Conversation on the various legal challenges of donald trump with hugo lowell. The headline of your latest piece from yesterday trumps trial calendar becomes clear. Start with the first part of that headline, the trial calendar remind viewers where we are. We now have a trial scheduled in new york for march 25 and we have jury selection starting. Thats the first concrete date we have. For a long time, we were thinking that the federal january 6 case might be the first one to go to trial. That was originally scheduled for march 4 but because of trumps delay tactics, we are in new york first and now thats on the calendar and trump has an idea about how his legal cases will play out so i think thats a degree of clarity we didnt have. As for the rest of the cases, it will be up to the Supreme Court. We need to figure out how this will play out and begin to the connected nature of these cases. Justice is dont want to schedule stuff before they know its going on with the rest of the trump calendar. I think this is a good way to get started. Host what are the delay tactics you are referring to . Guest hes made no secret of the fact that his legal strategy for all of these cases is to find ways to delay which favor the defense in these cases. With trump specifically, he has managed to settle on this avenue of president ial immunity. Unlike all the other things he wants to get the indictment dismissed. It gives him a special thing when he appeals. He is granted an automatic stay and it freezes the underlying case. When his lawyers discovered that avenue, they kind of honed in on that and thats why you are seeing the january 6 case in washington on hold while he goes to the Supreme Court to argue the immunity claim. Host how can we determine when that case might go to trial . Guest it gets complicated. The first thing to note is the judge who is the presiding judge in the washington cases always said trump will get his full seven months to prepare when the scheduling was first set on march 4. Trump submitted his appeal to the circuit on december eight. Went to calculate when a trial might be is to take the time between december 8 and march 4 which is the amount of time he had left and then add whatever further delays we get in this case in that time period. If its roughly three months, we have from february 12 which is when the d. C. Circuit issued its mandate and trumps filing to the Supreme Court and whatever the current date is. That gap is expanding so when ever the Supreme Court finally issues a judgment, lets say they return it to the judge and they denied the immunity claim, thats when the three month clock, the remaining three month clock restarts. Host what of the Supreme Court thinks about this for a while and we see the big cases come out at the end of their term. What if they wait until the end of this term . Guest its a real possibility. Because people want to see the way this case progresses, they would like to see quick resolutions are no resolutions but i think there is a strong chance that the Supreme Court waits on this issue potentially toward the end of the term as you say in which case we may not have a trial start before election day. If the Supreme Court decides we will not take this case and Supreme Court watchers think of the Supreme Court decides that from can stay on the ballot in colorado for instance, he might get an unfavorable ruling on the immunity thing and they might refuse to hear the case. When the Supreme Court in effect decides whether to hear the case or not. If they decide not to take the case in the immunity question, jurisdiction go straight back to the District Court and the judge can restart the clock and say you have three months from today to prepare for trial and i will set up ryle a trial date in may. If the Supreme Court waits late into the summer, it could be in july we get a decision postconvention, then we will not have a trial before the election. Host the georgia case and what we saw last week in georgia, what does that mean for the timing on when or if that case comes to trial . Guest that is the one case we dont have a tentative trial date set. It has already been scrambled little bit because the situation there in essence, the district attorney, had a romantic relationship with one of the deputies. The defendants in the rico case basically alleging there was some sort of kickback scheme or financial benefit that she got out of hiring the external special prosecutor because he was making a lot of money we estimate 700,000 by working on the trump case and thats because they were in a romantic relationship. Its in her interest to keep her on the payroll and her interest to continue the investigation because they went on trips together and they took a cruise to aruba and the bahamas. She took him to belize. There were about four trips they took together in the argument was this was improper and constituted a conflict of interest and she needs to be disqualified. This is where we get to the hearing last week. I was there for two days and i listened to all the testimony and it was excruciating at times. I dont want to hear about people are sleeping together. The bottom line was the defendants struggled to show that there was any sort of financial kick but that was kickback that was concrete. The burden is on the defendants here because they have to show that there was something improper going on in the das office. Host she is not the defendant here . Guest thats right, the trump camp are trying to show something improper. They struggled to make that showing i think in part because they really didnt have any way to rebut the assertion from the District Attorneys Office that she was reimbursed in cash for a lot of the trips they took together even if you dont believe that claim, its a separate issue is it really a financial benefit if nathan wade was going to take she was going to take on these trips and could afford to. The special prosecutor still had his own law firm so wasnt like the trump case was the only case he had going. When you look at all of that in totality, judge mcafee who is presiding in Fulton County needed to decide if they met this burden and technically the burden is actual conflict and thats an extremely high bar to clear. Host we want to invite viewers to join the conversation. A good time to brennan to bring hugo lowell in. Call in with your questions or comments. Our phone lines are republicans 202 7488001, democrats 202 7488000, independents 202 7488002. We will get to those calls after you explain where we are in the classified documents on the federal case. Guest we are in something of a limbo in the document case. Basically, the document case is to trial in whats known as the information procedures act. Its a multistep process that was enacted to make sure that espionage charged defendants dont just release classified material at trial and eventually blackmail the government to say we will expose all these National Security secrets. The term is called grave mail and to protect against that, there are specific steps the government and defendants have to go through in order to get to trial. Section four is midway through the process. Its classified and sealed so theres not really that much going on in the public eye but we do know several things. Trump is trying to compel more discovery from the special counsel jack smith. He is trying to make this claim that there was a slack of prosecution and biden wasnt charged in his documents investigation and they are trying to allege there was bias and make arguments in essence that the case needs to be dropped or that specific charges need to be removed. They are trying to get the government to give them more discovery. There is an arcane fight going on behind closed doors about how to define the scope of the discovery and what trump and his defendant should be allowed access to. He gets complicated because its all classified or sealed. Among other things, we have reported there has been a fight over witness list. Trump wants access to and publishing in Court Filings potential government witnesses. They want to make public from last night, they want to publicize area maps of maralago and demonstrate that its all secure. These are the sort of argument they are trying to make in the government says we dont want this coming out. Section four is the stage where they had to make the showing to the judge that they want to push back on these arguments. It gets very complicated. Host thats the overview of where the criminal cases stand. We can get to the civil cases as well. When we talk about this topic, we have plenty of calls already. Independent line is up first out of detroit, michigan. Good morning. Caller hi, good morning. Im glad you mentioned the documents case with trump. The espionage act as a factor there. I would have more sympathy for donald trump if he had pardoned Julian Assange for wrongly prosecuted under the espionage act because hes a real journalist. You guys are like tmz compared to Julian Masson so thats why i have no sympathy for trump. Host have you covered much of the Julian Assanges case . Guest we have. The guardian has a track record of covering National Security cases. The only point i would make about him is the circumstances are so different. We keep coming back to the central core of the obstruction case with trump. The argument was trumps refusal to comply with the grand jury. Had he returned the documents, there would be no criminal case. He decided to play something of a shell game where he didnt return the document or was trying to tell his lawyer at the time that there is nothing really bad in there. It went into evidence in this case and was making these gestures and it was recorded by the lawyer. I think thats the difference here in the core of the documents case with trump is obstruction. Host this is michael on the line for democrats. Caller hello. I had a quick question regarding trump. What do you think his plans are if he actually gets convicted . Will he stay in the race or will he get voted in . If you are convicted and you get voted in, what happens at that point . He will be sitting in jail controlling the country . I just want a little clarity. Host walk us down this path a little bit. Guest i think trump will stay in the race regardless. There was a lot of talk last year when the campaign was on sketchy footing if he would drop out if he was indicted and the answer was that this is his ticket to freedom in essence and thats just the caller brings up a good point. Even if he is convicted, if he becomes president , there is a constitutional understanding that you dont impede the functions of the presidency. He would be effectively permitted to serve his fullterm without being harassed by the government and the justice system. The more important point is trumps return to the white house, he could potentially sell pardoned himself. This has been discussed. If he is not convicted before the election, he could appoint an attorney general who was sympathetic to him was a loyalist and have him drop the charges. You must remember that in the second trump administration, you will see the Justice Department under the west wing in a way we havent seen, at least that is the plan. So you have a very loyalist attorney general and trump can direct them to drop the charges. Host greenville, tennessee, duncan is next. Caller yes, i was going to point out the fact that in the u. S. Constitution, Political Parties and politics is not mentioned whatsoever. It may be different in other countries such as Great Britain which is where a lot of our laws derived from as well as our Political Party system. Historically, our president s, George Washington was our only nonpolitical president that served in office on the rest of them were involved in a Political Party but its important to point out that George Washington knew what politics would do to Political Parties. They could be destructive to the country in some affect. Host bring me forward two hundred 50 years. Caller in his farewell address, he warned about Political Parties. It brings us to the trump situation. Its out of hand just like George Washington warned us of. We are getting to the point where its dangerous and you attack people and try to put them in jail and were finding them. Its getting very serious. People are talking civil war. Im wondering why nobody in the media or investigative political reporters are addressing that situation. You cannot hold a royal title in the United States. We dont want our political system like that. It seems it would be a perfect election for two guys who were serving a president ial term could somehow reach a resolution were Political Parties go away and its like man on man. Host what do you want to pick up on . Guest the fundamental point with these criminal cases and one that the Justice Department has repeated is that no one is above the law. If you defy grand jurys or dont turn in classified documents or try to overturn the results of the election in the generally six case. This is now a statute before the Supreme Court its also a statute that you have to remember, got District Court judges have applied across the board and decided it applies to edification. In many ways, trump had the biggest role to play in stopping january 6 than anyone else. He was directing Rudy Giuliani and these other lawyers to call up senators and tell them stop the certification. Its such a low bar that the just apartment has to clear on that charge. It makes sense for them to bring that to the prosecution. Can you sustain a conviction on appeal . I think that was a close look at this. There was this decision made that this was quite a clear violation of the law. When you talk about the totality of the charges, the underlying theme is trump kind of showed grand juries in multiple jurisdictions whether its florida or the district of columbia returned indictments like in atlanta. The idea that this is a political prosecution connected to politics runs kind of hollow when a lot of these cases are being returned by a grand jury of your peers. Host how much does donald trump owe and how much is he worth now . Guest its growing. We have the Defamation Case earlier in the year. That was about 80 million. He recently had the judgment in the new york ag civil case around 450 million. If you add them together, youre looking that half 1 billion which is a lot of money. We estimate trump to be worth between 3504 hundred Million Dollars in liquid cash. That comes from two or three deep real estate deals hes done since being in the white house including his hotels and golf course in the saudi backbencher. The idea if you talk to people around trump, he realized he needed a deal because there might be financial problems coming down the track. He has about 400 million and thats what he testified to in his deputies in his case in new york. He will probably have to get an additional source of income but we are not sure where that will come from. When the ideas that the trump advisors have been looking at is a bond company that will require him to put down some collateral. You have to pay a premium for the fees. His preferences do not put his own money down. I think thats the first one in the second point is that his super pac cannot put the money down because that would be in direct violation, thats not allowed. Host why cant he use Campaign Funds to pay legal fees . Guest he has to use his personal funds, he cannot use the pack because you cannot have direct coordination between the pack in the campaign. He is trying to find a way to get out of that. Hes going to have to find a bill company. Host this is something we read in the last segment. Contributions to protrump groups are consistently strong but encumbered by 48 million spent on lawyers and legal services. Last year, his legal bills eight into a corner of his fundraising efforts. Guest its paying for lawyers and paying for judgment. You can pay for lawyers and what happens in the documents investigation, a lot of people were political aides of him and his sister was invited. His Campaign Lawyer got subpoenaed. Trump paid for his lawyers. Host you can pay the bill but not the find . Guest thats right. Host florida is next. Caller good morning. I have to respectfully disagree with the guest in regards to the fairness that he alleges toward donald trump. Im in my mid70s and i have never seen the kind of political persecution going on towards an individual thats going on against donald trump. There are a lot of people who are above the law contrary to what you say. They are all democrats. A good example is Hillary Clinton and the 33,000 emails she destroyed that had already been subpoenaed. 33,000. I may also point out that barack obama took with him close to one million documents after he left the presidency. May i say justifiably so. As a former president of the United States of america. Why shouldnt he be able to have those documents and review and digitize them as he took much too long to do, yet he was never persecuted for that. Donald trump did essentially the same thing. He did give back numerous documents back to the archives. There are some he did not give back. He was persecuted for that. He had his home invaded by the fbi. I have never seen anything like this. Host we got your point. Guest first of all, the point about taking documents with you, this is a point that trump makes repeatedly on the campaign trail and on social post. Thats not white house the president ial record is. When trump talks about the president ial record in an interview in the town hall like you did last night, it misstates the law. In essence, the president ial law says all of these documents are government documents and the ones that retain them are the national archives. They are the property of the government. After nixon, they wanted to make sure you wouldnt have former president running off with documents that might be problematic later on or who knows. I think thats the first point in terms of retaining documents. With obama, there is no grand jury subpoena. He claimed the idea of obstruction that was because he played games with the Justice Department. It was abundantly clear he had to comply with the subpoena. We done reporting on the contents and his advisor said theres no way they can go after him. He asked if we have to give everything back and they said yes and trump effectively made sure that what they look through in terms of what is compliant with the subpoena, he made sure that he didnt have access. There was a violation of the subpoena. It was not a grand jury subpoena for obama and these are important points. In general, these are not political persecutions. It might seem that way but trump repeatedly engaged in activity that aggravates all of these situations. He takes a course of action against the government. Its not clear and the burden will be on the government at trial. Multiple grand jurys have returned indictments against trump. Host the corcoran issue you brought up, it seems to work for donald trump. Guest hes taken a bit of a backseat as you might imagine. He is not on the filings anymore. One thing the trump guys realized was if they let go of all the lawyers that work on the criminal investigation, they would lose the Institutional Knowledge of what went on. The only lawyer left who took the lead role in the documents investigation who is still on now. Host ohio, line for democrats go ahead. Caller good morning. Im glad the guy from florida call before me because he made my point talking about unequal justice when it comes down to the documents case. There is an airman out there now being charged with leaking classified informations. He is in federal custody. His commanderinchief has 36 cases against him and he is running for president. You call that equal justice . I dont think so. Thank you. Host anything you want to follow up on . Guest it seems to be a point about a pretrial incarceration. This is on a casebycase basis and the government makes a showing. The idea that trump is a flight risk or that he will leave the country or somehow evade trial is very minimal. His running for president. The idea that happening is zero. If the government tried to have a pretrial limitation imposed on trump, they said you can release him on bond conditions. For most espionage cases, thats not the case. You have a defendant who are spies or they engage in other espionage activity. That does make them a continued National Security risk on a flight risk. At the end of the day, pretrial incarceration is there to make sure this gets to trial. Im not familiar with the specifics of this case but i would assume it would come down to the fact that this guy host its been a couple of weeks since the story. Your reading of the government report on joe biden and the documents investigation . Guest the consensus from inside the Justice Department was the way the report was written. They got into essen nations that went beyond the scope. There is some idea about writing the special counsel reports, that its important to state why you dont prosecute someone and its important to explain how you got to that decision. I think the white house was upset at how the age question came up, how bidens acuity came up. I think that became the central narrative of the case went really what was at issue was it was never clear obstruction and even if biden did have classified documents on the one hand, there is a question whether it was willful and aggravating to extent that it would be prosecuted. The Trump Lawyers have seized on this in their own case to make the argument that this is selective prosecution. I think it opened that door for them because there is a section in the special counsel report talking about how it there is no need to prosecute biden because there is an ongoing prosecution of a former president with classified documents. I think that is something that is probably going to get litigated now in the Southern District of florida. Who knows if it will be successful but that opened the door. Host did robert hurt have a james comey moment . What does that mean . Guest i think not. When we refer to james comey and think about his tenure at the fbi, you think about the Justice Department placing its thumb on the scale and influencing the outcome of the election. I dont know if that comparison is apt here in part because we are so far away from the election. If you think about james comey reopening the investigation and making an announcement close to election day, a lot of people construed that as putting your thumb on the scale. We are in february. We have months to go especially this new political cycle when these things really dont stick. I dont know if this will make that much of a difference. People say that biden was old and many people think that and people have their views entrenched. Host you talk to folks at the justice of hartman, were they taken aback at those kind of comparisons that this could possibly be construed as placing their fingers on the scale . Have you heard much from them about the blowback on that report . Guest i dont know that they felt they would get as much blowback as they did. I think a lot of former people at the Justice Department and former people in the Criminal Division talk about how on its face, reading the report publicly seems to violate these rules of the special counsel reports which is not the way into politics. Around the same time, there is wariness about this publicly because at the end of the day, the attorney general signed off on this report being public. The attorney general told the special counsel this is inappropriate. He gave robert herr wide latitude to write the report. It comes back to Merrick Garlands aimed aims to politicize the Justice Department. He said he let them reach their own conclusions. Host destruct that out . Guest i think people inside the Justice Department think that Merrick Garland should have narrowly tailored the report so it wasnt so descriptive about bidens memory. Host less than 10 minutes left with hugo lowell from the guardian. This is john waiting in new york, thanks for waiting, independent. Caller ive been watching this but i get the impression that this journalist is focusing like a laser beam on donald trump. I wouldnt, journalist, i would call him a lobbyist for the democratic party, thats my opinion. Host how long have you been working on political investigations and what other ones do you cover . Guest ive been covering the trump investigations and week covered the january 6 committee as well as biden. Before that, i covered sports corruption like the National Olympic committee and the russian doping scandal. Host no shortage of investigations there. Guest all of these investigations, you get these allegations are these suggestions in some instances its true about political allegations. In some cases its not. In the russian doping, it was clear that the kgb were swapping doping samples through a small door in specially constructed laboratory in sochi during the winter olympics. It was clear in my reporting my college reporting that when you are these International Hotels in Different Countries where you have members of the Fifa Executive Committee go up to hotel rooms and brown envelopes filled with cash and there might be some sort of funny business going on. At the end of the day, it comes down to covering a lot of these cases. Weve seen them all the way through. Its not about going after trump or biden. Looking at the facts as presented during the investigation. There is no shortage of evidence here. The one thing that stood out to me during the documents investigation was the amount of evidence the trumps own lawyers didnt have access to as it went on because trump hit it from them. H id it from them. Trumps own lawyers were surprised or blindsided by evidence that the Justice Department presented. I think that was very telling. This wasnt some sort of grand scheme where the government was trying to entrap trump. They had this footage from maralago. They had these search warrants, not search warrants subpoenas. Massive battles that happen before the chief judge and d. C. Was extensively litigated by multiple parties. There are massive witness list and this documents case in the january 6 case. These investigations in these cases being political, you have to turn a blind eye to the sheer amount of evidence thats presented in these indictments. The indictment lays out in excruciating detail how these maralago employees went around searching for the cctv cameras and shining their torches to figure out which camera was recording. It was event after an event and when the Justice Department looks at this, gives them no choice but to prosecute. Host how often do you get to ask questions to donald trump and his lawyers compared to how often you get to talk to jack smith or alvin bragg . Guest thats an interesting question. I wont go into the sourcing specifically but the way the reporting gets done in these cases, we speak to these people all the time. We speak to trumps lawyers often. They are off the record and often its not reportable. With the federal government side of the law, its more difficult and more sensitive because of rules. The district attorneys want to protect the integrity of their investigation. Host its fair to say you talk to the trump team more than the prosecution . Guest that is true. By and large, thats true and in terms of the information, i would get into that. The point is, we talked all these guys all the time. There is a lot of on the ground reporting. Ive been to maralago. Ive been down to atlanta whole bunch of times. This is the way we do the job. Host still plenty of calls for you, grand rapids, michigan democrat. Caller good morning. I would like to make the point that i am a democrat im an american first. People break the law, get arrested and get indicted. And people who dont break the law dont get arrested and dont get indicted. Weve got people on your still complaining about Hillary Clinton. She never got arrested. They are about to impeach biden. Theres nothing to it. They just proved it with the fbi agent thats a liar. I am a democrat because i dont leave and trickle down economics. I think trump in a lot of trouble in these cases. People should not be sticking up for him. It is america, break the law, you will get in trouble. Host you think about the fbi informant that he was referring to . Guest the court filing yesterday expanded some of the details. He was one of the fbis informants in the hunter biden investigation. Hes been charged with effectively lying to the fbi. If you look at that court filing, it describes Alexander Smirnov is a human wall of mirrors. Thats the best way of her to put where everything he said seemed to be ally and it was impossible for the fbi to figure out what he was lying about and where he was telling the truth. They decided to charge him. What i think stood out to me was the amount of contact he had with russian intelligence officials. It was quite striking. He had continued discussions with people close to the kremlin about all of these stories. It pulled me back to what the House Foreign AffairsCommittee Found in the Previous Congress when they went through the Senate Investigation into the russia probe and the kind of hunter biden stories of allegations. Because back to 2015 when there were contacts with russia. There is ways to discredit ukraine. This has a long genesis. Its been something thats been percolating through the Republican Party for some time and its made its way back through david weiss with hunter biden. I think the core finding speaks for itself, when you have a liar who has been indicted who had contact with the russians and the Justice Department potential is seeking further perjury charges. I think that is a very strong court filing. It was so big on detail that it was unusual in its scope. Host this is richard calling from canada, good morning. Caller good morning. The judge in new york who find President Trump 355 million said it was said the property in maralago was only worth 18 million. It sits on 17 million acres when it two acre lot, the market value is 150 million. Why shouldnt the average american think this judge is corrupt political judge trying to prosecute President Trump when he lies about the value of the property and you dont hear one reporter on msnbc or cnn talk about that value that sits on 17 acres with you buildings on it. Let me hear what mr. Lowell has to say here. Guest this case comes down to asset values. Its also about inflating assets on one side and deflating assets on the other. Its not about the fundamental value of these assets. Weve been reporting on this and theres reason to believe some of the properties are worth more. The crux of this case as presented by the attorney general rest on trump inflating his asset values and trying to seek loan so he can pay lower rates effectively to banks and devaluing his assets when he has to pay taxes to the irs. Its not what is maralago worth. Its why was he representing two separate figures to two separate entities in a way that benefit him . That was what was being prosecuted. Host if somebody is doing that with their own home, would they be prosecuted for it when it comes to looking for a loan for something they are trying to buy and paying taxes . Is that something the average person can do . Guest i dont know if they would be prosecuted for it. It comes down to prosecute jory discretion. He was doing this in terms of his business. Trump was inflating the value of his 5th avenue in Square Footage of histriplex multiple times over. Either your apartment is 10 feet or 100 feet. I think that host host is the contention. This is liberty hill, texas, independent. You are on. Caller yes, hugo, i have a question to ask you. January 6, i was sitting at home and i was on facebook. I happened to see the posting by John Sullivan. I thought what is going on. This John Sullivan was bragging and boasting about successfully breaking in to the capital. I said thats not happening. Then i started watching his video and i was shocked. His video revealed the Capitol Police directing crowds of people into and throughout the capital. They were laughing and joking, fist bumping. I thought what the heck. Then i happened to see i watch that video until they shut Ashli Babbitt. I couldnt believe it. Thats when that ended. Why is this John Sullivan not being held accountable . Why is it that host we got your question. This is from november of last year. Guest without getting into specific cases because there are hundreds. Thats for the january 6 riot defendants. Its taken time and they will identify these people and build cases with the cctv footage from the capital and charges will be forthcoming. We have spoken to a lot of Capitol Police officers that day. The fundamental point was they were so overwhelmed and out powered by the sheer number of people that attempted to storm the capital. There was a sense of resignation where they said we will not fight back. It comes down to safety. There is also an element of a complete breakdown in the command and control structure of the Capitol Police. A lot of the lieutenants didnt know what was happening and didnt know how to respond. I would push back on the contention that the Capitol Police were encouraging people to storm the capital. The point with Ashli Babbitt was she was trying to break through glass into the speakers lobby in the capital when members of congress were there. Next to the House Chamber in the well, there is a corridor were members, to leave the chamber, you can go through the lobby which is a long hallway. That is a secure area of the capital. It was secured that day especially when the rioters were breaking in. The glass is not bulletproof. It is now but it wasnt then. Members of congress were still trying to get out of the capital and trying to get out of the speakers lobby when Ashli Babbitt tried to climb over the ornate wooden entryway into the speakers lobby. Every Capitol Police officer ive spoken to has basically said we would do the same thing. We would protect the integrity of the speakers lobby and protect members of congress. That is their job. If anyone tries to climb into a secured zone in a way that threatens member safety, Capital Police will respond like that every time. I dont know if any other police Capitol Police officer would respond differently. Host you can follow hugo lowell on twitter hugo lowell and his cspans washington journal interviews authors every day this week. Watch at 7 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan or online at cspan. Org. Friday night, watching cspans 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round of Seasons Campaign coverage, providing a onestop shop discovering where candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying to voters. Watch cspans 2024 campaign trail friday night at 7 00 eastern on cspan, online at cspan. Org or download as a podcast on cspan now or wherever you get your podcasts. Cspan, your unfiltered view of politics. Cspan now is a free mobile app, featuring your unfiltered view of whats happening in washington live and ondemand. Keep up with the days biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from u. S. Congress, white house events, campaigns, and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips