobacco industry views the e-cigarette industry as its future. u.s. smoking rate has been declining for decades. the tobacco companies have been thinking about what the future of their business will be. they know they will not be able to rely on cigarette sales forever and they need to pivot
to other alternative products. they have been developing or acquiring nicotine products such as nicotine patches and lozenges and e-cigarettes and tobacco devices with an eye toward a pivot to the future as consumers look to switch to other devices and sources of nicotine knowing that cigarettes are the most harmful form of nicotine consumption the cigarette company see e-cigarettes as the future and this is a bad time foraltria which makes marlboro because they have a big stake in juul. they are the biggest shareholder and juul was supposed to be a big part of their future, they made a big that on it, $12.8
billion for this stake in juul in 2018. it's a setback for them that juul has been restricted. host: let's hear from juan in new jersey. caller: thanks for taking my call. i would like to ask ms. malone, the fda took up the e-cigarettes but legalized marijuana. my point is that when you smoke marijuana, this is a matter of protecting the public and protecting teenagers, they smoked marijuana with no filters and they are getting the full effect of hydrocarbons and its critical to take one off the market and endorse the other. guest: it's an interesting point. should note that there is no
federal regulation of cannabis product in the u.s. for that something that has been under discussion. i think it's interesting that as a society, we are becoming more open to the idea of marijuana but the same time in the past several years, e-cigarettes have been vilified. regulators would say they want to help provide a menu of options for adult cigarette smokers. they want to be able to provide alternatives that are significantly less harmful but they are waiting that against the risk to young people and they want to make sure anything they offer is for the u.s. market provides a net and if it's a public health. it will be interesting to see on
the cannabis question whether we see some kind of legalization and if so, what would regulation look like. with the fda take regulatory control over the cannabis market? host: before we let you go, in the reading up on this, one of the questions was on the future mental cigarettes. what does that future hold on menthol cigarettes? guest: host: this is hanging over the tobacco industry at the moment step under the buying administration, the fda is moving forward on a rule to ban all menthol cigarettes in the u.s.. u.s. health officials say menthol cigarettes are harder to quit and pose a greater health risk than traditional cigarettes and that they are appealing to young people and getting young people hooked at an early age and it makes it harder to quit.
you may know from a methylated cough drop that that cooling sensation, menthol cigarette set a similar situation. it makes it easier for someone who has never smoked or a young kid to pick up a menthol and get hooked on cigarettes. it would take several years to take effect in the market but as part of their overall goal to address smoking related abuse and death and they hope it will help people quit overtime or switch to less armful products. host: you can find her work at wsj.com, thanks for your time today. guest: thanks for having me. host: we will finish off the program with open phones until 10:00 a.m..
you can call him right now and we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. >> live sunday on in-depth, emory university professor carol anderson will be our guest to talk about race in america, voting rights and gun regulation. she is the author of several books. in-depth sunday with carol anderson live at noon on book tv and on c-span ms. jean-pierre:. -- c-span2. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office so here those
conversation on our new port podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson he will hear about the civil rights act, the presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on selma in the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly, johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. they were the one to make sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> presidential recordings, find
it on the c-span no mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: if you want to participate in open phones and send us a text -- president biden continued to travel overseas and the associated press reported that the president said wednesday u.s. will significantly increase military presence in your the long haul which includes by establishing its first permanent presence in poland. there -- he is meeting with the nato secretary in madrid president buttons that nato is strong and united and steps to be taken during the gathering will further augment our collective strength. he said the basing of a u.s. military garrison in poland, the
u.s. is sending two additional f-35 squadrons to the u.k. in most say and more -- and send most -- more capability in germany and italy. they say nato is formally invited finland and sweden. that's happening overseas and domestically in washington, d.c., the health and human set -- human services secretary talk about the next steps for the biden administration in light of the supreme court ruling on roe v. wade. here is a portion of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> hhs will take steps to increase access to abortion.
we provide medication to abortion many circumstances such as the life of the woman, report incensed. now more than ever, it is imperative all federally supported programs and services are complying with the law. i'm directing the office for civil rights within hhs to ensure patient to see nondiscrimination for patients seeking reproductive health care. as well as providers who offer that reproductive health care service. third, i'm directing the department to examine its authority under the emergency treatment and active labor act to ensure that critical judgment of doctors and hospitals is supported in treating pregnant patients including those experiencing pregnancy loss or complications and reaffirming that abortion care can be
appropriate to stabilize patients. fourth, i am directing all agencies in my department to make sure all providers from doctors to pharmacists to clinics have appropriate training and resources -- and resources to handle family-planning needs and hoping patients navigate this new reality. if i am directing the centers for medicaid services to take every legal available step to protect family-planning care including emergency contraceptives and long acting reversible contraception such as iud. host: you can see more of that at c-span and the wall street journal follows up and looking what they can do legislatively. they tried twice to pass the woman's l protection act.
some states moved to enforcement dance and restrictions and house speaker nancy pelosi said monday that the democratic caucus was exploring whether to hold hearings on the abortion bill is looking into measures to increase support of health care apps that could be used by prosecutors in certain states. in comment on this question we will start with james in new york. caller: i just wanted to mention a point about the conversation you had with wall street journal reporter. with seems to get missed in the discussion is that there were millions of americans with -- who have successfully quit smoking using e-cigarettes. those people who are being most
adversely affected by the fda's sweeping prohibitionist policy here. it's not just big tobacco companies that are being affected. there are lots of americans were trying to stay off cigarettes using baking products. the other thing that got overlooked is with you the vaping, according to the government owned data, it is down more than 60% in just the last two years. this notion that there is some problem there is wrong will stop its mistaken it's troubling that the lives of ordinary american consumers seem to be getting lost in this inside the beltway horserace analysis. host: let's go to john, democrats line from new jersey stop caller: i think since the
abortion decision by the supreme court, i think this has become the new dred scott decision of our era. i think the supreme court has lost a lot of support with a lot of people. i think the problem with the supreme court is it has gone to ideologically conservative to the point where there is no middle ground in those decisions. the demonstrations you see with a lot of women is they feel their autonomy has been taken away. what clarence thomas said in his statements shows why samuel jackson called him and uncle clarence.
as an african-american, i think the issue is the supreme court has lost support with a lot of people because of its push toward the right. host: that's john in new jersey. this highlights the fact that today, the court will have another previously unscheduled decision day. they could curb the regulatory powers of an agency but could curb federal bureaucracies to broadly issue regulations not outlined by legislation. the one thing we said is that congress must be clear if it wishes to assign an agency decision to best economic and political decisions. look for that play out at about 10:00 today and that's when the decisions will start coming down stuff tom in new jersey,
republican line, go ahead. caller: hey, i am 18 but here's the thing, i cannot -- i can't afford to drive and i cannot afford to get a car because these guest raises a ridiculously expensive. i think the abortion debate is important stuff i'm pro-life but this is a distraction stop the president is talking about america's most pressing issue. i disagree. i think we have so many columns in this country and the president is incompetent. is always making mistakes and i have never seen him not fail. i think he needs to clean house. he has not fired anybody even though he botched afghanistan and he botched energy, he botched the economy.
frankly, if he has any common sense, take an ax to the cabinet and get some people who know what the hell they are doing. that's how i feel. host: let's go to wil in north carolina, democrats line. caller: can you hear me? this is my first time calling and i enjoy the show. i drive trucks and i enjoy the show. i want to make a quick point about the woman who testified and i think she was credible. people lie in spots in the kind of stutterer sound restrictive but if you listen to her, she was extremely fluid seems like she was recounting everything that happened in the past and it was just flowing. i think her age, 24 or 25, nobody that young ever in front
of millions of people in front of committee members and congresspeople, it was hard for her to be that poison confident. she was telling the truth. trump is a cultlike following so-called members will not talk the truth if the truth is against their opinion. he says he's getting bullied and everyone is picking on him. it got came out of the sky and said trump was lying, they would still say he is telling the truth. host: that's will in north carolina step it was yesterday during the hearing that kaylee hutchinson was featured.
there was initial talk about the rally in january 6 with president trump attorney rudy giuliani. [video clip] >> on january 2, four days before the attack on capital, president trump lead lawyer, mr. giuliani was meeting with white house chief of staff mark meadows and others. do you remember mr. giuliani meeting with mr. meadows in january 2, 2021? >> i do, he met with him in the evening. >> we understand you walked mr. giuliani out of the white house that night and he talked to you about january 6, what do you remember him saying? >> as we were walking to his vehicle that evening, he looked at me and said something to the effect of, gosh are you excited? it's going to be a great day. i remember looking at him and saying rudy, can you explain what's happening on the sixth? he responded to the effective,
we are going to the capital and it's going to be great. the president is going to look powerful. he will be with the senators. talk to the chief about it, he knows about it. >> did you go back up to the west wing until mr. meadows a better conversation with mr. giuliani? >> i did after he left the campus. i went up to our office and i found mr. meadows in his office on the couch and he was leaning against the doorway and i said i had an interesting conversation with rudy that we are going to the capital. he didn't look up from his phone and said something to be effective, there is a lot going on but things might get real bad on january 6. >> mr. meadows is engaged in litigation with the committee to try to avoid testifying here. what was your reaction when he
said these things might get real, real bad? >> in the days before january 2, i was apprehensive. i had heard general plans for a rally and herded could potentially go to the capital. when hearing rudy's take, that evening was the first moment that i remember feeling scared. and nervous for what could happen on january 6. and i had a deeper concern for what was happening with the planning aspect of it. host: that whole hearing is available at www.c-span.org or error c-span now app. liz cheney will speak of the reagan library tonight and you can see that at 9:00 p.m. on error network, our app and the website. franco in pennsylvania,
republican line. caller: hello, can you hear me? the first thing i want to talk about is the january 6 earrings have waste a lot of money. mike stanger was the head of security and was supposed to testify on monday but he suddenly died the day before. all the democrats are complaining about burning coal and oil but how come we're the only country doing it? russia, china, india, all these emissions are going in the here, does it matter if we are doing anything because they're in missions are going up?
and with these riots, remember back in 2020 when all the riots were happening, you don't hear nothing about that. you hear nothing about biden's son, that's the stuff they should have on these were hearings about biden's son. host: let's go to billy and crockett, texas, democrats line. caller: thank you, thank you, thank you. c-span is number one because they let people speak until the truth. we are one nation under god but we have more good people under the guidance of god. speaking about that, i applaud the young lady who was speaking out, she is telling the truth and everybody said she isn't telling the truth. a group of racists are coming
around stirring up people but those days are over with stuff we have more great people together than the evil people getting together against them. that's why we are the strongest nation on this earth. russia will never win their war. keep your faith in god. god is real and we can always reach out to god and will be number one. host: from chico, california, debbie republican line. caller: cassidy is not a republican. she is a registered democrat. i have a source called spy flight where you look up people's backgrounds and it tells their address and everything. she is a democrat and i think she is a mole. i don't know how she got hired. host: if you thanks -- if you
think that's the case, why would mark meadows hire her? guest: caller: maybe she lied. as for his or testimony, i think it's too detailed and scripted. i think she was assigned a script and that's what she did. you can see how her eyes are shifty and that tells you she is a liar. that's body language right there. host: ok, let's hear from robert in massachusetts, deming that's line. caller: thank you for taking michael. i just want to say the country needs healing and people have to come with their truth. if donald trump knows that the people with guns or whatever and then he wants them to walk to
the capital, what kind of mindset is that? i just want the american people know that we have knowledge of the donald trump picture, we don't need donald trump, he is a psychopath so we must move on from donald trump and then we start believing not the lies. even when he said he grabbed a woman, people said it wasn't him. we have to wake up, america. this is insanity. things will not cool down if we don't wake up. host: that's robert in massachusetts on the wall street journal reports on the future of what the coronavirus vaccine might look like.
that's not being talked about enough. there is a failure of congress to fully expand permanently the free meals to all students in public schools. over the pandemic, we were able to make sure that every single child was able to have free school meals for breakfast and lunch and whatnot. that's going to be expiring and i leave congress just passed were the house passed something but it will not be permanent the extending the waiver that made sure every single child have a free meal regardless of their income status. in high school, i had free lunch during high school and i know that can be stigmatizing to folks and many times with
various paperwork, sometimes, you well if i for one year and sometimes you don't. it's kind of crazy in various places like new york city or philadelphia. i believe it's free for every single child we don't that -- but we don't do that over the rest of the country. i would urge congress to make sure every single child is fed. host: npr says after the 21st, the school waiver is expiring at nine days but congress may try to save them. a bipartisan group of lawmakers on tuesday announced a plan to extend the free meal waivers. the waivers increase the reimbursement rate for school food programs and if you want to
read more of it, it's on npr. rate in syracuse, new york, republican line. caller: i wanted to comment on the discussion about whether or not the january 6 hearings constitute truth or anything close to that and it sitting and the prosecutor and the defense are asking questions to determine if you would make a good juror, they start with questions about whether you heard anything about this case are whether you know the people involved. if you think about this particular situation, we the people who are watching this are potential jurors but is this
actually went into a court room and was going to be done correctly and legally, we would be exempted. we wouldn't appeal out on this because we watched it. did you know anybody involved or have you watched any of the television about these hearings? host: that's great in new york, let's go to jill in iowa, democrats line stop caller: thanks for all of your patients. i don't know how you listen to some of these people. might be with kathy hutchinson and clearly she is a very credible witness. it's probably people who did the real work in the white house while trump was on his phone. the treasure discredit her and dozens of prize me that these
men are doing that step i'm sure donald trump sees any woman as i candy most i think her moral compass is so much more accurate than the men she was working for and all the people complaining that there is no cross-examination this theory and there are no witnesses for trump. they need to remember that these witnesses are all republicans and what the hearing will lead to is it will each week trial. we will get to the date at some point will stop the meeting at the willard motel will be -- willard hotel will be important because that's where the planning occurred. she told mark meadows not to go but it did not stop him from dialing in and there are records of those phone calls somewhere and they will come out and the cult is crying foul because the emperor's been revealed to have no new close. he is going to jail and lots of
people will be going to jail with him. he needs to buy the -- find a special prosecutor and find it fast. host: let's go to aaron and maryland, independent line. i like to weigh in whether ms. hutchinson is writable. i think she is because she was cool, calm and collected her cadence was such that it was believable. my mother used to save it till the truth -- if you want to tell the truth, you don't need a good memory. i want to compare her testimony to jim jordan's answer when a journalist asked him if he had talked to donald trump on january 6. he did not answer. sometimes yes, no, and maybe
your potential jurors can ask you questions and if he had mask question like that, he could have been disqualified he named the journalist. host: let's hear from bill in albany, new york, republican line. caller: i watch washington journal almost every morning. from what i understand in the last election, the legislature, the state legislatures have to
get together if there are any changes. because of the coronavirus, there had to be changes in how people vote. the legislators had to get together and make that change to the governors. the governors made the decision without going to the legislature. so it's unconstitutional, the change goes the way of voting. i would like you to have someone who knows and is unbiased politically knows about the constitution of state and federal government regarding any kind of voting procedures. host: that finishes off this half-hour of open forum and the program for today. thanks to those who watched and
participated. another addition of "washington journal" comes your way tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. we will see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including coz. -- cox. >> squatting in a diner for internet work is even harder. that is why we are providing more low-income students access to affordable internet. cox, along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy.
here is what is ahead today on c-span. coming up, the use of voice, fingerprint and facial recognition technology and its impact on personal privacy. live coverage of this house hearing begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern. then a progress report on federal efforts to support noncitizen members of the military, the house judiciary immigration subcommittee. you can see that live starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern. also tonight, wyoming republican congresswoman liz cheney speaks of the reagan library. she is the vice chair of the january 6 committee. live coverage of her remarks begins at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you cannot to watch all of these events on our free mobile app or at c-span.org. also coming up, join us for exclusive live coverage of the hearing on the housing market and home prices. the financial services committee hearing gets underway at noon eastern and again, you can watch
it live on the c-span now app. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the events with live streams and hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio plus a variety of podcasts. c-span's app is available on the apple store and google play. download free today. c-span now: your front row seat to washington, anywhere. c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january 6 committee hearings investigating the attacks on the capitol. go to c-span.org/january6 to
watch the latest videos of the hearings, briefings, and all of our coverage on the attack and subsequent investigations since january 6, 2021. we also have a reaction from members of congress and the white house as well as journalists and authors talking about the investigation. go to c-span.org/january6 for a fast and easy way to watch when you can't see it live. host: for the next hour, we talk about the issue of religious liberty, particularly as it stems from cases heard in the supreme court. two guests joining us for this conversation in studio, daniel with the liberty justice center serving other managing attorney. a little bit about your center and the positioning that you take, sir? guest: the liberty justice center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan law firm that protect the rights of all americans in court. we are not a religious liberty law firm.