>> comg up on c-span's washington journal, we will take calls and comments live. and then time magazineational political reporter eric cortellessa talks about his interview with preside trump -- former president tru aut his vision for a potential second term office and shall be tted discusses the trump

campaign's process for selecting a running mate for the former president. and then michael newton on the process of prosecuting war crimes in the international criminal court in the context of the both israel-hamas war and russia's invasion of ukraine. "washington journal" starts now. host: good morning. we begin the conversation on the campus protests around the country. will it impact your vote in 2024? democrats, dialing this morning at (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. join us in a text, including first name, city, and state at (202)-748-8003. or on facebook.com/c-span and you can also post on x with the handle, @cspanwj. while we wait for calls, let's begin with president biden's unexpected remarks on this

yesterday. "the washington post" this morning frames it this way, biden calls for peace on campus. here is a little bit of what he had to say. [video clip] pres. biden: there should be no place on any campus or in america for antisemitism or violence. there is no place for hate speech, whether it is islamophobia, discrimination against palestinian americans, it is simply wrong. there is no place for racism in america. i understand people have strong feelings and deep convictions. in america, we respect and protect the right for them to express that, but it doesn't mean anything goes. it needs to be done without violence and destruction, without hate, and within the law . make no mistake, as president, i will always defend free speech

and be just as strong standing up for the rule of law, that is my responsibility and obligation to the constitution. thank you very much. >> [indiscernible] have there protests forced do to reconsider guarding the region? pres. biden: no. >> do think the national guard should intervene? pres. biden: no. [end video clip] host: president biden on thursday. "wall street journal" this morning, biden under pressure from democrats and republicans to address the growing campus protests and remarks hastily scheduled, he condemned violence while acknowledging the "peaceful protests and how americans respond to consequential issues." some pressure came from his rival in the 2020 four election

cycle, former president trump accusing president biden of not speaking out more forcefully. here's what trump had to say to rally on wednesday. [video clip] >> think of it, he has not been heard from. you have a problem like that, you should talk to the people, but there is a big fever in our country and he's not talking. but if he did, it wouldn't matter. i think it would make it worse. many of them are not students and they come from foreign countries. thousands are from foreign countries. i was wondering about that, where do these people come from? to every college president, i say, vanquish the radicals and take back our campuses for all of the normal students who would like a safe place from which to learn. [end video clip] host: that was the former president on wednesday at a rally, campaign rally. this morning, do these campaign protests impact your 2024 vote?

if so, we would like to hear from you. if they are not in your top list of issues, we would like to hear from you, as well. let us know why not. here is how we have divided the lines. democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. also, as we said, text us, include your first name, city and state at (202)-748-8003. or you can go to facebook.com/c-span and on x, @cspanwj. robert in indiana, republican. will these protests impact your vote in 2024? caller: well -- [laughter] he condones it, but he don't say

what he's going to do about it. just three minutes and he is gone. hes like a broken record. he is not running this country. i don't know who is running it. i have ver -- i'm 87 years old, and i have never in my life seen a country le we have got. theyeed to put the national guard at these colleges. personally, i think ey ought to close all the colges. they just go there to party or district. they don't go there to learn. we just need someone to get the country straightened out. host: in indiana. paul in new york, republican. your turn. caller: good morning. the protests will not affect my

vote for the upcoming election. i would never vote for joe biden. looking at the way he has handled everything going on right now, he cannot come out and speak. these are paid agitators going into these campuses and doing these takeovers. they are not protests or encampments, this is takeover. this needs to be stopped. aoc, bernie sanders are all for this garbage i need to be voted out of office -- and need to be voted out of office. host: what motivates you to vote if not issues like this one? caller: i just paid $3.75 a gallon in new york state for gas. it wasn't like that when donald trump was in office. groceries are expensive. host: so it is the economy, paul. caller: the border is a mess. trump had the border so not.

it was nice when he was in office -- trump had the border sewn up. it was nice when he was in office. biden, what the hell are you doing? host: "the associated press" reporting, the demonstrations began at columbia on april 17, with students calling for an end to the israel hamas or, which has killed more than 34,000 palestinians in the gaza strip according to the health ministry there. israel launched a defensive and gaza after hamas militants killed about 1200 people, sleep civilians, on october 7 and took 250 hostages in an attack on southern israel. on april 18, nypd cleared an encampment and arrested roughly 100 protesters. the demonstration set up new tenants and escalated their actions early on tuesday. an administration building was

similarly seized in 1960 eight by students protesting racism in the vietnam war. here's president biden yesterday on the level of unrest seen across college campuses in america. [video clip] pres. biden: let me be clear, peaceful protest in america, violent protest is not protected. he spoke protest is. it is against the law when violence occurs. this during property is not a peaceful protest. it is against the law. vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and graduation, none of this is a peaceful protest. threatening and intimidating people, it is not peaceful protest. it is against the law. dissent is essential to democracy but it must never lead to disorder or to denying the rights of others so students cannot finish their college

education. it is a matter of fairness and what is right. there is the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos. [end video clip] host: more from president biden's remarks at the white house yesterday, they were unscheduled, and the newspapers reporting he hasn't said anything publicly about them in nearly two weeks. this morning, we would like to know, will these protests and this issue that students are protesting impact your vote in 2024? the former president outside of the hush money trial in new york yesterday also talked about these protests. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> on the colleges and universities, it is a shame. i am so proud of new york's finest and the great people. there are so many, they are incredible. likewise, in los angeles, they did a really good job at ucla.

very much embedded. this is the radical left. this is a movement from the left, not the right. the right is not your problem, despite what law enforcement likes to say. the fbi director says that he worries about the rights. don't worry about the right. it is fine. worry about the left. this is a movement from the left, these are radical, left lunatics who need to be stopped now. this is going to get worse and worse, and they take over countries, ok. we are not letting them take over the usa. we are not letting the radical left more rounds take over this country. you cannot let that happen, and the law enforcement and people doj, instead of going after donald trump, they ought to look at what is happening in their own offices. we are not going to let this country fail. thank you. [end video clip]

host: former president in new york yesterday on campus protests. will this impact your 2024 vote?robert in texas, independent. what do you say? caller: i am that i'm 79 years old, i spent my early career in the navy, in which i fervently believe that the u.s. service was the best there was. worked under president johnson, president nixon, president carter, on and on and on. i fervently believed in everything we were doing, but i now realize the entire system has been organized by crooked

corporations and that we are all subject to those corporations. host: you have to tie this back to the question we are asking, will campus protest impacted 2024 vote? caller: it will. it is against all those crooks that backed up our current administration which put only a man in front of the store shaking hands will everybody in the back was asking for money. host: leroy, baltimore, democrat. caller: good morning. no, these protests will not expect more votes. i believe in peaceful protests, yes, i do because they have the right to protest, but what will

affect my vote is i'm definitely voting for joe biden because the other guy, donald trump, incited a riot on the capitol. i remember in days going to school, we put our hands over our heart and said the pledge of allegiance to our constitution. this other guy incited a riot, and he said he did not when people storm the capitol. it will not affect my vote. let me hear your reactions to open with the new york times" headlines -- reaction to "the new york times" headline, president biden's bid is under a new threat from the powerful combination of two conflicts rudy has little direct control over israel's war with hamas and the deepening rift in the u.s. over america's role in it. the two crises unfolded aisles away from each other, merging to crystallize a wider set of division in the united states

society that are challenging biden's shaky political standing. how do you respond? caller: right, he is fighting two wars at the same time. you can only do so much, one man can only do so much. he is fighting two wars but i still believe who has the knowledge to get us out of it, not the guy on the others, mr. trump, who i read recently who said if he doesn't win michigan, he's letting people know that there will be violence in the country. this is a guy who would like to be president and will tell you that there will be violence in the country, and that is what he said at the capital. what you should do is walk down the street and take the capitol. host: let's go to new york, publican, lee -- republican, lee. caller: i think the college

campus riots affected everyone' vote, according to national news reports, a large arab-muslim population in michigan said they will not vote for biden because he supported israel. by then said the u.s. will bring in palestinian refugees with the promise of citizenship. egypt, saudi arabia, lebanon refused palestinian refugees because of their indoctrination would put their own countries imperil. host: how do you know there is a terrorist indoctrination with all palestinians? caller: because according to a different report, they say in palestine, gaza, even children are being brought up to be indoctrinated into israel. host: eric, baltimore,

independent. caller: let me tell you why -- first of all, i'm 52, i enthusiastically voted for barack obama in 2008 and 2012. held my vote against clinton. could not stand it anymore. i will never vote for a democrat ever again. they are funding a genocide, and the least of republicans let you know they are neo-nazis and racist, the democrats have that sleight-of-hand that they do, and it is ridiculous. one time, nancy pelosi, i have

been collecting dust in my basement for the 80's. they are just clouds, and we need a new revolution. i support the campus protests 120%. i cannot even explain how much i support them. host: how will you vote in november? caller: i'm either voting for chase oliver, courtney delacruz or cornell west. i was supporting joe stein. you can look at my twitter, and i have a picture with joe stein. i'm not supporting her because the green party has a bunch of clones and their party, too. god bless you. i will leave it there. host: edward, ohio, independent. caller: yes. host: welcome to the conversation. share your thoughts. caller: it is pretty simple. biden has done a great job, i think, in deciding what to do

with ukraine, how to handle putin or try to handle putin, but trump's is a totally different animal, and that is what he is. he acts like an animal, he acts like a mob boss, and he would like to bring in the military, the national guard. he is really not the type of person, and of people will look at what he is on trial for, it is not college campuses causing all of this in the u.s., it is the division of donald trump and company. he appointed three justices to the supreme court, and they have really prostituted our government. i really believe that if we would get behind biden or a

candidate that would really like to do something for the country and not just further himself, we would be a lot better off, and joe biden is 10 times better than donald trump. host: do you think he's handled the campus protests effectively? caller: he came out and said what needed to be said. there is nothing wrong with protests, nothing at all. it is a way of life in the u.s., but what we really need to make sure, do not get these outsiders -- you know, trump would like to say that they are the left, what makes you think they are not the right infiltrating the campuses and stirring up trouble just so it makes for a harder election vote? i really think that this was timed and put in place by people, and i don't want to point fingers at the backers behind donald trump and donald trump himself love seeing this

chaos. host: you don't believe that these protests are organic? what are you saying? caller: i think they are legitimate. look what is happening to the palestinians. why can't we enforcement the yahoo! -- enforce netanyahu to go back to the 62 borders? why do they have to take the rights to gaza strip and go for more land there what they were given in 1949? all these settlements on violation of what was agreed upon, and we need to stop the incarceration of palestinians just for trying to move about their country or the loan tried to go somewhere, anywhere near israel. netanyahu is facing genocide possibly in the world court, and he should. host: we are going to talk about

that in our last hour for all of you interested, were crimes and the role in international criminal court. i called newton, with extensive experience in the arena, will join us for that conversation -- michael newton with extensive experience in the area will join us for conversation. axios saying that president trump kept his distance from the protest on college campuses, devoting time to hostage negotiations than the unrest unfurling at home. yesterday when biden delivered unplanned remarks defending students rights to protest but condemning campus violence, it was clear that the strategy had become unsustainable. why it matters? the next phase of biden's dueling foreign policy may prove even more difficult. if benjamin netanyahu had vowed, "with or without the hostage deal to forge ahead with a

ground invasion of rafah, were more than one million palestinians are sheltering." in the u.s., universities are trying to avoid high-profile disruptions to graduation ceremonies, including in atlanta, where biden is scheduled to deliver the commencement address. mark, philadelphia, democrat. caller: hey, greta. good to see you. quick aside, are we going to have the contenders this year? i really enjoyed your segment. is that going to happen again or is that is off the board? host: no plan to revive the contenders series, not that i know of, but i'm glad you enjoyed the series that we did. for those interested, you can find it at c-span.org. caller: anyway, getting to the topic at hand, first of all, how they are blaming fighting for this is beyond me.

last time i checked, peaceful protests are a right. i am a boomer in my mid-70's. i remember the vietnam protests in my mid-60's. this is a walk in the park compared to them. to blame it on resident biden is inexplicable. biden came out and said what he had to say. nothing wrong with protests, but, you know, no violence. i think the people that are for trump are going to blame biden for everything. somebody spits on the sidewalk in philadelphia, it is biden's fault. somebody does something in new york city, it is his fault. that's the way i look at it, it is another talking point for trump and his backers, but i think biden -- it is not going to affect my vote. host: when you say this is a walk in the park compared to the

vietnam protests, what did you mean? caller: well, i can remember -- i attended university in philadelphia, and at columbia university, the students took over the administration building. they are not doing that at columbia now. you look at what happened in the 1968 democratic convention in chicago, it was an all-out war between the chicago police and the protesters. people were getting their heads crushed and there was blood on the streets. and that was constant. when i was at university in the late 1960's, at my university, there were protests every week, and there were thousands of people, not hundreds, thousands who would turn out. host: mark with the comparison

of the college protests we are seeing now to the protests on college campuses in 1968. jim, new york, republican. caller: i'm getting a little sick and tired of the democrats blaming everything on trump. this has been going on for far too long. host: college protests? caller: yeah. they destroy staff, and then during the 2020 election series, they destroyed monuments, federal buildings, police guard, and we don't see nothing about that. january 6, up, there was no burning down stuff or hurting people. like there was during the 2020 election. everybody would like to blame donald trump.

i am a u.s. army airborne veteran, disabled from deployment, and i don't appreciate -- and i am a free constitutional american, the only one in the party that i know of, and i called it the way i see it. it going on right now is because of the democrats sitting in the oval office through the senate and house. host: we will go to georgia, lee, democrat. caller: good morning. hope you are doing well. the protests will not change my vote. i'm standing with biden because what is so often lacking is the humanity and the discussions and

so many other things that we talk about, but, you know, the former president steps out and cannot even comment on the protests about somebody being a more on without dehumanizing people. i think even though it is popular, these protests are not going to change my vote for biden because the reason he is careful before he reacts is because if you have humanity, you can see that what israel has done to its 13,000 kids that were killed so far, the civilians in palestine-gaza, what happened to israel on october 7, these are horrible things. both things can be true. what i like about the president is that everyone is flawed, but he has seen the humanity on all sides, and we need more of that.

we don't need more name-calling or people to inform the situation. were people were out on the streets, they watched police murder people on live television. things escalate and escalate. somebody has to step in. a real leader has to step in and address the humanity of all the people. host: are you concerned about the israel-hamas for and what is happening and how the president is handling it that it could divide your own party? and that that could impact whether or not the president it's a second term? caller: absolutely. i believe i heard bernie sanders a day or two ago say that it could be biden's vietnam.

give me chills. as a lover of history, no, it is not exactly the same, but, yes, to your question, i'm concerned with johnson in vietnam and like carter and iran that the circumstances outside of the president's control could cost us, and while we are talking about whoever the protesters -- you know, we were putting a lot of -- they were putting a lot of comments on their food requests on whether they wanted bagels or not. silly things. meanwhile, your cohost have had people on to discuss, we already have project 2025 ready to go. i think they will have a guest later who will talk about they have concrete plans to overhaul

and undermine government as we know it. host: who is "they?" caller: the heritage foundation primarily, and the incoming potential trump administration. you have had great discussions about the project 2025, where they have outlined the total rethinking into giving more centralized power to the president. those are real concerns that are very possible, especially in light of what you said, with us being divided because, you know, younger, college aged, and some of the far left on our party are holding biden accountable for what a sovereign country is doing. yes, we see israel as our ally strategically, but we cannot dictate every move they make. they have overstepped.

you are right. i'm concerned, to your point. host: you might be interested in "the wall street journal" this morning, only a tiny share of voters, as few as 2% in a journal survey this year, see u.s. policy toward the war in gaza as the issue most important to their vote. economic issues draw more concern among voters, particularly among those undecided or not fully committed to their choice of candidate. that is true even among young voters, according to a harbored useful, which found foreign policy was a lower priority for voters under 30 than they were economic issues which remain the top concern. more students were cynical about u.s. policy, seen as it is beholden to contractors. none of the 16 students in a group done. trump would handle the were better than biden and he said that the issue with determine their vote. presented with this two candidate ballot with only trump

and biden, six of the 16 so they would not vote at all, and seven said they would back biden and three would back trump. that is from "the wall street journal." we are coming up on "the wall street journal," going to talk with time magazine eric cortellessa, a national political reporter with time magazine. he sat down with the former president for two interviews. as you know, the former president does not do a lot of interviews, the so-called mainstream media, so we will talk about that interview, the cover of time magazine. some of you may have seen it. if he wins -- there it is on your screen -- oscar, oklahoma city, independent. caller: good morning, greta. thank you for taking my call.

joe biden should have immediately arrested every one of those protesters that were pro-hamas. every one of them. anyone who is going to stand there and denounce our country and bomb our flags, the root of this problem is the hatred that is arising from over, against israel, and it has spilled over into the united states because the campuses are very few are infiltrating the campus and spreading the hatred. once you get it going, it escalates, and it gets harder and harder, and the only way to

stop it is to go in and protect our country, and joe biden did not do that. host: do you agree that the peaceful protests are allowed? caller: of course. host: but if it gets violent, that is when authorities need to step in? caller: yes, absolutely, but if it is when they are burning our flag, peaceful or not, if they burn our flag and are pro-hamas, they need to go. they don't need to be here. same with the kkk. it is a hatred group. they should not be. they don't need to be in the united states. our country is a free country. i'm a vietnam veteran, the navy

-- host: you said this is a free country. does that mean the freedom to burn the flag? caller: no. absolutely not. no. when you stand and salute our flag, then you are patriots of the united states. but when you set fire to it and turn your back and take a knee, that is not acceptable. can you be forgiven for that? yes, but you cannot be forgiven when you are hamas and you are spreading hatred and you are denouncing the united states. this is evil. right now, evil is coming out, and people are blind and they don't see that. what i vote for trump? -- would i vote for trump? i don't know. kennedy is that their choice. and the reason that i vote

anyway was because jfk was the best president this country ever had in my books. and he is the reason that i vote. no one has the right to take the life of a president. that is totally out, and that should be immediately hung if they did that. host: i will move on to john, pennsylvania, democrat. welcome. go ahead. caller: good morning. it is a wonder that the people trump did not blame biden for the tornadoes and floods in the midwest. most of the rioting and black lives matter was by outsiders, such as the neo-nazis, 3% errors, proud boys, you remember

kyle rittenhouse, the right-winger? he was praised by the proud boys, fox news, and gaetz wanted to give him a job in the capitol. the thing about the writers, i was in philadelphia during the vietnam war, the even close down subway stations, that is how bad things were in that city between 1963 and 1964 that i was there, so i don't know where they are coming from saying these rights should be stopped by biden. this is all planted, as far as the arrests in kenosha, they were outsiders. it was not black lives matter, and in this case, they are saying that most of the writers, that they are causing these problems, and probably a lot of the right-wingers, not lefties, the protests are legitimate.

if trump was in there right now, netanyahu, the trump wannabe, would be complicit with this guy. don't trust him at all. i will vote for joe biden. it will not affect my vote at all. i guarantee at the convention, they will have right angers causing troubles at the democratic convention, so keep that in mind. host: do you think there will also be the possibility that you will see democrats protesting the party at the convention? because of what has happened in gaza and the israel-hamas war? caller: there is not much biden can do when you have a war criminal like netanyahu. this guy said to their face that he is going to going kill these people. that is the way he is.

i never liked netanyahu years ago, and i still don't like him. that doesn't make the antisemitic, believe me. i know a lot of jewish people in this town right here that do not like the yahoo!. they think he is a radical guy -- like netanyahu and they think he's a radical guy. bernie sanders is jewish, ac antisemitic? he would not -- is he antisemitic? he said he would not give israel a dime until they stop the war. host: as we have been discussing this morning, we would like to know if these campus protests would impact your vote in the upcoming election cycle. the national senatorial republican campaign is launching a series of campaign ads this week, hoping that this will influence people's votes. [video clip] >> america, threatening jews,

attacking police, anti-semitic mobs are taking over our universities, students radicalized by the far left, acting like terrorists. now joe biden and jon tester would like you to pay off their student loans using your tax dollars to fund the mayhem? tell jon tester, stop speaking to the woke mobs and put america first. [end video clip] host: one of the senate ads in the montana race, tester, the democratic incumbent running for reelection. new york times with this headline, calling democrat backed protests i'm criticizing biden's israel policy. there is a statement. we are committed to the reelection of president biden and democrats across ballot races in every corner of the nation. as repreives of youth across the country, we reserve the right to cre our own part it fails to represent

youth. well aware that come november, our votes will determine who wins the white house. the white house has taken the mistaken route of a bearhug strategy for netanyahu and a cold shoulder strategy for its own base. now americans want to see an end to the war. larry, cincinnati, independent. caller: good morning. how are you? i would like to say, i think america should rejoice that we finally found a topic that donald trump, the democrats and the republicans can get along gone. that is that we are going to avenge the 40 the headed babies in israel and do all we can to genocide the palestinians for greater israel. host: bob, florida, republican. caller: hi, good morning. yeah, you know, i was a 9/11 first responder and then i went to bad guy iraq.

i'm not sure if i'm even going to vote this time around. you know, leadership starts at all levels. when you look at congress and what they are doing on the senate floor, you know, yes, war is bad, but we need to focus on america because right here in america, the unemployment rate, the children that are starving, the school issues, you know, i could name 105 different issues that america needs to be concerned with right here in the united states. yes, we send money to every country out there, but we need to start putting money in our bank and start supporting america right here on american land, and these other countries,

they have got money and ammunition. they can federal themselves. i think we need to put our nose back into america and hope for the best in the middle east. host: ed, marilyn, democrat. caller: good morning. basically, it is not going to change my vote because i know the alternative is three times worse. they say, finish it, that means to destroy it and to kill all the people and that is what benjamin netanyahu is planning to do. the other thing i would like to mention, the students, when i tched footage with john the other day, the showed footage of old m, like retirees, who were t cnter protesters. one guy had a silver beard. all you have to do is look at e footage and look at the people throwing stuff over the barricades. these were grown men.

one guy was 25 years old, but these are private contractors ying to atate. they are creating the violence i've watched. mason a lot. not everything -- i watched. mason a lot or not everything is as it appears. you look at what happened october 7, and the coup was doing the funding of the bad guys befor $200 million throh tar and all of that. oh, they had plans thawe did not believe. come on. look at. mason. it will give you an idea of h this transpired a wt this is all about. host: angela, california, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was born in 1960 in louisiana,

i've nonpartisan. i remember when i was in high school, they said, hey, you have to sign up for the military draft. i panicked. i went to l.a. what i witnessed at ucla was a travesty. we have the right to free protest but not the right to destroy, and i'm from l.a., so nobody can talk to me about what i have witnessed during the civil rights movements, the water hose on the blacks, and here is my question, it will not change my vote. i know who i'm going to vote for his biden, but here's my question to america, we have to protect israel because we have atomic weapons sitting in israel. my question is, if a war broke out right now, would you be able to draft those college students into the army?

who is going to protect america if the war breaks out in this country like it did in haiti? you have a lot of trojan horses sitting here. you are worrying about the crips and bloods and, thirteens, you better worry about these terrorists sitting down in these black communities, planning of what they're going to do and you all are attacking the american students, aching them appeared to be terrorists. what happened that ucla was a travesty and the those people who attacked those kids should be treated like the january 6 people. you don't know how that could have transpired into a big, nasty mess down there in that community. host: tom, north carolina, republican. caller: it will not affect my vote, i'm voting for president trump. the problem i have is once the

administration put a deadline on those votes to leave the campus, i'm a retired state trooper, one we were called in, we took care of business. look at texas, look at usc. in less than 45 minutes, it was cleared. no, this will not affect my vote. i'm voting for president trump. we have a week president -- weak president. we all need to come together and support president trump this next election. host: john, texas, republican. caller: how are you? i'm from boston. i know some of these trust fund babies who have rich parents. they are having a encampment's, causing trouble over something

they don't understand. i'm half jewish, and i moved down here to texas, and i have seen how it was really done by greg abbott. you democrats, you have to take a step back and realize when you say you are voting for joe biden, joe biden has dementia. he is not running this country. it is more of the people behind him. he could not even break a piece of bread. i have a 95-year-old grandfather that is more open about than him. so when you say you are voting for joe biden, you are voting for blinken and all the bureaucrats in washington. joe biden is physically and mentally should be in a nursing home. host: i am going to move on to catherine, new jersey, democrat. will these campus protests

impact your 2024 vote? caller: good morning. no, it will not affect my vote, and i will tell you the reason why. i support peaceful protests for the students because i don't like the way the war was going over there in israel-hamas. they have a worthy cause, but all of the civilians went a bit too far. i just talked about -- the guy who talked about perry mason, he was mine back in the day. i love to show. host: support peaceful protests. how do you think president biden has handled the situation in israel? caller: in israel? host: and gaza. caller: and gaza, the war. they are our allies, greta, but i cannot support the way the war is being waged in the civilians

killed. president biden has a lot to do. his policies -- i don't know how it is going to go, but it will not affect my vote. i'm going to vote for him. host: george, michigan, independent. caller: good morning. yeah, everybody needs to understand one thing. george soros and his open border society is behind most of the protesters. host: how do you know that? caller: it is common knowledge, greta, for pete sakes! host: common knowledge? don't you have to have some evidence? caller: that is common knowledge. please don't hit that button and cut me off! you can let these people speak for three minutes if they are on the democratic side and as publicans and independents, you barely give us three seconds per you know that is the truth. i watch this every morning, and c-span, you can tell you are

left-leaning. everyone of you. you give independents and republicans three seconds and you have three-minute conversations with the democrats. host: we are still listening to you, so your point? caller: i made my point, george soros are forming most of the unrest on the campuses. you can ask professional people he funds. they go around from campus to campus, instigating these young people. our colleges have been preaching this for so many years. all the liberal professionals and everything. i live across the street from a professional who used to teach at the university of michigan. he is a smart,. host: lou, kentucky, republican. caller: yes. i'm registered republican because this area is the rogers

community, so i stay registered republican, but the last republican on the national level i voted for was richard nixon. so i very much a liberal and plan to vote for joe biden. he seems like the only one that has a chance to protect our democratic republic. i feel like the hamas has got exactly what they said they wanted, which was the one a war. -- which was they wanted a war. netanyahu is giving them the war that they wanted. it is a very convenient time for all the people, the type of people who support netanyahu, and president trump being one of those, or ex-president trump.

biden is doing all that he can, i feel like, with the divided congress, who bring about peace. so, i feel like this will not change my vote. host: let me go to pat, tennessee. caller: yes. i'm an old woman. i voted republican. i voted democrat. i don't understand people. i cannot understand how they can -- do they not understand? do they not listen to what mr. trump is saying?

i mean, all these republicans that go out and preach on this stuff that are my age, when they get in there and start cutting your benefits -- host: pat, we are talking about the campus protests. caller: the protest is -- the police should have gone in earlier, but people are blaming joe biden. for all these campus protests. he is doing everything he can do. but he cannot go out there and send the army out there to straighten this out. host: should he have spoken earlier? the papers this morning observing he has not said anything about them in two weeks. should he have said something

earlier? caller: yeah, he probably should have said something earlier, but what was he going to say? people want him to do something about israel. israel is one of our allies. ok, what if this was england? would they -- i mean, what do people want the president of the united states to do? host: clinton, north carolina -- quinton, north carolina, independent. caller: how are you doing? i would like to say that ever since the protests going on, i support the protesters -- i'm 47. i have seen a lot. i've experienced a lot. there is just too much hate in

this country, and a lot of people are blinded by it in this country. when it comes to people protesting and everything, that is their right. they are americans. when it comes to biden giving the speech about the protesters and stuff, i was proud of him not saying one thing about any protesters being killed or things of that nature because this world is turned upside down. host: richard, republican, hawaii. caller: aloha. good evening. i've got a question. what if they were chanting, "mississippi to the sea, death to blacks," would it have been the same reaction? divide and have a good day --

thank you and have a good day. host: democratic caller. caller: hi. good morning. the vote i'm going to have us for biden. i think he's done a great job on other issues, but i think the students have a right and peaceful protests i'm in favor of. i want to voting for biden the first time, i will vote for him again. this does not change my vote. i will just observe that the students have one particular objective. we are all talking about this. that is a good thing. that is a really good thing. host: in what way? why is it a good thing? what do you hope comes out of the debate? caller: i hope that it drew attention nationwide to the problem of the civilians being

killed. and going into gaza in a big worry is -- in a big way is that. i'm jewish and in favor of israel, but i'm also in favor of not killing civilians in gaza. you know, this has been a very difficult thing for everybody because hamas deserves what they got coming to them, and what they have had delivered upon them. the civilians who are members of hamas -- you are not members of hamas do not deserve that. how many civilians have to be killed for somebody says tenant -- before somebody says to netanyahu, wake up. as far as the person who called and said what if this was in england? we have allies around the world. if you would like to consider

them to be friends, would a friendship be able to tell you things you need to hear? netanyahu needs to get the message that this is not the way to behave. host: what do you think about netanyahu's tenure? caller: i think he has got to go. i think he has got to go. i think that this is probably not the time for them to hold a new election, but, you know, that is up to the people of israel. i'm just opposed to the ideatha, willy-nilly, kill who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people he would kill if you want full-scale into rafah. host: i will leave it there, because i will go to james, a republican. caller: thank you for taking my

call. real quick, i think that if president biden would get a hold of these leaders of these colleges and threatened to cut out their federal funds, that this could have stopped way back when. also, the kids' parents, i do not know how they have taken all this or whatever, but i will tell you this -- i fought for this country. i had brothers die beside me. to see these kids burn these flags, it breaks my heart. it puts me into tears. my ptsd gets really bad. another thing, these other countries, like china, russia, they love to see what is going on. our country is just going to pieces. i voted for trump. i am not happy with what he has done. he has got to pay for what he did. and i agree, nobody is above the law. no president is above the law, and he needs to be punished for what he done.

by just want to say to you, and the united states, listen. we need to come together. when you start seeing these young kids doing what they're doing, they need to go ahead and just out of college. if they do not want to be in college, get out of college. and please, quit burning our flag. i got so many brothers who died beside me, and that flakka means a lot to us. host: james -- and that flag means a lot to us. host: james, how will that impact your vote in november? caller: to be honest with you, ma'am, i'm going to vote for biden. host: explained that, given everything you just told us. caller: the reason i am going to vote for biden is, listen, trump -- like i said, i've been a trump supporter for so long, but he

has done so much things to the united states, and he thinks he is above the law. i am starting to see in between the lines what he has done. biden, yes, biden's done things and said things i do not like, but listen. on his watch, things are running very smooth, until this election started. now you see people starting to read between the lines. since trump has been in court and all this, from atlanta where he is at now, you start seeing a lot of things, like these colleges -- all this stuff is starting up. and it is all because people just don't know what to do anymore. because trump ain't above the law. host: heard that point. we will leave it there. we will take a break. when we come back, conversation

with time magazine national political reporter eric cortellessa on his interview with former president trump's vision for a potential second term and office. then we discussed a running mate for the former president with reporter shelby talcott. ♪ >> today, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters, along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated -- updated poll numbers, fundraising numbers, and political ads. watch the 2024 campaign trail today at 7:30 p.m. eastern.

c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> do you solemnly swear that, in the testimony or about to give, it will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> saturday, watch american history tv's congress investigates as we explore major investigations in our country's history. each week, authors and historians will tell these stories. we will see historic footage from those periods. this week, the 1975 senate committee hearings led by idaho democratic senator frank church investigating alleged abuses within the u.s. intelligence community. watch congress invest gaetz saturday at 7:00 p.m. on --

watch congress investigates saturday at 7:00 p.m. on c-span 2. >> -- on the "after words" podcast. and on "q&a," -- look that regularly feature -- and the about books podcast takes you behind-the-scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry, with insider interviews, industry updates, and best sellers lists. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app, or wherever you get your podcasts, and on our website, c-span.org. --c-span.org/podcasts. ♪ >> explore the wonderful array of mother's day gifts waiting for you ac-spanshop.org. discover books, apparel, home to

core, and accessories. there something for every c-span mom. plus, every purchase you make those to support our nonprofit operations. start shopping now by scanning the code on the right or by going online to c-spanshop.org. ♪ >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span covers -- celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where policy is debated and decided, all with support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at our table this morning, eric cortellessa, a national political reporter with "time" magazine about his interview with the former

president. let's begin with the cover. if he wins," you have as the headline. in your piece, you write, what emerged in two interviews with trumponversations with more than a dozens of his closest advisors were the outlf an imperial presidency that would reshape america and its role in the world. imperial presidency. what you mean? guest: donald trump is right now embarking on a strategic and coordinated plan to come into office a second term, if he wins this election, and consolidate the power of government inside the office of the presidency to remove many of the guardrails that stood in his way in the first term. most of what he is planning to do is through executive authority rather than legislation. what we are seeing is a restoration to the level of executive power, even the expansion of executive power, that we have not seen in this country in the post-watergate era. host: what is he doing -- what

is he planning, i should say. what specifically did he tell you that you could use those words, "imperial presidency"? guest: let's start with immigration. donald trump has a few will restore many of the policies he had during his first term, the state in mexico policy, title 42, but he wants to embark on what he calls a massive deportation operation to remove as many as 11 million undocumented migrants in the country. to do this, donald trump told me he would be willing to use the u.s. military inland to remove those migrants. when i pointed out to donald trump that a law forbids the use of the military to harm civilians, he says they are not civilians, they are invading our country. he said he would mostly use the national guard and tried to induce local and state police departments to participate by tying federal funding to their involvement. he also told me he would be willing to directly intervene in the prosecutions of targets at

the justice department. he told me he would be willing to fire a u.s. attorney who did not carry out his orders to prosecute someone. those are just two ways in which you would see an expansion of presidential power compared to what we have seen from past presidents. host: what are other examples? guest: i will give you two. one is donald trump wants to restore these of empowerment, the ability of the president to withhold congressionally approved funds. nixon withheld funds to the epa, housing, and after he left office, congress passed the empowerment control act to outlaw that practice. donald trump and his advisors see that ask -- as a constitutional and plan to challenge that statute. they understand they may have to face court battles to do that, but he wants the ability to withhold congressionally

appropriated funds. donald trump is also looking at them think i'll schedule f, which he try to do in the first term. it was reversed when biden took office. it would give him the power to fire civil service bureaucrats at will who do not follow his orders. host: have you heard from the former president since this was published, or his people, and what do they say about your piece? guest: what i will say is that this piece is something rare. both donald trump and joe barton have recommended reading this piece. donald trump -- in light both donald trump and joe biden have recommended reading this piece. donald trump said the piece was at least 60% accurate. i will say it is 100% accurate. at least donald trump is telling you he think this is a fair look at his plans for a second term. host: why do you say it is 100% accurate? guest: because it is factually accurate. there is nothing wrong. it is unimpeachable. host: when you posted this

online, if a reader is reading what you wrote, you can also click on a link to the full transcript of your interview. why did you think it was important for people to be able to read the full transcript? guest: we felt it was necessary and import for the historic record that anyone could read the full trance trips of my conversations with donald trump. i asked him very direct, probing questions, and he gave his answers, and anyone can read that conversation at time.com and make up their own minds about what donald trump says he is going to do. host: you also wanted to hear from him "in his own words" is what you wrote. why did you think that was important? guest: i thought it would be a public service to our readers, and the american voting public, to hear in donald trump's own words precisely what he plans to do with a second term save voters have a right to know what someone, who would have the position of highest power in america, who would be the leader of the free world, would do if given that power. host: how did you get this

interview? guest: i simply asked for it. host: how did it go? where did you meet with the president, and how long did it go? guest: we met in mar-a-lago. we had our interview the first friday before he went on criminal trial in manhattan, the eve of that trial, then we had a follow-up phone call two weeks later. host: why do you think he said yes? guest: i think donald trump believes in the conceit of the story, which as we were going to write about him in a way that would be fair and thorough and comprehensive, that would say for readers what he plans to do for a second term. right now, donald trump is in a better position than he ever was in 2016 or 2020, to win the white house. he is winning in most polls, including in several of the key seven battleground states are likely to determine the outcome. i also will not deny donald trump as someone whose cultural touchstone states back to the 1980's, and he is someone who

sees being on the cover of "time" magazine being the pinnacle. host: y right in the piece, "trump remains the same guy with the same goals and nces, but, in person, if anything, he appears more assertive and confident. when i first got to washington, i knew very few people, is what he told you. i had to rely on people. now he is in charge." what do you mean? guest: donald trump, which he won in 2016, it took everyone by surprise, including donald trump himself. this was the first elected president who had never served in the military or any elected office before, so he relied on republican stalwarts to help staff's administration and decide on his cabinet nominees. that led to a number of traditionalist republicans who tried to thwart the agenda, the outline come on the campaign trail, a much more economic, nationalist, right-wing,

populist vision. that bothered donald trump throughout his four years as president. he felt like he won with a mandate to govern on the policies he campaigned on and those were the idea thought to be imposed. he feels like he knows, now, who will be loyal to him and who will stand in his way. and donald trump plans to make sure anyone who works in his executive ranch is committed to his agenda. host: who is a vetting that? guest: i think donald trump himself will be the main person who makes these decisions, and he has got a team of disciplined loyalists who are helping him along the way. you can see that they have a lot more organization and structure of than they have in past versions of these campaigns. they are planning to go into office and translate the discipline you have seen on the campaign -- he has been able to campaign while being stuck in a courtroom for hours throughout the day. that is no small feat for a politician. he and a close group of advisers and confidants are barking on that. host: you also write on the

piece, "allies are laying the oundwork to restructure the presidency in line with a doctrine called the unitary executive theory, which holds that many of the constraints imposed on the white house by legislators and the courts should be swept away in favor of a more powerful commander in chief." explain this theory and who are the people behind it. guest: this is actually been a central piece of conservative ideological doctrine for deaces now. you heard a lot about the unitary sedative theory during the bush administration. this basically means the government should serve the president. the president was elected by the people, and they should be the ones to dictate how policy is implemented. that said, we also have embedded in our constitution that we have a system of checks and balances, and a president is supposed to operate within a set of constraints. donald trump has made very

clear, in interviews with me and in his public comments, that he wants to eliminate some of those constraints, so he can carry out the agenda that he is campaigning on. host: he also told you he thought he was too nice in his first term. guest: right. host: what do you think he meant and how would he change that? guest: i asked donald trump about the dozens of his cabinet members who refused to endorse him in this election. that was a sensitive topic for donald trump. he got defensive, began disparaging those former top officials. then he said to me he would give them a chance to resign. he would say, "hand me a letter, that is a gentlemanly thing to do." he said, from now on, i will fire. host: we want to turn to our viewers and have them join us in this conversation. first up from kentucky, democratic caller. caller: yes.

i wanted to know if "time" magazine is going to cover the cpac meetings held in budapest with the republicans -- guest: i cannot speak to our internal editorial process, but we are committed to covering the most important developments throughout the world, and we stand with that. host: has "time" magazine asked president biden to do a similar type of interview, with a lens looking at a second term? guest: we did. my colleagues who cover the biden campaign requested an interview with president biden. unfortunately, he declined. hopefully, he changes his mind at some point in the coming weeks and months. host: joy, nashville, tennessee. caller: thank you for writing this article and coming onto c-span. i am concerned about americans' loss of faith in institutions

like "time" magazine. do you think it is ingenuous to say that trump will be this incurious president when clinton destroyed yugoslavia for no reason? we have been at war in ukraine with no congressional reason. president biden basically overturned title ix with a stroke of the pen. haven't we crossed the threshold already? guest: i think our directional donald trump was fair. he has not challenged every -- anything we have written in the piece. we put the full trance trip out for the sake of transparency. i thing that is a refection of our commitment to fair and honest journalism. the information is there. everyone can read it and make up their own minds at time.com. host: what about his question, the difference between what the former president pulju he would do if he gets a second term and exec at of action we have seen from previous presidents? guest: look, presidents have a second of authority for sure.

they have a limited executive orders at, sometimes, rapid clips. we are not just talking about exec at of orders. we are talking about very specific moves that donald trump is talking about taking the other presidents have not. ohter -- other presidents have not deployed the u.s. military to remove undocumented immigrants. they have fired u.s. attorneys for other reasons, presidents usually replace appointees at the beginning of their term, but as donald trump has said, he is willing to do things other presidents have not. that is in his own words. we are merely relaying what he told me to everybody else. host: if he were to win a second term, what did he say about that being -- would he honor the constitution and that be his last term from his only term? guest: i specifically asked him this kid i said there are some

supporters of yours who are saying a president should be able to challenge the 22nd amendment that are habits -- that limits presidents to serving two terms. donald trump told me he had no plans to challenge the 22nd amendment. he planned to serve another four years in office and then leave. host: linda in florida, democratic caller. caller: yes, i wanted to ask your guest about project 25, about the policy transition. is that an official document that is followed by the incoming president? or is there an official 25 policy that a president does by? can you claim that to me please? guest: sure. as we write in the piece, there is an infrastructure of policy groups that are devising plans for donald trump to implement a second term. there is project 2020 five come out of the heritage foundation, the america first policy

institute, the center for renewing america at a lot of these places are staffed by people who worked with him in his first term, people who believe in trump, but at the end of the day, they are drawing up suggestions they hope donald trump will fulfill. donald trump's campaign has said they are merely suggestions. they do not speak on behalf of president trump or the campaign, so that is there official stance. some of the people involved in those groups i spoke to said what they will do often is listen to what donald trump says at rallies, hearing what he wants to do, then drop the mechanics for how he could implement those ideas and put them into action if he became president again. host: dana is next in virginia, independent. caller: yes, hello. can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: about mr. trump, he campaigned that should never invade -- get involved in intervention in syria.

and what did he do? he invaded syria. and we are stealing oil, and we are still stealing oil. i think he is basically controlled by the israeli lobby, because what you see is no one before trump had humiliated the palestinians like donald trump did. and he campaigned that he was going to solve it, and he betrayed them completely. host: ok. any thoughts? guest: i think donald trump has made clear that he does not want to engage america in anymore ventures overseas. he has taken great pride in being one of the first presidents in generations not to get the united states into a new war. he certainly wants to remain that way if you get a second term trade i did ask him, if the united states and israel got into a hot war, which he drawing on israel's side, and he said,

yes, he would join israel's side and would be willing to strike iran militarily depending on the circumstances. host: larry. caller: hi, good morning, how are you doing?

-- you have a follow-up to that. does he recognize concerns people have with that? guest: i thick he recognizes concerns and that it bothers a large segment of americans, but president trump, more than 800 people have been convicted through our traditional system, most of whom have pleaded guilty, others found guilty by juries. are you questioning our judicial system? his answer was it was a two tier

system. i said there were some people who supported you then but don't think attacking the peaceful transfer of power can be trusted to preserve it, and donald trump demurred -- key punched back and did not see it in that way. host: joe, maryland, independent. caller: hi, thank you. i am a 29 year attorney, independent -- never been democrat or republican. i am wondering if the time is now for independents in leadership, because there is a deep lack of trust on either party by the citizenry, and people and operating and functioning out of fear. i believe now is the time for independents to rise up, to break up the duopoly of this two-party system controlled by

corporate america and interest groups that really are not dealing with the fundamental issues of the american people. with your concerns about donald trump and what we are seeing, there are problems on both sides. is this now the time for this two-party system to be broken up, because we have a formidable independent who was running, that people do trust, because of the lack of trust on both sides of the fence. host: all right, jo. guest: thank you for the question. i am not really in a position to render judgment on that. all i will say is, by all indications, i would not expect a breakup of the two-party system anytime soon. it is deeply entrenched and does not seem to be going away. there are independent candidates running in this election, and we will not know until november what kind of impact they will have on the outcome of the election. but certainly, you are seeing more and more people gravitate

to a position where they do not really identify as democrats or republicans, so it is certainly an indication of where we are right now as a society. host: eric cortellessa with "time" magaine, -- magazine, sat down with the president a few times for this piece, "how far trump would go." in it, you write this -- "it can be hard at times to discern trump's true intentions. in his interviews with "ti he often sidestepped questions or answered th contradictory ways. there's no telling h ego and self-destructive behavior might hiis objectives. and for all his norm-breaking, there are lines s he won't cross. when asked if he would comply with all orders upheld by the supreme court, says he would. but his policy preoccupa are clear and consistent. if trump is able to carry out a fraction of his goals, the impact prove as transformative as any presidency in more than a century."

"'he's in full war mode,' says his former adviser and occasional confidant stephen bannon. trump's sense of the statef the country is 'quite apocalyptic,' bannon says. 'that's where trump's heart is. that's where his obsession is.'" is it an obsession? guest: i think donald trump, right now is extremely preoccupied, and you could say obsessed with, returning to office and being able to fulfill his goal of serving a second term. he has said he will be the retribution, that he will seek retribution. now he is saying he will seek retribution through a success. it is unquestionable that donald trump is a more assertive and confident that he seemed in the past and that he is, right laser focused on returning to office, because that resolves a lot of problems for him. he has obviously got profound legal woes, has a lot of

evinces, and there is nothing he -- a lot of grievances, and there's nothing he wants more than to return to the white house. host: what role is the -- steve bannon playing now? guest: steve bannon is someone trump will talk to at times. steve bannon has a podcast that is popular in right-wing circles, and they will often send clips to trump that he will watch, that is the way they communicate with each other. it should be said donald trump has a real instinct for reading where his base is and reading where popular sentiment is among the base. one of the things he does that is he does rallies, listens to these podcast clips, sometimes you will see him pull the crowd on individuals running for down ballot offices who he is considering endorsing or

where they stand on a specific issue. famously, the term drain the swamp came when he used it as a rally and it was met with a thunderous reaction. host: david in los angeles, independent, your next. caller: yeah, hi, i want to make a few comments and generally respond. steve bannon was arrested for the border wall scam. two associates went to prison over four years. they were siphoning money from trump supporters and they ended up spending the money on jet skis and stuffer their children. along with steve bannon, here's a list of people that were indicted and charged under the trump administration. of course the trump lawyers who lost their law license for

lighting -- -- for lighting -- -- for lying -- in the wake of all of that, sir, how can you even look any american in the eye and retain any credibility whatsoever because you support a con man like donald trump? thank you. guest: as a journalist, i don't support any candidate. he certainly doesn't come out in one direction or another so i really have no comment on that. host: tom in woodbridge, virginia, republican. caller: thank you for writing this. i wanted to comment. earlier in the ship today, i listen every day and i have for i can't tell you how long and you guys are absolutely fair. it can be hard sometimes to be fair with people who are spreading really asinine statements and you still give them a voice. i appreciate what you've done

with publishing the transcripts. that of all of this, everybody in america now, you need to pay attention to that. what eric was saying is i have nothing to hide and watch to hear directly from trump but i will give you a little pushback. i think you are seeing what trump is trying to do through a lens and you have to admit you have your own lens. your lens is that his policy objectives are imperialistic. i would argue that through our lens, his policy objectives are to confront the outgrowth of the bureaucracy in the united states that has essentially subjugated the constitution to a lot of bureaucratic policies that are not founded in the constitution. i'm deeply involved with the trump movement since the very beginning.

i ran for u.s. senate in virginia. you can find my website. i really appreciate you publishing the transcripts because i think what that will allow americans to do who are really judicious -- they will try to understand what he's trying to achieve. he may not be able to achieve all those things but those are the things he wants to achieve. the barriers to achieving those things like for example, the immigration problem right now, we are talking between 11-18 million illegals that have come into the united states in the last three years. that is an astronomical number of illegal people who come into the united states. i am part of an organization called chasing freedom virginia. we vetted all the federal candidates and a lot of the

conservative candidates are very in support of the deportation of these illegal immigrants that have come into the country, not because they are racist but because it distorts our economy, it distorts our health care system, it distorts our education system. host: so what is your question here? caller: i guess my question would be this, can you please go back and look at your article and identify where your lens distorts how you see it. instead of it being a nationalist, populist movement, i would ask that you consider this is an american movement. host: we will leave it there. guest: thank you for reading the piece. i've heard your feedback, thank you. host: glenn bernie, marilyn, democratic caller. caller: thanks for taking my call. it's amazing how republicans are always trying to find a reason

to blame the liberals. everyone else is so afraid for the public. it's good to hear his exact policies. fox has jenna good job pretending there is no war or killing. there is killing in gaza and they pretend and nobody would know anything was going on in gaza. [indiscernible] the blowback will come back to haunt america. they will wonder where those terrorists came from. host: talk about your sit down with the president. you went to mar-a-lago, describe what was likened where you talked with him and what were your observations about the

president's surroundings? guest: mar-a-lago is a very opulent, large property right on the atlantic ocean in palm beach. i spoke with donald trump and a dining room right off the library room in mar-a-lago. afterwards, he invited me to have dinner at mar-a-lago club in the courtyard. that was sort ofmaga mecca. speaker mike johnson was there and billionaire steve wynn was there and entering the courtyard, he received rounds of applause. once he sits down, he's handed an ipad with his index finger he scrolls the reset list and it -- and he's the disc jockey for the night. he loves the phantom of the opera and a striking moment was at one point, rourke blasted from the speaker and they are playing the star-spangled banner but this is not your ordinary rendition. this is sung by a choir of those

attacking the capitol and january 6, it's a scene where everyone there is a true believer in america first. host: daniel, great falls, virginia, republican. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. i wanted to make a point and then ask a question. my point is that we've seen the growth of the federal bureaucracy especially in the last 100 years or so. we didn't even have social security 100 years ago. it's a new paradigm of what the federal -- federal government should be doing and what its role should be and what's essential function should be and i would argue that it shouldn't have been that. we want limited government and the democrats believe in unlimited government. these two things are inherently irreconcilable. can you acknowledge that we had trump in office for four years, there is no imperial presidency.

imperial would be consolidated powers of the federal level and he wants to disperse power from the federal level and not get us involved in overseas foreign wars. the democrats tied him up in court with everything he wanted to do. he tried to build a wall and he couldn't do that, he was tied up in court. he had a couple of countries he wanted to that people from like muslim countries. maybe 40 predominantly muslim countries and he was tied up in court on that and they says a xenophobic policy and they tied him up with the impeachment which was a sham for two years. can you acknowledge that there is irreconcilable differences between limited and unlimited government and if he gets back in office, he will be bogged down with whatever he wants to do by the democrats in the courts and he won't really get anything done at all? guest: as part of our system of government, not only do we have checks and balances but a political opposition and you have public opinion that is

itself it's only very big check. i quote george orwell who says the ability of government to carry out their job depends on the general temper of the country. you mentioned he wasn't able to build a border wall. he had an opportunity with 25 billion dollars allocated from congress to build a border wall but was unable to accept concessions he would make in a deal with chuck schumer and nancy pelosi. i think donald trump has an argument that he's trying to make about how government should serve the people. donald trump believes that your kratz should have a limited power. he believes unelected bureaucrats shouldn't be in a position to implement policy in a way that is at odds from what he wants to carry out his president. that's his view and if you read the transcript, he has the opportunity to make that case and we give voice to his argument in the piece. we will always try to make sure that we are accurately

reflecting the positions and views of the subject we cover. host: owings mills, maryland, democratic caller. caller: as a matter of fact, donald trump said he built the wall. he said he built the wall, he didn't repeal oh, care. -- obamacare. he simply dead he said he wanted to drill baby drill bit hundred donald trump, hundreds of oil copies went out of business. do you remember when the gas got down to below one penny per barrel? do you remember that? host: do you have a question? what's your point? caller: my point is that donald trump lost and he doesn't want to say he lost. i want to ask the interviewer, did he ask donald trump why he lost? host: we will take that question. guest: no, i didn't ask donald trump whether he thought he lost or not because he has been asked that before and he has had an

opportunity to address that. i went into this interview committed to very narrowly probing donald trump on what he would do if he won in a second term. the issue of the last election came up at various points but i kept this conversation very rigidly and disciplined -- i was discipline and keeping it focused on what he would do if he won a second term. host: the national political reporter with time magazine, go to time.com and read the entire piece and you can find the full transcript of his interview with the former president. thank you for coming on at talking to our viewers. guest: thanks for having me, it was a pleasure. host: we will take a break and when we come back i'm an inside look at the process for the former president in picking a running mate. we will talk to the semaphore political reporter and later, vanderbilt university law professor michael newton joins us to talk about the role of the international criminal court

amid reports the icc is about to issue arrest warrants for israeli leaders for war crimes in the conflict with hamas. we will be right back. ♪ >> today watched c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage, providing a one the -- a one-stop shop to find out what candidates across the country are saying to voters and accounts from political reporters and updated poll numbers and campaign ads. but c-span's 2024 campaign trail today at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.

c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 5:30 p.m. eastern house will -- ♪ strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees. >> the historical legacy of the billy holiday song strange fruit , or lament about the lynchings of african-americans. here a discussion about the song which includes the composers son , michael mayor poll. at 7 p.m. eastern on american history tv series congress investigates, the historic congressional investigation that led to changes in policy and law. we will feature the 1975 senate committee led by idaho democratic senator frank church which examined alleged abuses within the u.s. intelligence community. at 9:30 p.m. on the presidency,

the atlantic staff writer on president woodrow wilson's legacy, including his efforts to persuade the u.s. to join the league of nations and the segregated federal government of his time. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturds on c-span2 and find a full schedule on yr ogram guide ch online anytime at c-span.org/history. ♪ >> is there a relationship to soft and hard money and money from super pac's? can you expend the difference between dual federalism and cooperative federalism? >> if you're a student learning to take the advanced placement u.s. government politics exam, join us on washington journal live saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern or annual cram for the exam special. it gives you tips and strategies to succeed on the ap teachers will take your calls

and text questions on the content and structure of this year's exam. >>. to focus on -- the founding document that are required, you know part of the exam will come from those lists. >> get your questions ready and participate by calling in asking your questions on facebook at c-spanwj or #cram for the exam. ♪ >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates years of covering congress like 45 no other. since 1979, we been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. we take it to where the policies are debated and decided with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting powered by cable. ♪

"washington journal" continues. host: we are back this morning with shelbycolcott with semaphore to talk about the former vice president vp selection process. what is happening this weekend and where? guest: there is a multi-day donor event in florida. it's really the first serious opportunity we will see where you have numerous vice presidential hopefuls and potentials and people who are on donald trump's vp list to get together and sort of -- in sort of an apprentice style and vied for the position. it's the first time they will be together in front of donors which is important for the former president who does well with donors and who is donors like so it will be an

interesting weekend over there at mar-a-lago. host: how will it play out? by the way, will cameras be allowed to see this? guest: usually donor events are private so i don't expect there to be media coverage in the moment. to plug you what happens is after-the-fact or even during the event, there will be things that sort of start to leak out and you will start to hear things. it's going to be a multiple day so there will be luncheons and dinners and some people will be featured as speakers. it's going to be an expansive and lengthy process. these vice presidential hopefuls get to get in front of the donors and talk seriously and indirectly pitch themselves as to why they should be donald trump's vice president. we don't know yet whether there will also be private meetings with donald trump himself. there hasn't been any formal meetings with him that we know

of in terms of him sitting down with these folks and having direct conversations about why you should be my vice president. it's possible that starts to happen this weekend but we don't know yet. host: it will be interesting to hear from republicans, independence and democrats as well who are considering voting for the former president. who would you like to see him pick as his vice presidential running mate? here is how we are dividing lines for this conversation this morning -- democrats call in at (202) 748-8000, republicans, (202) 748-8001 and independents (202) 748-8002. you can text us with your thoughts on that as well at (202) 748-8003. include your first name, city and state or go to facebook.com/ c-span. why mix fundraising with this

selection process? host: donald trump a lot of money to run his presidential campaign particularly because he's up against an incumbent. incumbents typically have more money than their opponents. in this case especially, you also have the reality that donald trump is facing multiple legal issues. a lot of his money he has raised is going toward that. that dips into a lower bucket compared to joe biden. there is an argument within trump world but not everybody in his orbit thinks this is important but certainly, a lot of people think there is an aspect of the vice presidential pick could help with something like fundraising. host: who will be there? which donors? guest: typically, donors are private. a lot of the donors we don't know but donald trump's top donors are likely to be there.

also people close to the vice presidential picks are likely to be there. host: will they be donating on their behalf? guest: perhaps indirectly but that's another thing -- tim scott has major donors and marco rubio has major donors and some of these are donors who don't necessarily love donald trump are perhaps willing to start putting their support behind him if these folks aren't directly involved. host: let's talk about the list of potential vp picks. first of all, who is crafting this list and then tell us who is on it and in what order. guest: the big question is who is crafting the list. really the person who will pick the vice president is donald trump himself. it is impossible to say for certain who donald trump wants to pick at this point. any you see these articles and there are a lot of them and they are legitimate but any time see these articles where one or

another is rising, it is often coming from the people around donald trump who have an idea of who donald trump is interested in but also have their own opinion of who they think should be vice president. that is where we are getting this general list. the name i am hearing most of them lately is doug bergom who has quietly risen in the ranks on this. host: he also ran. he ran for governor. of north dakota. guest: and senator tim scott who also ran. he is really the only presidential candidate against donald trump who has managed throughout this entire time to not frustrate the former president and has stayed on his good side and remains close to him even when he was running against him. j.d. vance is another person on the list, marco rubio and he has

the issue of the fact that he lives in the same state as donald trump. that would be something that would have to be taken care of. sarah huckabee sanders , kristinom but i think shee is low on the list. there is a lot of folks whose names are being thrown out there over the past few weeks and months. host: how will the former president pic? guest: another good question. when i talk to the trunk campaign and people quote him, they have made the argument that while fundraising is important and while perhaps picking somebody who can bring over moderate voters is important, not all of them are convinced that's necessary. a lot of trump aids thank that ultimately, though ice presidential pick does not sway a ton of voters. the big thing with trump this time around is loyalty. he wants someone who will be loyal, he wants someone who is

not going to outshine him on camera. he wants someone who is in line with his policies this time around. i think ultimately he will consider that and that's going to be top of mind when he's thinking about a vice presidential candidate with the knowledge that he's also talking to his aids in taking what they are saying into consideration which might be different. host: when will the former president aside, will be this weekend? guest: i don't expected to be this weekend. they are in no rush to decide. they are in the middle of that trial in new york so that's been donald trump's focus. when i talk to people over the past few weeks, they are sure he thinks about the vice presidential picks and he will ask around and pull people at dinner at mar-a-lago but his real main focus is getting past this trial in new york. i expected to be the normal

timeline of later this summer, about a month from the rnc convention which is in july. host: stan in new york, a republican, are you supporting the former president and if so, who do you want to see him pick as his running mate? are you with us? caller: hello, can you hear me? host: we can now. caller: hi, how are you doing? i want to comment on something shelby just set a minute ago about not wanting the vice president to outshine him. i have to agree with that. is he a narcissist, perhaps. he seems pretty self-centered. however, i'm a 55-year-old black man. my mother likes trump. common sense will tell you that somebody like me and my mother likes him means there must be something about him.

we look at when things were president. people think they were pretty good and things were quiet all over the world. i personally think mike rogers who i saw on the news the other day and maybe he was endorsing him. he seemed pretty cool and trump like his ideas. he might be his running mate, i don't know. host: you don't know a lot about mike rogers? caller: i don't. but i see him endorsing him the other day. however, whoever he picks i'm sure nobody is going to like it. everybody seems to hate republicans for whatever reason. it's like going to the doctor. the doctor is a good guy and speaks well any offers coffee and lollipops and everybody likes him. you go home and you are still in

pain or you go to the jerk doctor but you go home and you feel great. host: we will leave it there. what are your thoughts on mike rogers running for the senate in michigan, former member of the house intel chair. what's the likelihood, is he on the list? guest: i haven't heard is on the list. you also have to understand that this changes rapidly. at the beginning of the year in the end of last year, kristi nome was at the top of the list so that's the key thing. you just never know. right now, the latest name that is hot is doug berg off. republicans say they like dougbergom but i'm not convinced he will be vp. it changes weekly. host: what to these folks have to do to prove loyalty if that is the number one issue or

criteria for the former president? guest: they have to be aligned with this sort of new age republicanism, this america first agenda we've seen donald trump really put forward in the past few years. that's the key. there is also the argument that they can't come out really against donald trump and that's something tim scott has done successfully throughout his career even when he was running against the president, he refrained from directly attacking him. when he was running, donald trump told his aides specifically come i don't want you to go after tim scott. i like him so even though he's running against me, leave him alone. throughout that campaign, there wasn't any friction. that's because tim scott was perceived as donald trump doing right by him so donald trump is returning the favor. host: what to these candidates

say about the election of 2020? guest: they have all skirted around the issue. they will often time say yes, joe biden is our president but they will also say there was election fraud and we need to fix that. they talk about election integrity which is a big focus for republicans this time around. we've seen her they sort of address the question but not directly but in a way that acknowledges these claims we've heard from donald trump are so many years about mass election fraud while also saying that joe biden is the president. host: louisiana, trent, independent. caller: hi, i met mike huckabee a couple of times and i really like him. i thought he was deep and thoughtful.

he was a theologian and a pastor and a successful southern baptist administration for years. he and bill clinton were good friends and bill clinton once said mike huckabee is the guy i like because he has the popular stretch -- touch. -- the populist touch. across the world, latin america, africa, china, russia, the united states and eastern europe and the buddhists and the tie was nations are all having a religious revival. who would best represent this gathering of the coming internationalist, globalist, populist, nationalist and theocratic movements? he's good with liberals and he's good with people outside his own comfort zone. he is spectacular with the christian committed to because he such a deep theologian like no other politician maybe in the world. host: what about his daughter? caller: well, he's 30 years

older. he's got all the qualities and he's been hanging back and resting. donald, if you are listening -- also i've heard for the great line that mike for years and years has had talks with trump and said trump said maybe you and i should run as independents so this relationship goes way back in it working -- and it wouldn't hurt to have a pastoral figure around donald trump. host: the former governor ran. he ran for president before. caller: i think mike would be keeping the dish would be good at keeping the president in line. host: what about mike huckabee? guest: donald trump at this point in his career is closer to

sarah huckabee sanders. she has really shown her loyalty to him. she is front and center more politically than mike. i think that factors into the conversation. host: elizabeth and san marcus, california, democratic caller. caller: good morning, c-span. this whole process strikes me as being another vanity project. it's something like the apprentice. he is a pretend president. you called him that earlier. it's really absurd that this man cannot admit to himself or the nation or to the world that he really lost the last election. if you want to know what he would do in the future, look to what he's done in the past. he had the opportunity to nominate three supreme court

justices. look at the havoc they have caused. look at the dobbs decision, look at the gifts, that are being challenged with all the corruption. now the latest the supreme court deciding, can a president do anything office and not feel the repercussions? host: we will move on to nancy in st. charles, michigan, republican. caller: yes, i was really hoping for chandler scott -- for tim scott. i think it could be desantis simply because he operates, i'm hoping it might be him. something i want the whole world to know, i'm 90 years old. and i've never contributed financially to his campaign. i have been a little active in

politics in terms of doing research on education and trying to get people to look at what our education department was. i was 90 years old this past december and i got a personal birthday card from mar-a-lago from donald j. trump and his wife melania. i cannot tell you much i want the whole world to know that this man has a brain, a dedication and every quality it takes for doing hard work. host: i will jump in at that point. she would like to see tim scott, what are his chances? guest: happy birthday. tim scott is very close with

donald trump and earlier this year when we saw him during the primary in iowa after he dropped out in iowa and then new hampshire. he was really front and center. he was one of the only people front and center that point who was a main donald trump supporter and that helped and he is also good at primaries. i think tim scott is in serious consideration. he has dropped out of the top three in terms of what people around donald trump say. but you never know. i certainly think there is an argument to be made that he would be a good vice presidential choice. i think the eights around donald trump are thinking seriously about him. host: before this weekend, have these potential pix around mar-a-lago or have they been around the president? are they spending time with him? guest: it depends on who you're

talking about because many of these are active lawmakers. yes, you've seen some on the campaign trail. some have gone to mar-a-lago over the past few months for other events. they talked often to donald trump on the phone. there aides are in constant munication with donald trump's aides so there is this open-door policy when it comes to a lot of these lawmakers who are on the list. donald trump talks to them constantly even if it's not in person. host: los angeles, independent. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call in my thoughts. i wanted to briefly say something about the students in los angeles. as you know, los angeles and much of california and other

places have a lot of people from latin america and mexican people like my family. as a younger person, i was reflecting on having a conversation with my mother about the students because my own family has been this incredibly difficult period of having single issues around things like the faith dimension and evangelical christian churches and where they go. host: could you get to your question? "washington journal" continues. caller: i am getting to my question. it's a little more layered than the people who were calling earlier today. that's one thing i would like to

say. i think as a journalist and as other people broadcasting should never happen. it should never be a situation where people call other people illegals and human beings and nothing is said about that. that's one thing. in terms of the demographic aspect of these people who are running with this man, i wonder about what the thought process is in relation to how it affects the democratic dimension of who is looking to see themselves represented. host: we will take that question. guest: it's a good question and i think you have tim scott who is a black republican and could potentially bringing back voters and he's popular with suburban

women and marco rubio could bring in the hispanic voting group and you have a number of females on the list. that's being taken into consideration. it changes depending on the season. i remember a year and a half ago when i talk to one of donald trump's aides long before there was an informal list about who could be vice president. this person said i think he might pick a woman. they could bring in a suburban women and i marco rubio is for the top of the list for the hispanic vote so that is a factor. some aides are considering as could any of these people bring in these voting blocks that have maybe been underrepresented in the republican party in the past? host: you know marco rubio is from rubio and what is the issue there? guest: he would need to move in order to run. you can have donald trump whose

home state is florida and marco rubio whose home state is in florida run together because of the laws. he would have to move out of state in order to run. that could potentially open up a whole other slew of possible legal issues, questions, can he remain a senator. the question really is, donald trump really likes marco rubio and there could be a case made as to why he could be a good vice president but help the presidential run. the question there is does donald trump want to go through all of that trouble? and does marco rubio want to go for all the trouble? host: democratic caller? caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. i have to disagree with your guest about kristi nome. i think what happened with her what's come out with her, i

think this only clinches her nomination. if we could only be in mar-a-lago as a fly was able to hear what trump thought about that, i think he would probably -- he was probably cheering and jeering and i believe honestly that that appeases the mega supporters. i think she will be top of the list. thank you taking my call. guest: i think that's a fair argument. i would disagree with it based on the conversations i've had with people close to trump area the widely held theme when i talk to trump's aides is mass confusion over why kristi noem would publish the fact that she had taken her dog out and shot it. i will also say i'm a big dog lover but a lot of americans are dog lovers and i think that's bipartisan. even though donald trump himself

admittedly, he is not a dog lover, even just from the political perspective, i think he understands why kristi noem publishing this was probably bad politics. 4 host: what are your sources of these people close to the former president saying about the publishing of this? are they confused why she did that? guest: there is confusion with the knowledge that if you are looking at this purely from a political standpoint which a lot of these folks do, they are political operatives, they are confused about why anybody in her orbit would tell her to go ahead and publish anything about killing a dog knowing how much of the american public really likes dogs. it's a very controversial subject. we've seen it in the past with mitt romney saying his dog was on the roof of the car and there is a slew of other examples that have never turned into a

positive news cycle for people. host: mobile, alabama, republican. caller: thank you for taking michael. i like tim scott. i think he is excellent and marco rubio but i don't think either one of them will contribute very much to winning their particular states. both states will win and it will be a trump win no matter what. the one i would pick is alisa stephani even though she can't bring new york but it's getting closer in new york. she could influence pennsylvania, she could influence other states that are in the north and she is a smart person, very articulate. i believe she has the qualities to take over as president if something should happen which i think is a major consideration that everyone should have. host: elise stefanik is a member of congress and republican leadership. guest: she is certainly on the list and she is a candidate. she is very well-liked and close

to donald trump. she's been loyal and you are right, there is an argument to be made in a consideration that is being made by trump aides as they vet these candidates which is if they can bring in and influence some of these swing states. potentially, she could. host: what are you looking for this weekend? guest: i'm curious to see who donors like and i'm also really curious to see if donald trump ends up taking any private meetings with people. to me, the latter would indicate that he is starting to really winnow this process down. the rnc convention is in july. they are deciding a month before that. that's not that far away. i expected some point that we will start hearing about some of these private meetings and some people officially pitching himself to donald trump. host: you can follow per

reporting for semaphore at semaphore.com. thank you for being here. guest: thank you. host: up next, vanderbilt university law professor michael newton will join us to talk about the role of the international criminal court amid reports that the icc is about to issue arrest warrants for israeli leaders for war crimes in the conflict with hamas. we will ♪ be right back. ♪ ♪ >> today watching c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters along with firsthand account from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watched c-span's 2024 campaign

trail today at 7:30 p.m. each and on c-span, online at c-span.org or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> sunday on cue and day, former rhode island democratic congressman patrick kennedy author of profiles and mental health courage talked about those who struggled with mental illness. >> in my own case with my mother, my brother and sister and i had to get guardianship over my mother. we saved her life so she could be around with my kids. my kids never met my father obviously who died before they were born. but they got to meet my mom and they got to meet my mom because my brother and sister and i went to court to get guardianship over our mother to keep her from

killing herself. she was so happy. at the time she wasn't happy but she ended up being so grateful that she was able to make it to the other side because we intervened. >> sunday night on c-span's q end date. you can listen on our free span -- our free c-span now mobile app. >> explore mother's day fts at c-spanshop.org. discover books, apparel, home decor d accessories. there is sething for every c-span mom plus every purchase you make goes toward supporting our nonprofit operation. start shopping now by scanning the code on the right or visiting us online at c-spanshop.org. ♪ >> the house will be in order.

>> this year, c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. we take it to where the policies are debated and decided with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting powered by cable. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us this morning from nashville is michael newton at vanderbilt university, the director of international legal studies program there is also a former senior advisor to the investor at large for war crimes issued in the state department from 1999-2002. you been an expert witness what

is the icc? kiss the international criminal court in the hague. it's a permanent court with permanent prosecutors and registry and defense counsel with broad jurisdiction with war crimes against humanity. the key thing for viewers to know is it's a treaty based courts on the -- it's a very complicated interconnected treaty that is reviewed periodically. that's the notion in the hague. when people say the world court, they typically talk about the international court of justice which is between states on the civil side but this is the criminal court. host: why does it matter by treaty? guest: it matters a lot because there is certain ascribed jurisdictions. the ideas when i join the treaty, i'm giving out pieces of my some -- some giving appeases my sovereignty. when people ratify their own statute, it's called the rome

statute of the international criminal court, that is jurisdiction over crimes committed on their territory or crimes committed by their nationals and that's important because the court does not have power to hear cases unless they can point to specific jurisdictions and specific authorities. it's worth noting the way to bypass that is through the un security council with a binding chapter seven resolution which is what we've seen in sudan and other places. host: when you bypass the icc, what does it mean? guest: it means you are bypassing state consent. everything in the icc jurisdictionally and the cooperative mechanisms are all based on state consent. they are all based on i have an interest in standing for these common principles and i share them and support them and i want to participate in the system. when you go through the security council, it harkens back to what we did in the 1990's in yugoslavia and rwanda where it's

not based on state consent. it's based on the authority of the security council under the united nations charter which is a whole different game. host: the jurisdiction of the international criminal court includes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. let's talk about genocide. what is the jurisdiction here, what does it include? guest: the same as all the rest, the genocide provisions are almost unique in the statute in the sense that is the one part of the statute we have jurisdiction and you have substantive coverage. genocide provisions in the rome statute are almost verbatim substantively from the 1948 genocide convention there is really nothing dramatically new in them. the one place there is a slight twist in the context of genocide is in the elements of crimes we negotiated, there has to be a manifest pattern of genocide.

the big idea of the icc is that it's a complementary part of the international system. it is designed to be the pinnacle and work in conjunction and cooperation with all the other courts of the world whether they are regional or domestic or any number of other ways. the idea in genocide law which is where the manifest pattern language comes is it has to be big, something the icc should appropriately deal with as opposed to many of the other courts of the world that would have jurisdiction on the other provisions of international law. that's what was added of the substantive coverage of genocide is almost identical to the genocide convention which i can explain if you think people would be interested. host: guest: guest: please do. 1948 genocide convention was revolutionary in its own way. it regulated for the first time in international law the treatment of a government, a sovereign entity vis-à-vis its own people and conveyed equal

rights to the citizens of other things. the essence of genocide law is split into two pieces -- the thing you have to do, people typically think of murder. that's a form of genocide. there is a much longer list. depriving persons of the conditions of life necessary to live. not actually murder them but i -- but deprive them of everything they need to survive, that could be genocide. the greatest mass patterns of atrocities can be genocide. the key is that the act, the things you have to do. the real key is what we call in the business the special genocidal intent. that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and what you had to prove is that you intentionally did what you did with the intention of destroying that group in whole or in part on the basis of the defining

characteristics from the convention, racial, ethnic, national or religious. the keywords you see is as such. it's not enough to have a pattern of activity. that is felt by a particular portion of the population. those are criminal acts but it's not genocide. i have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did these things that are prohibited substantively with the specific intent of eliminating that group on the basis of that characteristic in whole or in part and i did those things targeting that group as such is the way to treaty says it. host: does it have to be during a time of war? guest: one of the beauties of genocide which is similar to crimes against humanity is no, it's not connected to armed conflict. it can be time -- in times of peace or on conflict as opposed to the war crimes provision each of which has a circumstantial element.

you can only commit war crimes during a war. whether it's international or non-international. genocide and crimes against humanity, there is substantive jurisdiction at any time and any place. you have to meet those element beyond a reasonable doubt. host: war crimes from the geneva convention of 1949, wilul killing or inhumane killing including biological experiments,ilully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity or carried out unlawfully and wantonly, unlawf dortation or transfer unlawful taking taking up hostages. why these provisions? guest: that's just a subset. i want to be clear with people. in this concept, they should look at the first article of the

rome statute. paragraph a takes it out of the 1949 conventions of most of the things you just mentioned constitute great breaches, treaty crimes if you will under the geneva convention. then they simply incorporate them into the structure of the international criminal court. that's fairly easy but in doing that, you expand the punitive authority of that treaty of the international criminal court based on the pre-existing treaty arrangement. that's a beautiful thing. for our purposes, a2b goes on to list other series of crimes so three of the crimes you mentioned don't come froma@a but a@b. you're picking up a whole variety of other crimes that aren't specifically criminalized with specific criminal prohibitions but are found in

the body of law, the law of war. that's all the crimes that are committed during an international armed conflict. articlec,d and e deal with intrastate wars, insurgencies, terrorist acts, etc. that's the division and that's why the rome statute is wonderful. in my view and i helped negotiate them, is the most comprehensive listing of war crimes anywhere in the world. it serves a really important function for consolidating and clarifying and explaining exactly what's criminal and in those elements of crime, giving great detail in terms of what prosecutor must prove beyond a verse -- a reasonable doubt to get a conviction for that particular thing. it's really host: host: important. blessed are viewers, illinois, question or comments?

caller: two questions. what would have happened to america and world war ii with the atomic bombings and why didn't your organization come down hard on north vietnam during the vietnamese war? number three, look at africa. why aren't you guys over there? why are you trying to pick on one of our best allies? thank you very much. guest: i'm not sure i take the first person come on just a law professor who works in this field and litigates trials. we'll start with the third one. one of the criticisms of the court which just came into existence in 2002 is that many of the early cases did focus on africa. this has been a hot button issue.

as time has gone on, we are into the second decade of the court's existence. many of those cases if not all of those cases imploded. cork has essentially used africa as a testing ground to develop the theories of criminality and the theories of individuals etc. one thing you need to understand is the international criminal court has no jurisdiction whatsoever for crimes committed before its entry into force. in other words, may 1, two thousand two. anything before that, you have to look at other mechanisms. with respect to the atomic weapons issue, the court looked at that in detail in an advisory case and codify the law slightly to say it's not simple. it's situation specific context the way you begin to apply international law.

that's why the details in the rome statute are very important. it gives you the structure in great detail of what you look at and what you have to prove and what defense arguments are available etc. in north korea, it's a nice question because it illustrates one of the key important factors about the court. at least half the worlds population, more than half is not subject to international criminal court just -- authority which includes north korea, syria and others. as i said,because as i said it t based. the north koreans will not consent to the jurisdiction of the court. so, you have to find other ways. this is why it is important to remember that the international criminal court is designed to be part of an interconnected system. it does not stand alone and it has to work in cooperation in conjunction with other courts around the world, domestic,

international and regional. host: that the itc is picking on one of the u.s. allies in israel. guest: with respect to the recent press reports. the nature of the beast is they do not do anything that is easy or not controversial. everything that they have ever done has been controversial in one way or another. and i stand by that. even cases that imploded in the end, they are always having to pick sides. they say we follow the evidence and do what prosecutors do. we are independent, which is correct technically. everything they do has political overtones. i also believe from my experience that there is an awful lot of inaccurate press reporting. i do believe that they do warrants of arrest instead of indictments when we see them and then we will evaluate on merits.

on the flipside they have done venezuela and looked at a whole series of other cases where you could make the exact argument. somebody would say just a perception, the court is just attacking opponents of america. that is also not true. they are independent and impartial. they just try to do the best they can. they also have an incredibly difficult challenge in actually getting admissible trial evidence. it is a difficult challenge for them, which is why so many cases from africa have ended up collapsing, really for lack of evidence. if i am in that office and i want to issue warrants of arrest for israeli's or anyone else, the real challenge will be the sufficiency of evidence because they know that they will be attacked for being a political arm. and they would say no, we are about law, procedure and regularity. it all comes down to the

evidence. there is one more thing i want people to understand, particularly larry. in the icc context they have situations. very different than the way we think of a crime. we think of if i charge this person and develop a case against that person, larry. that is not how they work. they take a situation and, by definition has jurisdiction over both sides of the conflict. so, i fully expect that if they do proceed with cases in the context of the current situation , i do not see how in the world they could avoid charging particular hamas leaders or other palestinian leaders or other members, they will have to be some balance and you will argue that his politics and perception. again, they say we will follow the evidence where the evidence goes because we are prosecutors and that's what we do, we try

people where we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. host: the headline that larry was referring to, israeli officials believe international court is preparing arrest warrants over war. how would they know? guest: well, good question. the court like any other institution might have leaks and the israelis do know that there has been a long-standing investigation. i have honestly say almost anytime i am in the hague in the international criminal court for business i have seen a palestinian delegation and the coffee shop. they've been working the court hard for many years now, five or six years at least. so there has been a long-standing set of investigations. they begin to bump up against the reality which is why what i am saying is so important of what you charge and who you charge, what particular crimes and how you prove them. those will be incredibly difficult cases.

most of the icc cases that have imploded or just disintegrated is probably a more politically correct word have been based on insufficient evidence because prosecutors or somebody in the office of the prosecutor began to rely on press reports and unreliable third-party accounts. they began to rely on in some cases evidence provided by private organizations and nongovernmental groups. that is fine but it does not prove the crimes. they have to be careful with how they construct a case. it is difficult. these are difficult cases no matter what if they are warrant of arrest issued. host: we are talking about the international criminal court and war crimes with martin -- with michael newton. martin in louisville, kentucky. you are next. caller: i want to make comments and then i will hang up. the reason i called and that on wikipedia he is an expert on

terrorism and domestic terrorism. i am not happy that domestic terrorism is not given the same priority as international terrorism it is. it is obvious that the biggest threat to america is not the taliban, isis or al qaeda but right here at home. there is a group of people who are making it clear that they intend to take over the country by force if they have to. the original campaign slogan of the tea party was go home and get your guns you're taking back the country. when todd young ran for congress and rand paul ran, they showed revolutionary war soldiers walking off in these more interactive -- war reenactments. host: we got it, you are concerned about domestic terrorism. we are focusing on the international criminal court. he referenced your bio.

talk about the testimony that you have given on terrorism related cases. where they at the hague. guest: slow down. with permission can i answer his question. caller: absent -- host: absolutely. guest: it raises a portion of the international criminal court that i want people to understand. i use the word complementary. the way we say it in the court is complementary. complimenary means that i would complement my friend. the international criminal court is designed from the ground up to work in conjunction with domestic systems. it can only get involved when the domestic system in the language of article 17, look at the treaty, is unwilling or unable genuinely. so if and when domestic

terrorism is a problem is up to us to deal with it in accordance with our legal system. that is our right and duty as a sovereign country. the same is true of every other country in the world. the international criminal court will have to prove if they do warrants of arrest against the israelis or any other country that the domestic system is inadequate and insufficient -- not dysfunctional. with respect to this israelis, the system works and they do prosecute people and conduct investigations. in the language of article 17 its meaning does not just necessarily -- it is not limited just to prosecution. good faith investigations, when i investigate martin and i decide i cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. absolutely satisfies that standard. the idea is very simple, but incredibly difficult in practice. the court, the international criminal court is the court of

last resort. it is not the court of first resort in the place we automatically turn to. it has to work only when any other structures are incapable, inadequate and insufficient in practice. host: drill down on the warrants of arrest. how will the officials go about getting these warrants. what is the process like? guest: the international criminal court is very complex. they have something that is almost unique in the world and in some ways it is unique. they have a pretrial chamber. and they have to go to the pretrial chamber, a group of judges, present the case. that means that even if at the warrant of arrest phase they have evidence, real evidence. more importantly, real charges so they have to go down this genocide charge among the group. this crime against humanity

along that long list. this set of war crimes. and then they have to give judges almost a prima fascia case. not only can they prove the crime, but the individual connection of that person to that crime. they did it and they ordered it and they facilitated it. they aided and abetted. they were part of international criminal court language, complacent relationship -- complicit relationship. we call that the law of individual responsibility. the ideas not -- the idea is not state policy but about individual activities and crimes committed by individuals. crimes are committed by individuals not abstract entities. that is a challenge always. it is so easy to argue that i am

just going after the african state as a matter of politics. it is an individual criminal court designed to build a case. that is the role of the pretrial chamber to serve as a speedbump. the other thing that gets litigated at that phase, as i said are the admissibility challenges and complementary challenges. you cannot prosecute martin because the courts in that state are already functioning and are handling his case, etc.. host: lucy in new york. caller: i will be quick. i do not know how they could not find netanyahu guilty, he is keeping children from getting food and water. starvation is a horrible way to die. he also went to a scripture from the bible and i do not remember the exact words that says that he can kill these people. the other thing is if they indict and putin, netanyahu is doing the same thing, killing

people and taking their lien. this is a kangaroo court if they do not indict him. guest: i know plenty of people who will say the opposite that if they do indict him it is a kangaroo court. the technical term is warrant of arrest. the challenge in any of these cases will be the interconnected bodies of law. when you talk to israeli officials and look at the press statements from israel they will say here all of the things that we are doing that facilitate humanitarian aid in the middle of an armed conflict and by the way an armed conflict we did not start. they would argue we have an absolute right of sovereign self-defense and that is what we are doing. we are not responsible for the use of human shields all over gaza. you know, we want civilians to be fed and sheltered and watered. i just saw the report yesterday that they have opened out of northern israel a water pipeline

that will give five liters of water per day per person in gaza. they would point to lots of things where they are not intentionally starving and in many cases point two introductions of -- interdiction of relief. there is a newly added crime of intentionally using starvation as a method of warfare. that is one of those wonderful things about the evolution of the international criminal court is that it is adaptive and responsive. let us say they charge the crime intentionally using starvation as a method of war, it will be the first time in history that we have had that charge. but remember in the elements of crimes there will be a detailed list of things that have to be proven. it is intentional that they are specifically targeting palestinians and depriving them of a. on the flipside you might well

see warrants of arrest on that exact same crime issued against hamas operatives. who are stealing humanitarian aid and assaulting trucks. right, to the extent that they want to create conditions where the civilian population suffers. i do not know what they will do. it will come down to the actual evidence, not press reports or public reporting. detailed, specific incidences based on a linkage, we call it linkage evidence, the particular criminal actors. this is why these are tough cases. host: how long do the trials last and when there has been a conviction, what has happened? guest: most people would say too long. they are incredibly long and complicated. i worked on the bemba trial. 10 years from the start of his trial before he was fully

acquitted on appeal. 10 years lost. with no release and etc.. so, they take a long time, maybe five to six to eight years and by the time you litigate all of the pretrial issues. international criminal court, unlike other cases you have three hearings. you have the pretrial chamber, and that issues a warrant of arrest. then what happens is when that person comes into custody whether it is putin or any other official, they do a confirmation of charges hearing. that is a full litigated almost like a mini trial and pretrial where the court tests the evidence of the pretrial phase. at that phase the defense has a chance to say insufficient evidence that on the flipside, unlike our system, the prosecutor and sometimes the judges of their own authority can change the evidence and change the charges.

that is pretrial and then you get to the trial phase which is easy and clear. in that phase there are several discrete issues that come up on appeal so you have to stop the trial while you litigate that issue. and that would be similar to our system. and then the appeals phase. that is why they take so long which is counterintuitive. remember the whole point of creating an international criminal court was to have a common body with court rooms ready and prosecutors ready on a list and preapproved and funding in place and trust funds to help victims. all of that designed to facilitate expeditious resolution of these cases. in practice what we have seen is the opposite. and i want to be clear, to me that is one of the greatest defects of the court. i was in northern iraq after isis went in and every victim i

spoke with wanted cases to go to the international criminal court because i was told i could get money and damages and i can get help from the international criminal court. yes there is a trust fund for victims but it will not be as much money as you need or want and it will come six or eight years down the line. that is one of the structural achilles' heels, the expectations gap because trial takes a long and it is a recurring problem. host: if there are convictions? guest: i am not sure of the question, people go to jail? host: what happens? guest: people go to jail. remember, it is a court. but, it is a court with a structural system that cannot work without the cooperation of individual states. in that way it is like every other tribunal. the easy example, charles taylor is in trial today.

i worked on the trial. he got convicted by the special court for sierra leone. and then the british government agreed to hold him under british parole rules and british rules. that is what happens. some country degree -- agrees to detain in their system domestically people acquitted. it does not have its own police force. it is dependent on country is to take the cash countries to take those people and adjudicate release. host: southport, north carolina. larry. caller: yes. i was curious about this international criminal court. when arafat has a record of terrorism, killing innocents and wreaking havoc, why have they never charged him in the international criminal court?

but if you turn around -- but he turned around and got a nobel prize. there is something wrong with that picture. host: ok, larry. guest: let me be clear. he puts his finger on exactly and i could give you 50 other examples if we had more time and i would teach a course on that issue. that is one of the reasons why we had to create an international criminal court. but it has no jurisdiction for crimes anything that happened before came into force. that is why when you asked earlier why is it important that it is a treaty body, the jurisdiction derives from the treaty and the treaty says anything that happened before the court came into existence we cannot handle. so there is no way, technically to prosecute that. but the caller puts his finger on what i keep stressing which is the interconnectedness of the

system. the fact that guilty people are not prosecuted or we do not create regional mechanisms is to use the word, an indictment and not in the criminal sense. it shows a lack of effective enforcement. that is one of our jobs as public citizens to ensure that justice is equal, fair and preserves the human rights of the defendant, yes, but we do justice where justice is necessary. the idea of the international criminal court was a backup and backstop mechanism. as i said when domestic states are unwilling or unable to prosecute. there is a problem. and where primes -- crimes are committed we need to be investigating them. do not get me started on all my work. we have done far too few crimes in other settings for basis

cases committed against these victims at this point. with ukraine they are almost forgotten. and to me that is wrong. host: matt in prairie hill, texas. caller: yes. i would just like to say, i know the court was created after -- god bless america and if you cut me i believe red white and blue. i will just say that there are wars when the allies and even during the korean war and vietnam war, a lot of times you have to hit targets that are just like the nazis, they kept the ammunition and targets around schools on purpose. the israelis bend over backwards trying to do the right thing. netanyahu is one of the best leaders in all of the world has

ever seen. the court is corrupt and racist just like the united nations. they are corrupt and nation -- corrupt and racist. every time you going to -- you go into the united nations, they vote against israel. host: they will take that accusation of correctness at -- corruptness at the icc and racism. guest: let me put that in lawyerly terms if i can. that is a pretty widely shared beliefs out there in the international system which is why keep stressing that the court has to gather good and detailed evidence and apply those elements of crimes with particularity and carefulness. i think i heard matt from texas. what he is saying is really in the context of if i want to charge war crimes i have to

correctly apply the war of war. the law of armed conflict whether it is the geneva convention not to sound like a law professor but this is what i do. those trainees -- treaties give war fighters an appropriate level of discretion. there are boundaries to that discretion. what we do is we say to war fighters provided that you have military necessity the burden is on you to generate that. my elements of crimes as you attack that target without military necessity. what matt is referring to are the specific kind of issues that we will litigate in open court. that is where we are counting on international judges not to be corrupt and apply the law correctly whether it is command responsibility law or law of military necessity or the definition of a military objective which the treaty says anything which was for the use purpose makes an effective

contribution to the enemy. it is a problem when a military objective is buried in the midst of a civilian area. the law that requires the attacker in that instance to take what is called feasible measures to minimize or eliminate. what is he wrote -- what he is referring to is a good point which as there is an awful lot of complicated law. that goes beyond sound bites, press releases, associated press headlines. this is what you have to do in the court to get these kind of cases to a successful provision. on the flipside, through the years that is why so many cases have ended up disintegrating for lack of granular evidence, or as a legal and technical matter, incorrect application of the evidence, the facts in connection with the overarching body of law. this is why the trials are hard and easy. host: where did the judges come from and how do they serve?

guest: international elections run in much the same way as we elect judges to the international court of justice. they are international campaigns and votes in the general assembly, and it is just an incredibly complicated process. in some ways it is like a beauty pageant although politics does sneak in. representation both geographic and gender balance and etc., the short answer is the qualifications are squeaky -- screened by committee and then the candidates do interviews and fill out a lot of questions. but then they have to campaign and get elected. they come from two lists, list a is essentially experienced judges so you might have someone who served on the supreme court of a state party. a country that accepted the treaty is called a state party. they might have served on the

supreme court or particular judicial experience which is list a. or technical experience in the field. list b is a broader aperture sometimes political appointees, sometimes a senior ambassador with technical knowledge of international law. they have a steeper learning curve. on the other hand if you are a list b judge you might understand the political ramifications and the contours of operations in the african union, for example, better than some of the last a judges. it is intended to be a blend of experience, that is a point, from around the world. host: any well-known americans that observed. guest: you have to be a member of the court to have served as a judge. you have had a number of american citizens who have served in the office of the prosecutor, and a number of americans that have litigated cases and advised on technical details. but to be a judge you have to be

from a country that accepted the jurisdiction of the court,. . host: duane -- dwayne from ohio. caller: i have three questions. the first is how long has this system been in effect? the second, how long did it take to prosecute the war criminals during the hit learn era -- hilter era for the annihilation of the jews? and the third is apartheid, is it considered a war crime. guest: i did not hear the name. host: dwayne. guest: he puts his finger on a good point. the icc has a very limited and finite treaty based jurisdiction. when we talk about the world war ii era cases, for obvious

reasons and appropriate reasons, we focus on the international military tribunal which tried many of the leading nazi figures. that same court room we did a subsequent proceedings and prosecuted another 50 to 60 very important cases, but based on occupation law as opposed to a treaty where we did the nurnberg international military tribunal. the subsequent proceedings were based on essentially occupation powers. that is important because we did the financiers, the general staff and the largest mass murder case, relevant because many of those crimes were committed and what we know as modern-day ukraine. there are circular patterns to these crimes and the history. but dwayne hints at the important point. it took 10 years and nobody is

quite sure because nobody quite knows how many of the soviets tried, but around 150 thousand war criminals prosecuted in domestic systems around the world. australia, new zealand domestic systems. that is what the icc is designed to model, to be the pinnacle and handle very few cases. and in a world that works correctly, we are doing those cases where we have evidence in places where the victims can come to see them and places in the domestic systems. only when the domestic systems are not working we set up a regional system or as we did in sierra leone, a partnership between united nations and domestic country. that is one of the arguments in ukraine. that we do that. the icc has jurisdiction in ukraine. based on article 12, but by definition, they cannot get at even a tiny fraction of the

available cases. so we have to have a cooperative mechanism. in ukraine and other settings, domestic judges will always help out. i am helping ukrainian judges and they are doing their best. i probably think we need a regional. you would have to do it all and that is the point. host: before we let you go, explain the u.s. you of the international criminal court? guest: a complicated question because there is a long history. at the risk of sounding biased, i was part of the negotiations. as a political matter, every american president of both parties has said that the court is flawed and the reason is complicated politically. the basic justthey suggest is, , we think that our courts work. the short answer to your question, greta, is that we don't think that we need it. we think our system works for

military and civilian. we have properly functioning courts. we don't expect an international court sitting in the hague to issue warrants of arrest when our own prosecutors have looked at those cases and determined that there is insufficient evidence or they shouldn't be brought. the classic case in point is the army brigadier general reserve officer in charge of gray who was not prosecuted. it is easy to say superficially she should have been. you have to look at these cases with the eye of a prosecutor. americans have said we think there is too much potential for this court to be misused for political purposes. it is all perspective. icc insiders would say we don't do politics, we do law, we follow procedures. they would be correct that we have one of the most complicated criminal court systems structurally anywhere in the world. the rules and the procedures are incredibly complicated and detailed. that is why these trials take so

long. the pushback on that is that there really is no oversight, check in the system if you will, to prevent palletization -- apologies -- politicalisation or hijacking the system for politics. at its core it comes down to a very different view between the americans' checks and balances, separation of powers, and our constitutional structure, incredibly important. we looked at the structure of the court and said, we don't believe there are sufficient checks and balances and sufficient separations of powers. other companies with different legal systems feel differently and are perfectly entitled to do that as a sovereign prerogative. i will put the punctuation on that sentiment to echo the concerns of some of your callers to the extent that we argue, i

think correctly, that we have a robust department of justice, robust military structures. we do investigations. when we bombed a hospital facility in a war zone by accident in afghanistan, you see the american investigation. you can see it online, except of course for the classified portions. the russians and the chinese don't do that. our system works is what we would say. but that puts the burden on us to make our system work. the same is true for the israelis. the same is true for every other country in the world. when you commit these crimes you bear the burden of proof for their investigations. do investigations, do prosecutions where it's appropriate and you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. but you have to charge these crimes, as emotive as they are, based on the rule of law. host: