That is of concern to the committee, not just the house,. Ut the Judiciary Committee was a served their, it bipartisan committee. They have to Work Together and create common cause with National Security. As we have seen over the past few years, the committee has become partisan upon both sides. We can blame the current ,hairman in the former chairman but that may be part of the climate at play and will unfortunately play into the dynamics. That partisanship we see in the hearings and on cspan coverage, does that carry down to the level of the Staff Councils as well . Mr. Jaffer it didnt used to. When the chairman and Ranking Member would come in, they were new to the committee. It has gone through these phases of being partisan, bipartisan, and partisan. Phase where not only is it happening in front of the cameras, but devolving to the staff level. They are not far apart, but given the current dynamic in public, it is hard to imagine it is bipartisan. Linked to the redacted report, the office of the Inspector General, by the whistleblower. , whatou look at that . Ould have to rise up to be to be an Impeachable Offense . What more would have to come out of this . Guest the constitution refers to high crimes and misdemeanors. As we know from having to go through the clinton impeachment, those terms do not have a defined meaning, at least not one that we have identified specifically. There was a lot of talk about what it meant when the constitution was written. Other people believe you should look at it in an evolving way. Impeachment turns out to be a political decision than it is a legal question. There is no legal to standard to say if the house votes in the senate convicts, no court will say that was wrong and it does not meet the standards. That is a political decision for the political branch. Then, the house essentially and the senate become a judge of what that term means. Is it a federal crime, no. Doesnt need to be more than a federal crime, it does not have to be. The question here is, does the house believe it has the votes to recommend articles of impeachment to the senate, and if all the facts were prudently true and brought to bear, does the senate find fault. If they do, they remove the person, whether it is a judge, sitting member, or the president. We will see what happens. Based on the current facts, there is an open debate. I think much more will come out. The house will do a big investigation not just of this complaint but other things around it. That will be interesting to see and whether that will lead to things that people believe are Impeachable Offenses. More will. The house will do a big investigation not just of this complaint but other things around it. That will be interesting to see and whether that will lead to things that people believe are Impeachable Offenses. Host he served on the senior counsel for the Intelligence Committee 20112013. Republicans your line is, 2027488000. Emocrats, 2027488001 independents and others, 2027488002 send us a tweet, and text us at 2027488003. A lot has been made of the term quid pro quo, explain what that means, and does there have to be a quid pro quo for some sort of offense to be cited . Guest the term means an exchange, one for another, i gave you this, you give me that. People have been debating this question is , these, if in fact president was saying if you do this favor for me, investigate joe biden and look into the , but do thisaine and i will do some favors down the road. Quo,is there a quid pro no. Itwe talk about impeachment, is a political decision for the house and senate. There is no requirement that the president violate any law. A law that is on the table and might be in play as the Campaign Finance laws. Was the president after something of value for his campaign in exchange for something of value for the government. That is why this debate is taking place. What people really focus on are andtwo pages, pages two three. Discussion by the president of ukraine saying i want to buy missiles. Response is not let us talk about the price or the work or how it will work. His responses, can we talk about the server of ukraine. It could be the president is changing topics, or it could be the president of ukraine asks for x in the president says if you give me y, i will think about it. People need to focus on if it was a quid pro quo. It does not need to be, but that is the ongoing debate. If there is a conviction there needs to be a suggestion of what was in play. Caller the house investing host the house investigators giuliani. Naing rudy what sort of records innocent in this investigation would this committee seek to find. Guest if they are looking for anything into the substance of the allegation, the claim that the president was in an priateriate an unappro exchange of value, if there is it would be impeachable. Because the president brought Rudy Giuliani into the conversation during the transcript, it is not surprising that the investigators want to know what he was doing. Stu giuliani has been on tv public about his role in ukraine and what he was doing. So the question is does he have any way to protect the information . Does he have privileges . Attorneyclient privilege, because Rudy Giuliani is president trumps personal attorney. Said i was not behaving as an attorney, which would undermine a claim. Then there is a question of executive privilege, was he a personal envoy of the president. Was he on a mission . If you remember in the days of George Washington, he sent john jay to negotiate the treaty. He refused to give the house the records of the negotiation. George washington said this is not part of your role, and i will not give those those private you those private negotiations. It does not matter that i used a person acting in a nonofficial capacity to do the negotiations. Host that is some longago president. 7 guest 7092. 2027488001 for republicans. 2027488000 for democrats. 2027488002 four independents and others. Surely, on the republic shirley, on the republican line. Caller this is very important. What i would like to ask this they be goingld on with this inquiry, wanting to impeach when they have no proof. Hearsay, he said, she said, and nobody wants to say i said. I heard. This is ridiculous. You know what, really the people in this country, it is a shame. They all need to really check on their own what they have done in their life. Have they lied, said a little white lie. It is about time we get down on our knees and ask god to take charge in this country. He sent trump they are to do a job, and believe me, nobody will take trump out of there because god almighty sent him. Raises au know, it good point about this complaint. A lot of people have said that the complaint is inappropriate because the whistleblower does not claim direct knowledge. The whistleblower heard from somebody else. Heard from somebody else that the records had been stored in additionally compartment did files and computer systems. It was all hearsay. The flip side to her point is that now the president has sent a transcript which is a record of his direct conversation. This debate over what the president said, what he was implying when he was talking about the server, ukraine, and joe biden while the president of ukraine is asking for military support, does that mean he is about to Exchange Value . That is not hearsay. The committee is looking to get testimony from some of the people on the phone call. Mike pompeo was substance of the the abstinence of late was on the phone call. It is unusual for president ial aides, whether they are cabinet officials or people on the white house to actually testify, because you want to protect the confidentiality of communications that the president has with other leaders. Have candid conversations. The more that comes out the less likely it is to get the candid conversations. It is where that line of privilege is. Congress won the document and they will be the tussle. The president has been transparent in that he has declassified the whistleblower complaint and given the transcript. Caller let us hear from arizona. Caller i just made an observation that looking over , youre going to have patriots, i do not think you guys will be carrying that. It is a serious event that they are looking at. Host i think he is talking about the mention of a potential rally in washington. That is here from indiana, republican line. Caller good morning, and thank you. The only thing i want to say is there is nothing in the history of the United States to impeach he has awhen conversation with somebody else. , from the first day, mr. Trump got elected, they were after him. That is a fact. They wanted hillary to get elected, but she did not. That was the election, they chose him as the president. Host thank you. Anothere raises important point, which is that there is a feeling that after the election and the surprise election of donald trump, and a feeling that the president has helped through his tweets and conversations. The partisanship on capitol hill of democrats and republicans has stoked this idea that people have always been out to get him out of office and this happens to be the latest thing and they will grab onto it and run with it. Mccright democrats have wanted impeachment since day one. The question is how does that play into how the house will vote and whether the senate will vote to convict. That will weigh heavily if impeachment articles have their way. Should it, that is a harder question. Should it be on the merits, or thecan or should republicans have said that there is an effort, and people feel the way that they do that there is an effort and has long been an effort to remove the president on any basis, this is the one people have grabbed onto. Host it will be along this path of the speaker proposing that they vocus on the ukrainian issue and the phone call, which is a very narrow path. Will the Intelligence Committee right the articles of impeachment and pass it onto to the Judiciary Committee . Guest as i understand it, this is a new dynamic, we have only had three impeachments to date, this will be the third or fourth. Or, attempted up he impeachments, i should say. Theircommittees will do investigation and provide the evidence they find and report in their jurisdiction. The Judiciary Committee will draft the articles will be voted on in that committee and then go to the floor to be voted on they are. If passed, it will be prosecuted by prosecutors supported appointed to represent the articles for a trial in the senate. Host there is nothing in the procedure that says the house has to votes first before we have the inquiry. People are saying they have to vote first, but they do not. Guest as a general matter, the houses investigative power is and oversight powers do not in do not require. My recollection from the clinton impeachment, i do not involve recall voting to begin an investigation, that was done under the purview of the chairman. From let us hear from deb wisconsin, democrats line. Caller i have a couple of questions. I am wondering why the program this morning started with our host saying quid pro quo and the guest adding, after the word solicit, the words and get something in return. If people would look up the law cfr 110. 20, there is a prohibition on solicitation by Foreign Nationals. It does not say anything about getting anything in return. Thato find my comment is it is very interesting. I had a that with my husband. Cspan decided to make the call 5050 this morning, so that half the calls were showing that they were against impeachment, as i polls. Ng the i feel that you do that to help republicans, and you are helping them to feel comfortable that half the country must be on the side of this lawbreaker. Host your point on the phone lines, we separate them for various segments, and that is not the reason. We have different ways of dividing up the phone lines. Quo versus quid pro solicitation. Guest the federal election campaigns act, the relevant law that might apply here. It does prohibit the solicitation of an american of a Foreign National for Campaign Contributions. Thinking, Campaign Contributions does not have to be money. These are debatable points. It can be something of value, it is not just that i ask for cash, i could ask you to paint my inse or campaign office, an time contribution. If you were to solicit a foreigner, that would be unlawful. There is a question, was the president soliciting campaign help . That is a debatable point. There are a lot of legal questions about that. But impeachment is not a legal issue, it is a political question. The legal question is what the president will say. He might say i want to investigate corruption. And i want to root out corruption in a foreign country. That is a say that reasonable or silly argument, but it is an argument in the sense that he will have to prove that he was trying to get something of value as the goal in order to prove. Host that is the process is noa criminal process, it is a political process until and if and until the president is found guilty by the senate and the senate trial. Could a president be held responsible or could he be charged with crimes if he were convicted by the senate . In criminal court and civil court after he leaves the presidency . Guest i do not know that it will take a senate conviction. If the president would leave office, as a general matter, the government has taken the view that the president cannot be prosecuted for official acts. That is not free from doubt. The speech and debate clause is very clear, it says that anything said on the floor or house of senate, you cannot be sued for it. Whether the president could be for an official act, or a pseudoofficial act, that is a harder question. The general position is that not while the president is in office. When he is out of office, whether removed or left office, or the end of an eight year term, then it is a more open question. And it goes to the question was the act official, wasnt official in the time of office but not unofficial. Those are harder questions that i think may or may be not be debated or may not be debated. We have not seen suits afterthefact. We saw them against richard nixon, from my recollection i cannot recall any prosecutions by the government of a president. There are also the political questions. Party isf the opposing elected, and they were to pursue a president criminally of the other party, that would cause huge political tensions and maybe that is why we have not seen that. The our guest served as lead senior counsel in the house Intelligence Committee 2011 to 2013. Now at George Mason Law School he founded the National Security institute. What do you do there . Guest we were set up to identify hard questions and National Security law and identify realworld actions. Law is about Civil Liberties, which is a very important debate. George mason talks a lot about Civil Liberties. We find it important to talk about Civil Liberties and National Security and have the discussion in public and help give ideas to members of congress and elective officials about how they can solve thelems and reconcile important, competing values and our National Security while preserving the privileges that americans enjoy. Host let us hear from cindy, north carolina, independent line. Caller good morning. Thank you for taking my call. I would like to know, does the president have a right to inquire, and i believe he does by law, to any Foreign Government about corruption in a former election, 2016. Does he have a right to inquire to any leader of any country about corruption in our own government . This letter, the way i understand it, where the secondhandedly got information that the president was looking at biden. Wasrding to the letter, he what the president said was he was inquiring about election. In the 2016 is this fact or something that they are still debating . Nancy pelosi wants something ,hat is ripe for impeachment and it is just confusing about why she is pushing something and saying that it is our National Security. It is our National Security, for a president to know whether there is corruption in our own government. Host ok. Importantin, an point. This is the debate. Congress and the democrats are concerned that the president was trading a thing of value for some political gain. Republicans in the senate in the house or saying no, the president was asking about corruption and wanted to root out corruption in the prior election and get to the cause of the investigation into alleged russian interference in the election and how that began. That is what these were about, these were effectual acts as his role in president , the soul oregon of the nations Foreign Affairs and not to be questioned. This is a debate that the country will have. Say what you want about what happened and the underlying thing is, there are a lot of debates and a lot of people are troubled by that conversation. The president has been beenparency can has transparent and put the transcript out. We have a chance to have that debate in congress and potentially in the senate about what was the meaning of the phone call. Are there other phone calls like it . Were there other foreign leaders where similar exchanges of value were discussed or similar topics of corruption were discussed . Is it important for the country to know that. If so, how much do we need to know . Do we need to know every call that the president has . Is this president special . We should not let the moment overtake us. There are important values at stake longerterm about if it is right to do. These host host are tough debates. Let me get your thoughts on news that we are seeing that the president pressed the australian leader to help the attorney general investigate the molar inquirys mueller origins. The president pressed for information for a department for a Justice Department inquiry that will discourage the investigation. Guest it is one of those things where we have to see the transcript. We will not say that the president has given up the transcript. There are important equities when it comes to executive privilege and Foreign Affairs that might come into play. If we look the transcript we wast learn what is about said. Is this about the Prime Minister of australia wanting something and if he does, i will give you this thing . If it was, that is troubling. Thate president says somebody began with a staffer of mine and one of your diplomats in england, and that is how something began, it is not crazy if you are going to investigate the roots of the probe to start there, which is where it began. There is a lot of people where if thewill debate president should do it. If that is a problem, that is a different question. Host what do you make of the reports that the transcript of the foreign call phone call was kept in a different server. Is that normal protocol . Guest as a general matter these phone calls are classified. The president is talking about things that are sensitive, both to the foreign leader and us, because and because the context and how this might play out for a foreign leader in our own country or the United States. My general matter, in experience that phone calls are classified. Typically that confidential or secret level, but not topsecret. There is one interesting fact that came out that raises the question about explosive put inxplain why it was that file. This is typically used for covert actions. Wasof the key things that capped was conversations with russian diplomat about foreign election interference that said i do not care, we do it too. If we do such things, and there are historical examples, they are done in the form of covert action. One might say, the president might have been restoring referring to Covert Action Program that we are aware of. We need to put this conversation in the covert action file. That my explain might explain the conversation with the russian officials. Not all these things are the same. An interesting debate but not typical to put in topsecret files, also when they are talking about a sensitive program, and unless there is something that the president did that we did not know about. Host it was not a transcript, but it was a memorandum. Guest same thing, you are right, it was not a direct transcript, but this amounts to call records. You do not have a stenographic taking notes. Host here is deborah, florida, on the democrats line. Caller i would like to call the lady who called earlier saying that god put donald trump in office. That is incorrect. Donald trump has children engages, taken from their in cages, taking from their mother and he is using a secret server to cover up his corruption. He has been corrupt since day one. Alexandria nd in alexandria on our republican line. Democrats want to impeach trump because they lost the election, that is what it is all about. Trump is doing an excellent job. The democrats say is that nobody is above the law, but they should say that nobody is above the law except for us and the illegals. Storywe let we read a with the headline trump targets whistleblowers as the inquiry deepens. Attorneys fear for the safety and warn against retaliation saying that the notoriety has brought about a reported 50,000 bounty for revealing his name. In your experience forgetting a whistleblower or somebody whose identity needed to be kept secret to testify before a committee, typically how would that be done . Unusualhis is an circumstance because the whistleblower is in the government and the president i s the head of the executive branch, and could in theory order for officials to reveal to him the name. That would not be unlawful, but hugely problematic and a crisis for the executive Branch Officials who were told to do that. They would have to be put to the test on whether they would do it or quit. It is hard to know. Matter,eral whistleblowers are protected from retaliation, not for their identity being revealed. There is a different law that protects identities from being revealed publicly, not within the executive branch. President has the power and he has the power. Ability toe has the direct anything and interpret the law authoritatively to say that it does not prohibit him from doing this. The political consequences are the real check in these circumstances. That is on that is a check that we see playing out here. I think the president may understand it, or the people around him understand that and they are advising him that it is not a good idea to target or refer to the whistleblower. That has not stopped the president from tweeting. The president is saying a lot on twitter. We will see how this plays out. The real check on abuse of president ial power is not the laws, but the impeachment process. That is what we see playing out. Independent on the line. Caller good morning, thank you for taking my call. You people in the press do not seem to want to ask the simple question, here goes joe biden over to ukraine, and he brings little boy with him. All of a sudden, hunter biden is , sitting on a month a board and he knows nothing about the petroleum or national gas natural gas industry. What do you think they were paying him for . They bought joe biden and he went up for auction and was bought off nicely for 1 billion in china. Honest, biden be is about as crooked as a bag of elbows. Thank you. Guest is not a member of the press. Your thoughts. Concernooked, this is a for a lot of people in the American Public and the president himself. The question of whether that joe biden who may be the president ial candidate in the upcoming election, whether there were inappropriate activities going on with his family. This was not the first time we have heard of potential concerns. And onehe has a brother of the uncles who has been alleged to have been engaged in inappropriate activities related to official activities. There is been no evidence that we have heard of that senator biden when he was Vice President or in the senate, that he took any actions as a result of his son or brothers activities. They are obviously concerning. We have seen a lot of folks raise questions about that. I think that as a political matter, political campaigns will look into these things and try to raise them. Should the president be doing that, is that something appropriate . Depends on whether this his person that while this was in office he did something inappropriate. A futurepropriate for or later president to investigate those questions, that is a hard thing to figure out. If it is appropriate, how do you do it without looking partisan, if there are foreign leaders involved, without engaging in quick quid pro quo, particularly when the person involved, the politician involved might be a candidate in the upcoming election. Host it may be a little out of your realm, how would political corruption in ukraine the a National Security or could be a National Security threat . Guest if you play out the working theory that hunter biden got this highly paid position in the ukrainian private sector company, paid a lot in an area that he did not know a lot about. As the caller laid out, those of the facts that he laid out. If that is true, why did he get that position when the Vice President was in office and working in ukraine matters. Was not something that they sought to gain . If it is true, didnt have an effect on the actions and that have an effect on National Security at the time. Host neil, in york, pennsylvania,s and on our democrat and on our democrats line. Caller i have some comments, first of all i think trump is a criminal, and i think it would be obvious to anyone who has half a brain. Biblerepublicans, these thumpers are in some kind of republican euphoria, and denial. It is really sad that they think trump is the Second Coming of christ, and that is the joke, he is a joke, they are a joke. Thank you. Line,to the republican and we will hear from long beach. Jerry, hello. Conversation. To make the comment about the whistleblower, it bothers me that the democrats have changed the rules. That whistleblower should have gone to someone and said things were going on, and that person should have encourage them to become whistleblowers. Earlier you said that if there is first of all, if the house convicts, it goes to the senate. Said that leaders has there will be a trial. The trial would be handled by the Supreme Court justice. I read an article that said if that was the case then anything and everything, and everyone could be subpoenaed and it could go all the way up to the president , president obama. Is that true . When the house considers impeachment charges and the senate sits in trial, both houses are acting not in their classic legislative capacity but as a quasisite judicial capacity, almost like a court. The house acting as the prosecutors and deciding whether there is enough to bring charges and voting. If the charges are voted on, taking the case to the senate and prosecuting it as attorneys. The senate, in its quasijudicial role, the chief justice provides, but the senate sits as a jury, a very large jury to consider whether they would vote for conviction. Caller as a result, the is right that it is unusual, and it is also unusual in the sense that you might think, and i think people have argued historically, that both the house and senate have additional powers that go beyond their legislative powers so where you might be able to get evidence or materials, stuff like phone records or phone calls that you would not get in the classic situation of a legislative proceeding. Even George Washington in the case i cited where he refused to provide the records of negotiation actually said i am not going to give you these records. If you were sitting in impeachment, i might have to, but im not going to. He actually said that. He said impeachment would be different. Bringing charges against me so you will not be worried about that. Even the context of debates of whether you can get records of negotiations on treaties, impeachment might be a special case even going back to the era of George Washington. Host that caller brought up the issue of the Intelligence Community changing the rules. Who tweeted out the president tweeted out yesterday, and a headline with the Intelligence Community allowing secondhand complaints. Media matters saying that there is a false report. Tell us what this is about. Caller there was a form in which whistleblower complaints are reported. The question is whether the form was changed around the time the complaint came in in order to commit this want to go forward. This whistleblower, the principal allegations, the personal makes some allegations they might have personal knowledge about. The phone call and the stuff about the certifier, that appears stuff about the server, that appears to be hearsay. They heard from somebody else who told them about this and they recounted it in a complaint. As the original purporting suggested, the original form said you had to have firsthand knowledge. The claim is that the form was changed. The dni put out information that that is a misunderstanding and the rules always permitted it. I have not sorted through the details of who has the better, but there is a debate on whether the phone had the form has changed, or the change was already in place. Hat is an ongoing debate the Inspector General has inspected the report. Guest ultimately it does not matter, whistleblower complaint is out and has been declassified and everyone can read it. Host we go to providence, kentucky. Ken on the independent line. Caller i know it takes a majority in the house to vote for impeachment, but actual numbers with the makeup of the house today, actual numbers how many would it take . Thank you. Host i think a majority for anything, they would lose one today because Chris Collins has resigned. It is around 218 in the house. With the full majority, 218. , and maryland, on the republican line. Caller there is a big difference, as you know, between inappropriate and illegal. I do not think what trump did was illegal. What i saw biden do, by his own admission and implicating obama as well. You need to look that up. He did. He implicated obama. That seems to me illegal, holding 1 billion of funds for a private prosecutor fired in ukraine. You being a loyal a lawyer, that is more criminal than inappropriate. Host we have not talked about that end of the equation. Guest there are things that are illegal and violate federal or state law. And, things that are inappropriate and people might not be happy about the president doing, other it is this or the prior president. The question for the house in the senate is not is it per se illegal under federal statutory law, but doesnt reached the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, again, an undefined term. If you look to the original meaning or in evolving standard depending on how you interpret the constitution. It does not mean you have to violate federal law to be convicted, you do not. It could be something short or well beyond that, you do not have the kind of proof that you need. This is not a criminal trial and there is not a jury of your peers. The senate is sitting as a jury, that is like a classic trial presented presided over where you have a criminal judge. The prosecutor is the legislative grant brands. A majority in the house and two thirds in the senate needed to convict. Jamil jaffer former discuss whichwill live wednesday at 7 00 a. M. Join the discussion. Next, ar coming up subcommittee hearing on gun violence in School Safety. On tax creditsos and scholarships for school chance to seea the conversation between charlie cook and bill press. Wednesday, Boris Johnson delivers the closing address at his parties conference in manchester, england. Watch live at 6 30 a. M. Eastern orcspan two, cspan. Org, listen live with the free cspan radio app. Announcer live wednesday, nancy pelosi holds a news compass at 10 40 5 a. M. Eastern on cspan, then the council on Foreign Relations host is a discussion on siri. Then, a cybersecurity summit with remarks from Michael Chertoff and james clapper. , a forum onp. M. Government oversight and the role of the Inspector General. Woodwardear from bob and jason chaffetz. On cspan three at 12 30 p. M. Eastern, legal scholars and journalists preview the upcoming Supreme Court term in the case is expected to come before the court. Campaign our cspan 2020 bus team is visiting key battleground states in the 2020 president ial race, asking voters what issues they want president ial candidates to address during the campaign. Shouldress in washington do more to address the climate crisis, because defense spending or any other partisan divide will not matter if we dont have a planet to live on. I think an important issue washington needs to address is lgbtq a quality at the federal level and protecting individuals from discrimination. Right now, they are not protected under the constitution when it comes to getting a job as a bisexual woman, someone can fire me for being gay. That is an issue that needs to come to the forefront. The system overall, the development of new technologies, and having some kind of public input on these. There are technologies coming editing, human gene which to some people is very scary, or lets say the development of algorithms on the internet and how they sort the information we see. Big Technological Developments where there is not a clear consensus on what we ought to do , so as a political system, there is an obligation to have some kind of conversation about these big issues and decide collectively what we ought to be doing as a society. We have a lot of issues at the federal level now, but one we hear a lot about with my constituents throughout the states gun safety, and it is a big issue. People are interested in stronger background checks and that is very important, and no one is interested in taking away any guns. We just want to make sure they dont get in the hands of the wrong people and restrictions on automatic weapons. They have one purpose, so we need to Pay Attention to that issue. Voices from the campaign trail, part of the cspan battleground states tour. Announcer next, a hearing on School Safety and gun violence. We hear from safety officials, the parent of a student killed, and the parkland shooting survivor and cofounder of march for our lives. This is one hour and 50 minutes