campaign 2020. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. "washington journal" is next. " is next. ♪ host: as congress returns from its thanksgiving break, house committees get back to work on the impeachment inquiry. house intelligence committee releasing its report to members, voting on it on tuesday and the house judiciary committee holding its first public hearing on wednesday. good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on monday, december 2, 2019. we would like to ask you what is your message to your member of congress on impeachment? republicans, call 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents and others, 202-748-8002. you can send us a text. make sure you include your name and where you are texting from. 202-748-8003. on twitter, we are at @cspanwj on facebook, you can post at facebook.com/cspan. we heard from the administration from the white house in particular. a letter from the president's council and we will show you that a minute ago, a five-page letter released yesterday and the reporting of the washington times on the administration response with their headline trump will not take part in judiciary committee's impeachment hearing. the white house said the president will not participate in the next phase of house attempts to impeach him saying directions from democrats "only exacerbate the lack of due process and fairness according to the president." the top republican on the committee, debt -- doug collins said he will demand testimony from house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff as the impeachment inquiry heads towards its next phase. republicans are indicating they will focus on a process they dismiss as a partisan attack on mr. trump and you can read more .com.shingtontimes letter coming out yesterday, part of which reads as the hearing scheduled for december 4, we cannot be expected to participate while witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the judiciary committee will afford the president a fair process through additional hearings. more important, an invitation to an academic discussion does not begin to provide the president with fair process. under the current circumstances, todo not print -- intend participate. what would you 10 -- what do you tell your member of congress on impeachment? 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents and others, 202-748-8002. on twitter and facebook, people weighing in already. the libertarian tweets if we don't hold the executive responsible, we have entered a dictatorship. if the rule becomes as long as the president party controls the senate, they can do what they want, we are a dictatorship. peggy, start issuing indictments for those who refuse invitations to testify. you have plenty of evidence. on facebook, chris saying we must have a leader accountability to the law, get the facts clearly in view. we have the impeachment process for a reason, use it. do not vote for impeachment as you will not be reelected. this is an attempted coup to relieve a duly elected president. sherry says do your job and find out the truth and if he did things we think he did, impeach and remove. take the time to do your due diligence. do what is right, not what is expected of you. back to that letter from the president counsel, headline in the new york times this money. judiciary panel will step back into the spotlight. trump' keeps his distance. it is not yet clear whether you will afford the president fundamental rights were continue to deny them. mr. nadler in consultation with pelosi will have to decide how to handle these requests, weighing eight is asked her to -- maintain forward momentum in the proceedings. it is one of the delicate tasks fraught with political list and legal intricacy that have fallen to the judiciary panel as the impeachment inquiry enters a critical phase. the first milestone will calm in the form of a written report, which is to be approved tuesday. muchandoff which will for of the basis for articles of impeachment against president trump will be stylistic and a substantive turning point that will inflame a debate that has will yield congress and divided the country. in particular, what would you want your members to do, to say on impeachment? democrats line, first is jeff in indianapolis. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: good and thank you all for c-span. c-span is truly fair and .alanced unlike fox i am never going to live to see today where i hear republicans membersn an ex-kgb talking points. putin is now head of the republican party. they come out with all these can searcy -- conspiracy theories and throw everything in the air, which doesn't make sense. the evidence and the facts don't mean nothing. i never thought the party of the dwight d. eisenhower would be taking the talking points of vladimir putin. i know what andre carson is going to do. i wish republicans would do their job. onned and been c had. from supporters crawl back to the cage you came from and leave civilization alone. host: let's go to our independent line. llo.he caller: everybody is worried about putin, but what about the video of president obama speaking to putin's foreign minister he was overheard saying wait until after the election? mr. trump is going to be reelected. it democrats are throwing anything they can at him and there is a majority of people that will reelect this president and they want to prepare the democrats for this second nervous breakdown because it is in evitable. line,georgia, democrats what would you say to your member of congress? what would you tell them? caller: i have to correct the previous caller. the president of president obama was -- the video of president obama was from 2012. that is bananas. my congressman is buddy carter and i called his office last week to let them know i was not the way it seems all the republicans are in lockstep and not reading the evidence and what i want all republicans to do is close their eyes and imagine if this was obama or if this was clinton and do what they would do if it was them and that would be listen to the evidence and remove that person from office. that is the reality of this. i think the russians have something on the republicans for them to be acting this way. i don't understand why they are doing this. the only explanation is there is something on them, the money they received through the rnc, the fact they spent years going over there for conferences and received money through the nra, that is the only thing i can think of that they are willing to betray us and walk with putin, it makes no sense. host: tom mcclintock was on yesterday, this was before the letter came out from the president passat attorney saying the president would not participate. here is what tom mcclintock said yesterday. [video clip] >> i think it would be to the president's advantage to have his attorneys there, but i understand how he is upset at the illegitimate process we saw unfold. the big question will be whether jerry nadler continues that or -- or he respects the due process rights of the president not only to be represented, but have the unrestricted right to call witnesses in his defense and call his accuser. >> you think they should bring in lawyers? >> i think it is to his advantage. send thisn nadler did letter. will your party submit written questions? >> i expect they will. i know the discussions are ongoing as to the witnesses we would like to call. you will recall in the intelligence hearings, republicans asked for 9 witnesses. 6 of those.vetoed the question is going to be whether jerry nadler continues that sham. when he goes to the senate, that will play a big role. they will insist on full due process rights. >> we have been talking about the decision all morning. we know it is being appealed, but if the courts ruled senior officials like john bolton, mick mulvaney could testify, do you believe they should? >> absolutely. i think it would be to the president passat advantage to have them testify now. he has to way that against the damage that would go to the doctrine of executive privilege that assures when policy is being developed, those discussions are unfettered, candid, thinking outside of the box, that is why the doctrine of executive privilege exists. he has to weigh those elements and i understand why he is making the decision to defend that doctrine not only for his administration, but future administrations. host: your message to your member of congress. call 202-748-8001 if you are a republican. democrats, 202-748-8000. all others, 202-748-8002. president trump a number of tweets this morning, he is up early headed to joint base andrews and then london for the nato summit. saying thent quoting process has been unfair, republicans cannot even get their own witnesses. adam schiff is not punishable for lying in anyway. from usa today, their lead opinion piece by the former secretary under george w. bush, sense or trump, don't impeach him. impeachment hearings proved a point almost everyone knows, trump did it. democrats and the news media say the meetings were full of bombshells and smoking guns, but the smoking guns were bbs. in football terms, trump deserves a flag for a false start for unnecessary roughness. democrats want to add up all the penalty flags and they see the ukrainian phone call as proof the president should be thrown out of the game. i heard nothing that rises to the level of impeachment. if democrats were smart, they would drop impeachment and vote to censure the president or his phone call and his attempts to link an investigation to military aid or oval office visit. i expect many republicans would vote for it. kenneth in missouri, good morning. caller: good morning. i am wondering when this process gets done, they impeach him in the house, goes to the senate guilty i found not want to know what have democrats gained? they have gained nothing because he will get reelected and i allk the investigation into the lies against the president 2016 and the people need to go to prison if they are found guilty and all these democrats call in and think they are going to get him thrown out of office. there is not going to be 22 senators. you are living in a pipe dream. that is all i have to say this morning. detroitvid is next in on our democrats line. caller: i am so happy and believed i came behind mr. missouri. let me start by saying brenda housece happens to be my of representatives and she is pointing in a direction toward censorship. i think the majority of people who live in this district will probably be opposed to censorship. enough there has been advanced to support why we are impeaching trump because of the violations toward our democracy, that is what is on trial and mr. missouri and all the old white men that keep calling and it seems they knows everyone else does not know, that 45 is going to be reelected, i have one thing for you, i don't think so. bob is next, independent line in new hampshire. caller: i would like to see congress, the judiciary committee call the chairman and the ranking member. i would like to see shift -- schiff and nunes at the same table. --t: what should the caller: process, how they selected witnesses, if it gets into name-calling, they are both there and they can answer questions. host: robert, independent line as well. in brooklyn. good morning. caller: i would like to inject one thought into this. i keep hearing this is not a normal judicial proceeding, that it is a political action. trumpmplies to me that if gets impeached and the senate not remove- does him from office, he is not protected by the constitutional berhow bish and against double jeopardy -- prohibition of double jeopardy. re-impeachhey could him on the same articles. host: that is a very good question. our next guest is jeffrey rosen, that, youk him about are talking about the same charges, if the senate trial acquits him of articles of impeachment, the charges, could they bring it up again. that is your question? caller: right. it sounds like he is not protected by the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. host: we will find out. in detroit, democrats line, your message to your member of congress on impeachment. caller: i hope she is going to impeach trump. this deal going on in the united it is proof putin is what to do.p 79 years old. i remember when -- tried to overthrow this country and if john f. kennedy had not been up on it, we would have been down the drain and if you are not will slipussia through the backdoor. they need to get rid of trump and stop letting him ruled them. host: we mentioned earlier today the president departing today for london for the nato summit getting underway tomorrow. the wall street journal headline, president trump shifts tone. catherine lucy saying the president had to a meeting of the north atlantic treaty organization seeking to showcase his work on the world stage as the impeachment inquiry continues at home. mr. trump, who labeled the alliance obsolete has upended gatherings with complaints members must spend more on defense, but his white house conciliatory tone, taking credit for increased military spending and declaring that the transatlantic relationship is in a very healthy place. stephen is next, democrats line in new york. good morning. caller: good morning from frozen new york. a problem withe impeachment because they said they had no firsthand witnesses. they bring in firsthand witnesses and they don't like it. then they say they want hearings and public. they make the hearings public, they don't like it and then they say they want trump to have a chance to question witnesses. they do that and they don't like it and trump says he is not coming. they keep changing the story. trump won't testify because he is a walking lie. he is perjury walking. only putin and trump supporters believe him and my congressman from new york, whose name i just now forgot already said he is going to vote to hear the evidence and way everything and about andnd -- though that is reasonable. what are we electing people for? ?o pretend nothing is going on like lindsey graham said, i am not going to look at any evidence? everyone have a wonderful day. host: sean in baltimore, maryland. myler: i would tell congressman to take a step back and listen to the article you today.om usa i do think trump should be impeached. the unfortunate thing is he has brainwashed all the republicans and they are not going to get on board. i am thinking long-term. when i mean long-term, i am thinking about the election. if democrats move forward and they don't get any republicans on board with impeachment, i think it will hurt them. somebody needs to tell democrats you should impeach, but how will this affect the election? if you look at the swing states, the polls have not really moved. it is like smack down the middle. some people want trump to get impeached, but the same amount don't. maybe -- that is not a bad idea. i think there is a democratic congresswoman out of ohio or michigan. i cannot think of her name, but she went on tv and spoke about maybe we should censure trump. i would like to see him get impeached, but i don't think that is a bad idea because the end game should be to get him out either through bipartisan impeachment hearings or when the election. people need to be careful what they ask for. as much as i don't like trump, pence is a million times worse. .ne last thing i want to say republicans want to bring hunter biden on. they want him to testify. i am fine with that. it democrats, they need to say we will bring on hunter biden. when you tell mike pompeo to stop dodging subpoenas -- when you tell the acting communications -- host: mick mulvaney? caller: yeah, him, mick mulvaney. all of them. democrats need to say we will bring hunter biden when you tell your witnesses to obey subpoenas. let's make this bipartisan. we will bring hunter biden and you bring all those people. we have talked about this morning already flasher in usa today, we read part of his opinion piece on opting for censure over impeachment. we invite your comments on text. you can send us a text. this is chris in alabama who says i agree with ari fleischer. my member of congress recommended censure over impeachment. we will vote trump out instead of impeaching him. kathleen on twitter. it is bad enough the democratic party destroyed black america, now you want to impeach a president who has the lowest unemployment for black americans. anytime i see that hit at against my representative, it serves as a reminder to show my support and let her know we will be supporting her with the same energy as last year. want to show you an ad by the american action network referred to in that text. this is part of a blitz against representative joe cunningham in south carolina. [video clip] >> this is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome. >> there partisan impeachment is a politically motivated charade. joe cunningham promised to be different, but he is not. instead of working to secure our border and pass a trade deal with our neighbors, he supported the partisan impeachment investigation. tell congressman cunningham let the voters decide impeachment. vote no on impeachment and get to work. host: what would you tell your member of congress on impeachment? .epublicans, 202-748-8001 democrats, 202-748-8000. independents and all others, 202-748-8002. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. wondering. some of the comments i have heard from independents and democrats, they all think putin is telling trump what to do and i was wondering where they are getting their information from of exactly what trump is doing for russia? as far as i understand, trump has put more sanctions on russia than previous presidents and has also given military aid to the ukraine. i would like to see how effective that military aid was don'tt russia and i just understand all these comments. it sounds like people who hate trump are coming up with all this stuff and i would tell my congressman to vote no for impeachment. he has a presidential duty to withhold aid at any time he thinks the president is misspending and may be using it for corrupt purposes and i think he is doing his job. i don't understand where they are getting all this information putin is helping trump. host: maria in new jersey, welcome. tell myi am going to representative not to vote for impeachment. i feel this is a distraction like snuffing out a candle while your house is on fire. i think we have to look at the arrangement where we have british commonwealth having access to our security. i think israel is the one to look at as well as great britain. the president was trying to stop corruption and if biden's son was included, so what? is he exempt from the law? i think we need to look at all the foreign influences, including the people in power who think it is ok to have 31 million undocumented aliens in our country. i think the american people demando get together and an accounting of this foreign influence. host: michael in kansas, democrats line. caller: good morning. host: make sure you mute your television set and go ahead with your comment. caller: let me mute my television. good morning. host: good morning. caller: my message is not only to my congress representative, but to the whole nation. what we have to understand is simply this. the impeachment process is part of democracy and what americans have got to do is look what is best for the country and the future of our children, let the process take place and my message to republicans, you are the ones who created a donald trump. obstructed behavior when obama was president that caused individuals to see presidents not working on behalf of the country. startedhis partisanship when mitch mcconnell said on national news he was doing -- going to do everything in his power to make sure he was a one term president and the rest of decided --cans host: what do you think mitch mcconnell will do assuming the committee approves articles of impeachment. what do you think mitch mcconnell will do? how fast might he take up a senate trial? caller: mitch mcconnell is not going to do anything that would wife's job as a cabinet member of the trump administration. greed and corruption will be the destruction of this nation. after 200 years, they begin to decline because of -- if we don't understand our history and the history of other civilizations, i am concerned what is best for all americans and our children children's future. pay attention to what is going on. host: a of presidential notes from the hill. other news organizations reporting, steve bullock announcing he is ending his democratic presidential campaign , a spokeswoman says he will continue to faithfully and effectively serve montana, not as a candidate for the u.s. senate. want to remind you our campaign 2020 coverage on c-span continues today coming up this afternoon. we will take you live to iowa city. elizabeth warren is speaking and we will have that campaign event on c-span, c-span.org, and the free radio app. what would you tell your member of congress on impeachment? on our republican line, louisiana. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i think the impeachment thing is going to turn out to be representative pelosi's worst nightmare. it typically the impeachment process starts in the judiciary committee. because california voted overwhelmingly for linton, hiffesentative shift -- sc has taken the lead on impeachment. it seems like it is going to drag out forever. senator mcconnell has to take up the impeachment proceeding, but it is entirely different in the senate. they are judges, which means they have to be their judge. senator mcconnell is going to drag it out into the democrats season. thes going to impact democratic debate process and it will be their worst nightmare. host: this is a chance to remind you of our coverage as the process moves onto the next step. will judiciary hearing hear from legal scholars and others wednesday, 10:00 a.m. eastern. our coverage will be c-span 3 and radio app. jerry in north carolina on our republican line. good morning. go ahead. caller: hello? host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: yes. i would like to ask the people listening if you went to vote and you were told we could not vote for any reason at all, you off.d be to off -- ticked your right to vote is not a constitutional vote. the house is doing their constitutional duty and exercising their constitutional right. the senate will be the one that will have the trial and they .ill have an opportunity anybody who does it only for political is in violation of their oath of office. their oath of office is to protect their constitution, not the political party, not the political agenda. was in the service, my thet duty was to protect constitution of the united states and then to obey the lawful orders of the president and the lawful orders of my superiors. congress -- the house is only doing what they are supposed to shouldg and the senate do what it is supposed to do, .rotect the constitution immigrants who wish to become -- they of united dates would understand every time they hear this is a trial, they are and manipulated. i feel the house committee is doing its constitutional duty. the rules that they are following was set up by republicans when republicans had that majority. if republicans are screaming about what is going on, it is their own fault. host: appreciate your input. lot inthat has come up a the mueller investigation, the mueller hearings is lisa page, former fbi lawyer. "there is no by the mobile way i have committed any crime. molly john fast with a report saying it is not offer you interview a subject that has no interest in being famous. when i saw -- set down with lisa page -- page is the former fbi -- texthose test method message exchanges expressed fear at donald trump cost victory -- for nearly two years since her name made the papers, she has been silent and had a closed-door interviews with house -- interview with house members. cash the president called out her name as he acted out and org as gasm october 11, 2019. the entire report is that the daily beast. mark is next in pennsylvania -- barb is next. caller: i wondered if someone could answer this question. when the house in peaches trump, does it have to go to the senate immediately? out thereformation be for months with all the witness -- the truethat information for months and what is the answer to that, is it imperative gate go to the senate? host: that is a great question .nd i am compositing a list i love jeffrey rosen, i .ave learned so much host: good morning. i would ask my congress lady why they are not following up -- she is the fifth congressional district and you reported and the major networks reported about paul ryan being russian activity during the primary and the election 2016. you have it in your archives, paul ryan discusses with his lieutenants who they think in the republican congress is on the take of russia and i think they have come to the consensus it is the congressman from california who cannot, with his name. at the end of the conversation, it is a recording on a major television news network, paul ryan tells his lieutenants this conversation never took place. --ould ask my it was a republican congress leader. host: brian in washington saying his member is cathy mcmorris rodgers. a question, what would you tell your member of congress on impeachment? abigail spanberger beat a republican in the seventh district. here is what one of the ads looks like. [video clip] >> abigail spanberger got results.romising these days, it is all about impeachment. one party pushing for power i .ny means necessary control is the goal. voted -- to solve real problems. start solving problems. host: mike is next in ohio, independent line. people it amazes me don't read anymore. let's talk about the facts. the mueller report spent two years trying to dig up on trump. what do we know about ukraine? this whole impeachment matters over a phone call. i did not vote for trump and i did not like trump in the beginning. ukraineke trump because -- joe biden's son, mitt romney's son and somebody else on, people, -- come we are talking about conflict of interest. read?ybody we apart over a man who made a phone call. someup the tv, put on football. we have two report coming out and they are major reports and they will start opening up on is toent wrong and who blame. host: tony, republican line. i considerst off, myself a republican for life, but i will change unless you change, republicans, do you remember this? i got a small loan of $1 million and it was more like $400 million. andankrupt his own casinos how can you own all these different properties around the world? arecannot unless you laundering drug money. as far as the stock market doing so well, it is because his -- insider trading. to trump, usa means -- for him, united soviet alliance. he is a communist and the yuppie's yuppie. tariffs and the u.s. taking in massive amounts of money and giving farmers who have been targeted by china. glenn on the public in line, hello. caller: good morning. -- will be more flexible after the election read we have joe biden's confession and we have every witness hearingm schiff's show saying there was no impeachable offense. if you guys don't believe it, democrats, watch it. my congresswoman, pelosi gave her a letter because of this stuff. where is the letter for omar? screwing the democratic if the corruption is so believable, they all think they are governors, they don't work for us anymore, another continuing cr. it is amazing the american people are blinded by d or r. get the america back for the people. up a bunch-- print more money, throw it into the stock market. shootings rich for a in vegas we don't even talk about anymore, one of the mass shootings because mexican cartels running heroin and oxycontin across our borders, but we don't care because we have sanctuary cities everywhere. is that working for the american people having sanctuary cities? host: what would you tell your member of congress on impeachment? 202-748-8001 for republicans. per democrats and all others, independents, 202-748-8002. california congresswoman was on the judiciary committee on the sunday shows and state of the union yesterday and says -- part of what she said was the things donald trump has done far worse than richard nixon. [video clip] misconductt nixon's related to trying to use the levers of government had to do with trying to throw the election. at least it did not involve other foreign nations. if you take a look at what the founding fathers were concerned about, it was the interference ouroreign governments in political system. behavior did not fall into that range. in that way, this conduct is more dangerous. >> you are saying it is more serious than what nixon did and yet you are not ready to go there flatly saying that articles -- at least one article of impeachment -- >> here is what i want to do. i want to let the process play out. we are going to have our hearing debaten we will have the including all members of the committee. the presidentd and his counsel to appear to provide information and let's see the process play out. if we have it wrong -- it doesn't look like we do, but i would welcome an opportunity to reach a conclusion about the president's misconduct. this is not a great time for the country to have a president reveal he is doing something so counterproductive to the national interest. it would be wonderful if there was some benign explanation. we have to at least allow for ift possibility and -- but the president behavior is as it appears so far, that is a very serious matter that threatens our constitutional order. ,ost: the reporting of vox.com a mexican cartel gunbattle leaves 21 debt. president trump announced he wants to label mexican drug cartels as a terrorist organization. .1 people died armed gunmen stormed a town near the texas border saturday and attacked local government offices including that of the mayor. security forces responded and 10 gunman and 4 police man -- policeman were killed. cartels asg drug foreign terrorist organizations. robert in new york, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i wanted to say one thing. the gentleman who just called a few calls back, he was saying about hunter biden, the other one involved with hunter biden is nancy pelosi's oldest son, you had it on a few months back. he is being investigated for this. how can she sit on the board and try to impeach our president for stuff they are guilty of doing? adam schiff should be charged for his lies. this impeachment is a sham and it is ridiculous to go after a sitting president doing the most wonderful job in the last 70 years of any democratic president and we are getting disgusted with this. they need to go and face the fact they are running scared because they know they will not win an election. i hope, president trump, if you are listening. when you get reelected, you have your investigators go after all these democrats and put them in jail for where they belong for high treason. host: in louisiana on our demo class line. caller: good morning. my message to my congressman is to impeach number 45. republicans say number 45 is a businessman, not a politician. what is the difference? they both try to sell you an idea. number 45 is a failed businessman and failed politician. all of his people are indicted .r in jail -- ifd all the democrats the senate will not remove 45, send him out.y to caller: good morning and thank you for c-span and taking my call. my representative, jennifer wexton out of virginia is to keep up the good work onboardshe has been with what republicans want and people in northern virginia are educated, not like callers .alling on the republican line one of the previous callers mentioned people need to read and turn off the puppet heads of cnn and msnbc and they were lying about the mueller report. the mueller report found 10 instances of impeachable conduct, so he should take his own report -- advice and read the mueller report because he would see there are impeachable offenses within there. they also lied about the special investigation -- special counsel investigation's cost. that goes even further into the entire conspiracy that is one nra, gop leadership and the white house and we see criminals like paul manafort and michael cohen and roger stone classchael flynn qualities characters that play -- theyhe conspiracy are being thrown into prison. all they have done is sold out their country for a slice of pie from vladimir putin and the oligarchs that run russia. this one said if people check the c-span channels, inquiries are being held and members are debating and voting on bills. not interfering with 95% of house members. his second wins term, what will democrats do and barbara says i agree with my .ongressman, impeach trump are you working for the rnc? four point, barbara, we are not working for the rnc. we use campaign ads to give you -- the amount of money being spent by various groups across the country. campaign ads play -- this next add plays into the next story. political reporting trump builds a bad cop, good cop routine for his 2020 race. when donald trump's reelection team acknowledged during the world series campaign commercial america's 45th president is no mr. nice guy, it was doing more than shock and all -- awe advertising. noticeably absent was mike pence save for a situation room photo. the vice president was unseen and unheard. as invisibility every bit calculated for the ad itself. campaign officials say his reputation must be preserved. if the goal was to build a , someone hastion to be the nice guy. houston, texas. caller: hi, thanksbill. -- hi, bill. your callers.ing the republican from pennsylvania, i love you. the north carolina guy that called in, i love you even more. you said what congress is doing is exactly right. to the other young man that called with fear, maybe we shouldn't do this or should not do that, they may do this, they may do that. i want him to get a copy of dr. king's letter he wrote from birmingham jail when he was incarcerated. person coming at him very strongly -- strongly suggesting he should pull back or stop protesting. i want you to read how he responded to them. i don't have the time to lay it all out. you will find it enlightening. there should never be wavering. you never waver on what is right, never. don't live in fear with these republicans calling and threatening -- we will see you in november. we sure will, we will see you in november. host: client, woodbridge, virginia. caller: i would like to tell my congressman and all the news media that you are failing to clarify when you try to compare biden to what trump did -- what heen did was foreign policy did not benefit from which actually did deal with ukrainian corruption. what trump did is something he then offended from and did not benefit the country at all, just him to help him get elected trying to blackmail and extort someone to make a false .tatement youknew to clarify that for will do what barr did, represent the mueller report, covering up evidence, obstruction of evidence and many people got convicted of that. if a fox has feathers in his mouth and the chickens are ate up, will you believe him when he ?ays he did not elected because of the anomaly in the voter -- i can think of the word, it was a minority. electoral college. host: brian in virginia. also returningrns today,the sut to session today. pete williams with the story and control advocates nervous as supreme court takes up second amendment case -- first second amendment case in a decade. jackson is calling us from bloomfield hills, michigan on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am calling from detroit. my representative is rashida tilly. tlaib.hida i am so happy that she is treating trump with the derision that has been recorded, on impeachment -- we have all heard it. i am so proud of her, and i think things may change in the senate, with the senators having to sit and listen for a change and not politicize, and when evidence is presented -- we are talking evidence, sworn testimony. ofs guy is guilty, clearly, high crimes and misdemeanors. i just do not understand the republicans. it is as if they are hypnotized. i think i heard another caller say that. host: in our next segment, we will take a look at the constitutional aspects of impeachment, where the process is now, where it heads next. we talked to the national constitution center's jeffrey rosen. later, look ahead at the week ahead in impeachment and campaign 2020 with "the washington post's" robert costa. ♪ >> tonight on "the communicators," the chair of u.s. telecom's, bob udell. >> you have thousands of miles of fiber on the -- fiber-optic cable. where is it? >> it is in the ground, in the air, in the communities in which we serve. it is typically outside the urban markets. the largest towns that we are in the downtown area are places like portland, maine or roseville, california. gibsonia, -- pennsylvania. those of the places we have fiber networks in every streets. extensions of those facilities in every neighborhood, on the poles, and connecting directly to the customer. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. the impeachment increase hearing continue when the house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler holds the first house impeachment increase hearing on the president for sitting -- focusing on the constitution. coverage live wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span 3. chairman nadler issued an invitation for the president and his counsel to be a at the hearings. follow the impeachment inquiries live on c-span 3, online on c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. the: jeffrey rosen is president and ceo of the national constitution center, joining us here on "washington journal" to talk impeachment and the constitution, where things stand now. he also has a new book about ruth bader ginsburg cared we will get to that as well. good morning. thanks for being here. guest: great to be here. host: how does this 2019 impeachment inquiry, where the process is now, how does this align with what the constitution says the process should be? guest: the constitution does not say much about what the process should be. it has a couple of really important things. first, in article one, section two, it says that the house should have the sole power of impeachment. then, in the part about the senate, it says the senate should have the sole power to try impeachments and that impeachment should be presided over by the chief justice. impeachedresident is and conviction is by two thirds of the senate but should not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold future offices of honor or profit. the final section which is really important, and i would love viewers to get out the constitution -- in fact, i will do it to consult the text -- the national constitution center has this wonderful interactive constitution that has convened the top liberal and conservative scholars in america to write about every clause of the constitution. article two, section four. host: let's bring it up on the screen as well. guest: the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. there is going to be a lot of parsing of that language. we should spend a lot of time talking about it today. the great thing about the interactive constitution is you can see the federalist society and the national constitution society, they have 1000 words about what they agree and disagree about those words. host: let's go into the word "bribery," because it came up a lot in the house intelligence hearings. what direction were they going there in the meaning of "bribery" in that case? guest: "bribery" is really important. and when you look at early drafts of this clause, which are also online on the interactive constitution, you will see the initial formulation was treason, bribery, and corruption. those were the three things the framers were most worried about. that is because the fear was that the president would become a spy for foreign powers, that he would basically bribe a foreign power to help get him elected or, while in office, would be under the pay of a foreign power, excepting the pay of a foreign power, and essentially selling out the public interest or his own private gain. host: as you watch the current process, is that what you think the house judiciary committee will begin to craft their articles of impeachment? guest: we certainly saw speaker pelosi last week or so focusing ." that word, "bribery gives us aaid this constitutional peg. they talked about the three of bribery, noting that bribery was not defined in federal law until the 1950's, so you cannot tell what the framers thought about bribery because it was not a statutory crime, but the bribe could be the offer of a gift or the receiving of it, according to democrats. host: so one would not have to get a gift, the offer itself could be considered bribery. guest: that is the claim pete i want to say one thing at the beginning. the national constitution center, like c-span, is completely nonpartisan. i am not endorsing or opposing any of these views. i will describe them for you as best i can, because it is import for me and all your viewers to make up your own mind. look at what democrats and republicans are saying and decide for yourself. but the claim is, both in the common law of bribery and in the statutory crime, which it was eventually codified, if you offered a bribe in exchange for something of value but did not receive it, that would still be actionable and illegal. there is also a separate crime now codified called solicitation. the claim there -- and this is less directly peg to the linkage about bribery, is when the president said russia, go investigate hillary clinton, i am sure you will find something -- that is a solicitor -- solicitation, request, for a foreign country to do something. the argument goes that would violate the crime of attempted solicitation. host: look at the process with the house judiciary committee now picking up the process. i hate to say the word traditional, but it falls more in line with the impeachment processes we have seen in the past, clinton, nixon? guest: that is a good question. we cannot talk tradition because there are so few presidential impeachments. clinton, nixon, and andrew johnson is it. the constitution does not say anything other than that the house should have the sole power of impeachment. but from the nixon impeachment, the process initially began with hearings, not all of them in the judiciary committee, and eventually, the judiciary committee voted on articles of impeachment. in clinton, began in judiciary, then you had formal articles voted on in the house floor. here, although hearings began with the intelligence committee, the fact that they are now being held squarely in the judiciary committee, all in public, makes it look more like previous impeachments. host: our guest is jeffrey rosen , head of the national constitution center. we would love hear from you. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. we had a number of comments and questions in our previous segment of people asking me questions about the constitution, one of which was does the house -- if the house and peaches the president, does the house -- does the senate have to take it up as a trial? guest: another great question. the consensus seems to be that, according to senate rules, that the senate does have to pick it up. the constitution, although it does not say the senate must try, it says the senate shall have the sole power of impeachment, and the chief justice shall preside when the president is impeached. that does anticipate that the senate will hold a trial at the chief justice decide spear there was claim that you could dismiss charges after a day. it is true that the johnson impeachment lasted only three days. that was a case where the votes were not there, and because of that, it was pretty quick. but the senate rules specify a more elaborate procedure with house managers presenting evidence, the chief presiding, and that is why the senate majority leader expects the trial to last at least a week. host: we have plenty of comments and questions. we go to bob on the independent line. caller: my question is there are a bunch of democrat senators running for the office of president. if it goes to the senate, will they have to recuse themselves from any vote for any obvious play or conflict of interest for voting on removing somebody whose job they are trying to take? guest: such a great question. as you say, if this were an ordinary trial and the senators were jurors, they would have to recuse themselves because of the obvious conflict of interest. there was an interesting moment where one of the senators referred to his fellow senators as jurors hit another senator objected that the senate is not a jury because it is more than a trial, and chief justice that -- heustained i did nothing in particular and did something very well, but he did sustain that objection. that seems to suggest the senate is not like an ordinary jury. impeachment is this complicated, unique mix of law and politics. house, areike the making a constitutional and political judgment about whether it is pertinent to remove from office. in the clinton and johnson cases, one of the reasons the senate acquitted was the thought that the president is almost in his final year and the voters can decide next year, in any event. for all those reasons, i am senators doat, no, not have to recuse themselves, because everyone recognizes they are a political and legal instrument. host: and it uses the term that the senate will act as a jury -- what is the rule of the majority leader that in the trial? guest: unless it is specified by senate rules, i do not think he has any unique role. he may introduce house managers. but he does not have any more votes than anyone else. it is also up to the senate to decide what kind of evidence to consider. host: let's go to doug in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. wouldn't it be easier to invoke the 25th amendment to remove trump from office? because it seems he is clearly incompetent and unable to do the job. what do you think? that is a good observation. the 25th amendment, as you know, provides for what happens if the president is incapacitated. the original thought would be he would be incapacitated because of illness -- president eisenhower had a heart attack, and that precipitated the amendment. senator bly said the ultimate judgment about whether the president is capacity needed is a political, not a medical or psychiatric judgment. the reason why the answer is no is that if the group that is allowed to remove the president, a group of cabinet officers, plus the vice president, says he is incapacitated, he can object and say i am not. then the group, this cabinet group, has to override his vote rathera 3/4 than 2/3. it is actually harder to remove the president, by 20 for the amendment, if he objects. but the initial judgment to remove can be made by a smaller group of people. but it is harder to trigger and sustain it. host: we go to bradington, florida. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. an honestng to ask question. if you were an individual and look at how the constitution is framed around the supreme court, would you actually get on an airplane with ruth bader ginsburg flying it or nancy pelosi or mitch mcconnell at any of their ages, flying it? if they were pilots come at their age -- it is time that these people move on and let some middle-aged people with intelligence, and and have their shop running their country. when you get to a certain age, you become a person being malicious. i will let jeffrey rosen respond to it he has a new book on ruth bader ginsburg -- conversations with f.b.g. -- r.b.g. on life, liberty, and love. what was behind your new book? guest: this is so exciting, to be able to collect 25 years or conversations with justice ginsburg and have the honor of knowing her, ever since i was a young law clerk here. i met her in an elevator. she was a judge coming from an exercise class. i did not know what to say, because she was silent, so i asked what operators -- operas are you seeing recently? she just opened up, so this is a real tribute to her, and allowing her to speak in her own voice and describe her views about law and marriage -- what i find most inspiring is her advice for life. i would not fly a plane with anyone over 85, but i would absolutely turn over my daily self-discipline and conduct of life to the great justice ginsburg, who is more disciplined about mastering her emotions and passions so they do not get in her way and allow her to focus on productive work. she was able to edit the manuscript for this book last year when she was ill, every page marked up in her beautiful script. and her remarkable concern for others attention to detail and recall of the facts of all of her cases is a tribute to the fact that, at the age of 87 -- or any advanced age -- some people, because of their markable skills and focus and shining light, are able to be just as productive as they were when young. host: and how is she in the last week or so? guest: doing great come out of the hospital after the cold last week. she will be back on the bench tomorrow. host: we read a he's earlier saying that the house should censure the president. on censure articles instead of impeachment. does the constitution say anything about a remedy like that? guest: the constitution does not talk about censure. that is a remedy that the house and senate have created to express disapproval of actions, short of impeachment. the most famous is the censure of andrew jackson by congress for having done a lot of things, including tried to veto the second bank of the united states and other offenses. the problem with centre is it can be overturned, and that is exact what happened with jackson. after democrats took the majority, they removed the center judgment and cleared his name. a president ever testified before and impeachment inquiry? guest: no before and impeachment inquiry, but yes, presidents have testified three times. george washington, gerald ford, and one other 1 -- which i do not want to get wrong, so your viewers can find it. woodrow wilson was asked to testify as a president, and he may have submitted testimony in some form on other issues. three live testimonies but no president before and impeachment inquiry. host: is it typical, when the senate takes up the impeachment trial of a federal judge or other official, with that official testify in that sort of impeachment hearing? guest: excellent question. most impeachment hearings have been against judges. something like 18 of them, 9 removed from office. of those, most have been judges. i must say i am not sure whether those judges testified in person. i do not believe they do, but there you go -- you can find that as well. host: let's go to colorado, independent line. caller: i am shaken about this whole thing. i watched the complete impeachment trials they had the ambassadors and everything. from theirear, statements, that this is pompeo, giuliani, and all of these people. it does not seem like there is an argument against this. where i am shaken by all of this is how can we live in a country where when the congress or the house subpoena somebody, that they can just ignore it without any consequences -- it just seems ridiculous. if you are innocent, you go before the house. you plead your case. and if you are innocent, you are good. but i just think -- i could commit murder and say i just do not want to show up to the trial? and another, and i would like you to comment on is what do you think how roberts is going to handle the senate? are --e republicans, who who clearly have blinders on and have not watched any of this, start going political with their messages on biden on all this stuff that they could have prosecuted in any 16 and 2017? guest: those are two good questions. first is how is it possible the president can ignore a congressional subpoena? doesn't that put the president above the law? if there are a couple of mechanisms to hold the president on the law -- indictments -- everyone agrees that the present cannot be indicted while in office. impeachment -- but how can you impeach if you cannot investigate and how can you investigate if you cannot subpoena? some courts have held that the president must turn over documents in response to congressional subpoenas. the supreme court has put those decisions on hold and are deciding what to do with that. and the most famous president is the u.s. v. nixon where the o,preme court said, n president nixon come you cannot ignore a subpoena. above yourtice rises interest in secrecy. so maybe the process will move so fast as the -- that the supreme court will not be able to decide that. but that is founded in the nixon case, which agrees with you. as for chief justice roberts, we will see, but i will imagine he will follow the model of chief justice rehnquist had after all, he clerked for chief justice rehnquist and shares the determination to keep politics out. the best thing about the studios as i can look out over the capitol, and he will want to leave that trial with the integrity and nonpartisan legitimacy the -- of the court as strong as he began. i imagine that he, like chief justice rehnquist, would sustain a lot of objections. he will not want to keep out evidence or interject himself much. he will want to keep the trains moving. essentially, when the trial is over, he will want to be said about his role that no one remembers exactly what he did but that he was there and impartial. host: we welcome john from michigan to the conversation, democrat line. caller: hey, how are you doing? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: you almost got to what i wanted to know. how can the office of legal their view on whether a president can be charged with a criminal offense while he is in office when it is in direct conflict with the constitution itself saying that no man is above the law, not even the president? guest: great question. the judgment that the president cannot be indicted while in office, which is office of legal counsel reaffirmed, goes all the way back to the nixon era. it was the solicitor enteral who first made it, but it was reaffirmed by both democratic and republican presidents. so that judgment is not hugely controversial, because the idea is he is not above the law, he can always be impeached, and after impeached, he can be tried in an ordinary criminal court. what makes the barr memo controversial is the claim that, because he cannot be indicted while in office, therefore, he cannot be investigated while in office, and therefore, he is not amenable to any congressional subpoenas. tried to be as nonpartisan as possible, but that is a more robust vision of the law. it is so robust or adventurous or unsupported by previous admission rations that immigrants are citing that view -- by previous administrations that democrats are citing that view itself as impeachable. like it could be a logjam at the supreme court. you have the two pending tax decisions to make, the new york attorney and the other one, the house committee, in addition to the other court compelling testimony from pompeo, etc. are there expedited procedures the supreme court may use to resolve these things before senate trial? guest: the court can hear cases quickly. it took the travel ban, the citizens united cases were expedited. but the court is also good at delaying if it wants. if the chief is determined to keep the court out of making really politically contested decisions, it is possible all nine justices may think this looks like a try will be over by january, let's just sit on these cases and maybe it will go away. host: elaine in olympia, washington, republican line. caller: i would like to ask two questions. first has to do with hamilton's impeachment standard. says, and this is a quote, relateffenses, as they chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself -- how does that pertain to the situation? i do not see the immediacy, and i do not know what society they are talking about. and then the second part of that , in our other presidential impeachments, there is nothing thate constitution gives congress the right to do the investigative part, right? so that is why they had special counselors and investigators. so i am wondering what gives them the right to do the investigation itself. guest: those are two wonderful comments. i am so glad you found that quotation from alexander hamilton, from federalist 65. everyone should read federalist 65 for themselves and read about hamilton's impeachment standards. as you said, he talks about injuries done immediately to society itself. you ask where is the immediacy and what is an injury to society? hamilton goes on to talk about injuries against the public good, the public interest, when a president is acting not for the public good for his private gain. and then some of the other framers specified that, like and gouverneur morris, saying that if the president were to take money from ia -- from a foreign power for gain, so the democrats are invoking that for the injury again society standards. saying essentially it is not the case that it has to be criminal in order to be impeachable -- if the president were to be a spy for a foreign power, even if that were not criminal, that is clearly an offense against the public. on the other hand, not every criminal offense is not impeachable. a parking ticket, for example. what you have done is remind us that this definition of what is the public good or what is an offense against society is not self defining. what is immediacy or imminent is not self defying -- defining. that may be useful for those who say he tried to get an investigation into vice president biden, but because it did not succeed, there was no immediate threat. and just to put the final defense that i think we may see on the table, a lot will turn on questions of motive. some republicans are saying if the president legitimately believed there was corruption committed by vice president biden's son and his goal was to investigate corruption rather than himself, that is serving the public rather than himself and is not an offense against society. what you have done and is a rate framework for our discussion is remind everyone to read the federalist papers and realize these broad claims about public interest are not self defining, although we have examples of cases of impeachment, and make up your own minds. host: she asked about the right to investigate. as that assumed under the articles of constitution that these powers are given to the house, therefore the house should be able to investigate these charges? guest: it is. on that score, the clinton impeachment, which you correctly said had a special counsel, was an anomaly. the special counsel law was created briefly during the 1980's during the reagan era. it led to the clinton investigation. that was so unpopular and both parties thought it was so unaccountable, the office of the special counsel, that congress allowed that law to lapse. now there is no more independent counsel, there is a special prosecutor. i guess the johnson impeachment would be the most direct example -- the house did conduct its own investigation. in the johnson case, it was did he violate the tenure of office act by firing the secretary of war? he clearly violated it, then the debate turned to is this a high crime? host: was there an investigative body in the nixon impeachment? guest: the judiciary committee considered evidence. we just had a one for podcast, a we, the people, podcast. a representative who was on the that theeachment said investigations began outside the judiciary committee, not according to formal standards, with different people, congress, collecting information. committee staff collected information. so the investigation began ,efore the committee convened then the articles were brought. host: our guest is jeffrey rosen of the national constitution center, talking about the constitution and what it says about impeachment. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. sandy is in ohio, independent line. whyer: i do not understand you guys are still pushing this impeachment. we know trump did nothing wrong. all that winces said "i felt -- all the witnesses said "i felt" hear" anything about bribery. specifically.d so why are you guys doing this? we know, as soon as he was elected, you started talking about impeachment. actually bragging -- the deep state is bragging there is a deep state. if you guys keep this up, it just proves we have a pretty much soviet style communist government. i cannot believe you guys are doing this. it has been since day one. don't shut me off yet. there is something people can watch. it is called the democrats' hydra, by glenn beck on youtube. it is the democrats that ran after trump. from the ukraine. they are all in the ukraine, george soros, obama, clinton -- they are trying to overthrow countries, which is what dortch soro -- george soros does. guest: first thing is that neither of us are here for or against impeachment. we are here to answer your questions about the history and the current application of the impeachment process. diddid provide ever -- you provide a defense that republicans will make. that first no one heard him say withhold theo aid in exchange for investigation." they will say, therefore, that the testimony of people who overheard the phone call suggesting that and inferring from statements like "i want you to do me a favor, though," which democrats say is a text book example of quid pro quo, that people engaging in bribery never exclude -- explicitly say if you do this, i will do that. you make two other important points. second, you said corruption is on the side of the ukrainians and the democrats, and therefore the president was justified in asking for investigation against that corruption. if you legitimately believed what you said, that would be a good defense on account of his motives. he will say i was not trying to help inelf or get undue the 2020 election, i was just concerned about the welfare of the country and rooting out corruption from a whether it be found in ukraine or anywhere else. the last thing you said is also important to the debate, which is the democrats have been doing this since day one, trying to get him out of office. there was a mueller report and that did not go anywhere. now they are just seizing their chance, let the election take its course. that is an important argument, too. some republican senators, maybe even some democrats, may legitimately feel that if it is a close case or if the votes are not there for removal, the voters will have their say in just a year. that argument was important in both the clinton and johnson each meants. we do not want to be -- you said we will turn into russia. is the the other analogy republics that tend to impeach presidents because of clinical agreements. that is not what we do and america. that is why the framers did not include maladministration. madison wanted to include that if he was a bad president, remove him, but the response was that it would just a political thing. you say that is what the democrats are trying to do. all three of those arguments will be central. host: the senate called witnesses that already testify before the house intelligence committee? guest: they can call whoever they want or testimony, but broadly, i think that precedent of the clinton impeachment is the house managers test -- summarize the testimony, and the senate makes a judgment of law, due to facts as alleged that add up to a high crime or misdemeanor or treason or bribery. the sunday white house column, the headline, long before trump, impeachment loomed over many presidents. the photo is interesting, because they may not be the ones that come to mind. presidents who faced impeachment inquiries -- george bush in 1991. president harry truman in 1952. resident john tyler in 1843, the first to have impeachment articles drawn up against him. just a way to not remove corrupt presidents from office, in fact, it has never accomplished that process. presidents andrew johnson and bill clinton were both impeached but acquitted. richard nixon resigned before the full house could vote. but impeachment has served as a deterrent, a consequence that presidents had to consider when making decisions that crossed into questionable territory. guest: the tyler case is really relevant, the first impeachment case. essentially, a concern he was guilty of valid ministration, and his opponents wanted to kick him out but realized they did not have the votes and impeachment should not be used or that reason -- for that reason. it is tracking that if this impeachment ends in acquittal, it will be a precedent that impeachment will be extremely hard to wield. democrats are saying this is the core example of what the framers had in mind when they feared bribery by a president of foreign officials or offered by a president to four and officials. if the senate acquits, you will have to say that, in america, tively,tivoli, -- descrip impeachment is hard to pursue. host: grace on the democrats line. caller: good morning. this is the republican narrative. in congress.trump that republicans impeach but do not remove him. then trump wins the 2020 election. but when trump continues -- this is the fear of democrats -- that trump continues his same behavior of high crimes and misdemeanors and bribery and disrupts our military strategy in ukraine and creates an empire in russia. can trump face double jeopardy? is he protected? can he be impeached again in 2021 if he continues this behavior? if the senate is won by the democrats in the 2020 election, can they impeach him -- re-imp each him? guest: what a great question. yes, they can. the constitution does not say you can impeach only once. double jeopardy applies to crimes. impeachment is not a crime, it is a unique process. you are right. democrats fear that acquittal will embolden the president to keep committing this. the bottom line -- democrats should focus on winning the senate. line.bill, democrats caller: good morning. i have a quick, and a question of law. all of these people are so sure he will win the reelection. he has not done very well in the south, like in virginia, after the pleading for a big victory. the question i have is, in our situation with prosecutions, especially in the southern district in new york, they seem to have a lot of evidence in regards to taxes and so forth, mr. trump's taxes. and all of these half dozen or so people in prison are good friends with trump. especially with roger stone and giuliani probably being prosecuted -- they have a couple of aces they can pick up. i wonder if you think it is possible for prosecutors in the house to try to hone in on some of this information. thank you. guest: prosecutors from the house could invoke any of this and added to their -- add it to their articles of impeachment, to say that trump was an unindicted co-conspirator in trials for his lawyers. they could add that. but they decided to focus on this idea of bribery, for better or worse, for this particular impeachment. your observation that trump may not win the election reminds us that, if he does not win, he will be amenable to indictments and convictions in criminal courts for all the crimes that you just mentioned after he leaves. unless he receives a presidential pardon. the constitution says that the president's pardon power does not extend to cases of impeachment. so trump cannot be pardon for accepting a bribe from ukraine or offering one, if you were impeached and convicted for offering a bribe to ukraine. but he could be pardoned by a future president for tax crimes or any of the other ones you mentioned. that suggests if he were impeached and removed from office and vice president pence were to offer him a pardon, he would have to do it while still president. it also brings up the idea of that presidential self pardons, which are an untested idea. the general consensus is that we would be hard for the president pardon himself. but you remind us everything can happen in politics, including conviction after the president leaves office. host: going back to the nixon case and the pardoning of the former president by then president gerald ford, several months after, were there constitutional questions and struggles? that would have been 1974 when pardoned, correct? guest: that is right. there were constitutional questions. one is very important to president ford. president ford carried around, in his pocket, until the end of his days, a piece of paper t o a citation for one super court kate, united states v. burdock. and it was that a presidential pardon is an admission to guilt, so it was important that in excepting his pardon, nixon accepted his guilt. nixon later hedged. doing.ew what he was he ultimately lost the presidency, because he thought the nation had to be healed. "our long national nightmare is sser," he offered in his addre at his inauguration. but he only offered that in the belief that his predecessor was excepting his guilt. host: from minnesota, republican line. caller: good morning. this has gotten so far out of hand. it is kind of laughable now. there has not been a president that the democrats have not noted -- democrats have ever want to not to impeach a president since the early 1950's. they just keep going and going and going. is theportantly manipulation through the media on this whole thing. it has gotten so far-fetched out, when this all works whatever happens, the media is the one that should take the biggest hit of all. i do not know what we are going to do, you can't censor the media, but we should. they told the goofy story about a video causing an attack on an area attacked twice. talk to people that they really believed the video caused an attack, even though we knew that hillary told the egyptian leader later that it was preplanned. but people keep being manipulated by the media. i do not give c-span a pass ever. the host knows that i think they are in on this just as much as anyone else. he it is all done and said, will not be convicted in senate and he will be reelected, and they will just continue down the same road. that is the way it is. host: our role here at c-span is the cover debates on public policy, most of which happened on the floors of the house and senate behind us. wherever that happens, we cover it. our mission is to hear from you and your opinion, and the mission of the national constitution center is to teach people about the constitution. i will let you respond to him. guest: that is so true. it is urgently important that we all thank c-span for being the unique channel in this country that is bringing together republicans and democrats for respectful debate, inviting on people like me. i am trying my best to be nonpartisan and describe the argument on both sides. and to call attention to resources like the national constitution center which together conservatives and liberals. it is so important that we not lose faith in the ability of citizens to exercise their faculties of reason and evaluate the evidence when they have heard the argument on both sides and make up your minds. it is a tribute to your intelligence that the framers required that unless we have faith that we, the people, are able to seek out the best information on places like c-span and the constitution center and make your own judgments, then the republic will go the way of greece and rome. that is why i am so honored to be here on c-span and what i your mission is so important. host: a follow-up to an earlier doubleabout whether jeopardy applies -- with the process start all over again? the new house would have to vote for impeachment and start all over? guest: that is right. because the old articles would have been found not worthy of conviction. so we go back to the house, they could come up with new articles. it is an interesting question about whether the house could vote the same articles. and because there is no double jeopardy, my instinct is that they could, although obviously someone will make the argument that it was double jeopardy and it would go up to the court, and i but the court would stay out of it. the court will say we will not second-guess the substance of impeachment in any way. maybe if there were -- there were concurring opinions in when a judge was impeached, and the concurrence said if the senate just a coin rather than holding a trial, we might second-guess that. hypothetical,hat new congress, new impeachment, new trial. host: let's hear from the republican line. my question is twofold. number one, how can the house and the --ate concede the deferment of justice policy of not indicting a sitting president. and if the president is on the lied touse lawn and has americans for the past few years, -- in the last one, why did the supreme court take the case of , when theent's taxes sun is impeaching? -- the senate is impeaching? when it gets to the senate, the judge can decide on what to do -- why did the supreme court take the case? they should have allowed the lower court to take that. host: several there. guest: i hope i got them all for the first is how can the house and senate supersede the office of legal counsel's judgment that the president cannot be indicted. the answer is that they cannot and they are not trying to do that. they are making not a legal judgment to indict him but a constitutional judgment to impeach and, perhaps, convict. that is why people are bristling at the claim of the office of legal counsel that the president's immunity from indictment prevents the congress from investigating. the counterargument is absolutely not -- you have to investigate if you're going to impeach. the third question was about the tax cases, why did the supreme citedstay the case, which the subpoenas to president jefferson in the burr case, to say absolutely the president must turn over his tax returns, because they are held by his accountants, not by him. he has no religion over documents held by his accountants. the only difference between trump and nixon cases is state versus federal courses, which judge cason says does not matter. the court may have taken it because it anticipates a division among the lower courts or they thought it was an important case, and the main concern and having the president amenable to subpoenas is that the subpoenas will take up too much of his time. the court may have thought that was a decision that they could have ruled on their own. host: you and i both -- it was too fast to write it down, but i think you covered a lot of basis. a question on text -- if you want to send us a text, it is (202) 748-8003. doug asks -- recovered this earlier, but he said some people are calling for censure over impeachment. please explain the difference. guest: censure has no legal consequence. it has no powers to remove from office or disqualification to hold future offices of honor or profit it it is just a solemn state and buy one has or the other, saying we disapprove of your actions, we would like to stamp. you with infamy and make our -- stamp you with infamy and make our disapproval clear. host: have presidents been centered in the past? guest: there was jackson. host: eugene up next, democrat -- jason next on the democrat line. from eugene one more time. mississippi is next, then, john on the independent line. myler: thank you for taking call. i have a couple of questions. one refers to barack obama and another refers to the current situation with sanctuary cities. of barack obama guilty violating the 14th amendment when he removed the citizenship question from the senses -- census, since section 2 requires the government to determine how many citizens are in the country? also, as far as the sanctuary cities go, the first section of the 14th amendment says no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. cities, theanctuary governors and state legislatures who support them, are they in violation of the constitution and subject to impeachment? guest: great questions. thank you for quoting the 14th amendment. it is such an important amendment. the constitution center has an amazing new exhibit all about the 14th amendment. come to philadelphia and lee's come see it. you quoted two clauses, and for this, i need my constitutional reading glasses. explicitly does not say you have to count citizens. it says representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding indians not taxed. it does not say citizens, and that is why the supreme court has said states can choose to restrict the vote to citizens or not, at their pleasure. but the whole number of persons have to be counted. the main point of section two, the framers were afraid that the south is going to deny the vote to african-americans and friedman but still reap the benefit of counting african-americans for purposes of the census. that,nstitution says which is superseded by the 15th amendment. sanctuary cities is a tough question. they are hard questions of administrative law and whether one president can undo the decision of his fellows, but i would have to say that i love the privileges or immunities clause -- of course, i love all causes of the constitution. we are not allowed to have favorites at the national constitution center. but it said -- it is a crucial clause which was tragically essentially read out the constitution in the slaughterhouse cases in the 1880's, and the court reduce that to a nullity, saying it only covered existing constitutions. the framer of that clause wanted to use it to apply the bill of rights against the states, but it took almost a century for his hope to be vindicated. that is a long way of saying you can learn much more on your own, and they are smart questions. go to the interactive constitution, and you will hear our great podcasts about sanctuary cities and can continue to explore this. host: from birmingham, alabama, you are on with jeffrey rosen. caller: thank you. i am a retired high school english teacher. last night, i heard michael iowa,, the democrat from on c-span. i only heard 15 minutes of what he said, but i was impressed by what he said on education. educationer, i think is my first interest in any candidate in which i support. the reason i liked him so well was he said, and i agree with this -- do not start with college age to help education. start with kindergarten and go up. child,sure that every every american child, gets a good education, from kindergarten through eighth grade. school programs with whatever money you have. every child should have a high school education. these things, as a teacher, i fully believe. of course they should have a college education, but i do not think it should be free. i just think it should be part of what any college would support, any deserving student, to get scholarships or whatever. what i heard from mr. bennett -- this is the kind of program he supports. thank you for listening to me and have a good morning. host: jean, thank you. guest: and i thank you for your service in teaching english. i want to thank my own ingress teachers in middle school and high school for having kindled a love of language in the constitution and civics, which continues to animate me to this day. i went to middle and high school in new york city. this great teacher who inspired my love of english -- they are with me every day. you are inspiring future generations to do what we are doing here today and engage in our civic 80's, parsing texts like the constitution -- engage in our civic duties come up parsing texts like the constitution. civics education is the most important question facing the country in this age. the founders thought the whole experiment would collapse without it. jefferson said democracy cannot survive ignorance. george washington wanted to set up a special national university for the instruction of youth in the science of government. what you are doing in evaluating candidates in their commitment to civics is crucial. and that is why i am so excited this interactive constitution has been embraced by the college board, which is recommending all students should take advanced placement courses, study the first amendment, and any student or teacher -- it is all free and online. they can go to the interactive constitution at the national constitution center and learn about every clause of the constitution so they can make up their own minds. host: you have been head of the constitution center for nearly a decade now. is the knowledge of constitution among high schoolers better or worse? guest: i've been there since 2013, getting up there, and actually there is a survey run every year, and generally, the results are quite distressing. one third of americans can name a single branch of government. this year, civic knowledge was the highest level in about six years. so something is happening. i think it is the interactive constitution, which 30 million americans have downloaded. host: one more call -- our democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. clearly, this president has obstructed justice. power -- of absolute my question is the impoundment control act was violated when he withheld funds duly appropriated by congress. i heard about that on msnbc, and i hear no one speaking about it. could you comment on that? yourhank you very much for very informed and bipartisan responses to everything. guest: thank you for those good words and thank you for letting i have not studied it, so i do not know the details of whether or not it was violated, but it was an interesting claim that there was a federal law that may have been violated by the withholding of funds. that could be relevant to the impeachment debate. it is not decisive, because most people think not every violation of federal law is impeachable and not every impeachable offense is a violation of federal law, but if you are looking for a crime and you believe, as democrats made, that in the course of trying to seek favor for private gain, the president caused a that are allowed to be violated, that may strengthen the case. host: a reminder of his new law,on life love liberty and te . jeffrey rosen, head of the national constitution center. i am sure we will see you before too long. thank you so much for having me. host: -- from the washington post joins us next. the week ahead in impeachment as the process resumes wednesday with a judiciary hearing. your comments and calls, we will also look at campaign 2020, some changes happening over the weekend as washington journal continues. ♪ announcer: c-span's student competition is in full swing. all across the country, middle and high school students are hard at work creating short documentaries on issues they would most like the 2020 candidates to address. take us behind the scenes and share your photos using our hashtag. still working on a co-idea? we have resources on our website. our getting started page has information to guide you through the process of making a documentary. inpan will reward $100,000 total cash prices including a $500,000 grand prize. -- $5,000 grand prize. the best advice i could give to young filmmakers is not to be afraid to take your issue seriously. you're never too young to have an opinion. announcer: for more information, go to our website. announcer: the impeachment inquiry hearings continue win chairman jerrold nadler holds the committee's first hearing into president trump, focusing on the constitution and the history of impeachment. watch our live coverage wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. --irman nadler expended a extended an invitation to the president and his counsel to appear before the committee. read the president on our website www.c-span.org /impeachment. ♪ >> the house will be in order. announcer: for 40 years, c-span has provided unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from around the country. in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your you local cable satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. announcer: washington journal continues. host: robert costas with us. national reporter for the washington post. he is the moderator of pbs' weekly washington week. thank you for being here. the impeachment process picks up again today. they will vote on that tomorrow. what are you expecting the house judiciary committee to look like? guest: so far, everything is moving on according to plan in the eyes of house democrats. they feel like speaker pelosi's timeline was to move this through the committee, have the report this week, and move it to the committee for chairman nadler to come up with the articles of impeachment. what we will see likely as articles on obstruction, abused of power, and you're going to see democrats in the coming days underscore what they believe the house intelligence committee has found through these open hearings and depositions. president trump, in their view, abused power, abused the u.s. government in terms of how he operated. that is the case they are going to make to the american people even as the process plays out on capitol hill. host: not a real surprise committee report yesterday that the president's counsel issuing the letter, the council says the president won't participate in the judiciary committees impeachment panel, calling it unfair. the president is traveling today, going to the nato summit in london. is the white house leaving wiggle room for the president to participate on some level? guest: based on my reporting, there has been an active discussion in the west wing as to whether president trump or his lawyers should participate in this process by having either the lawyers present, or witnesses come forward. they have ultimately decided not to do so. the argument inside the white house has been, from the council office, that as much as they want to defend the president they are going to rely on outside allies to do so. they do not want to legitimize the process in their eyes. by not having lawyers present, by not engaging, even though the democrats are opening the door to participation, they are trying to make the case to the , in thehat this process republican view, is illegitimate. that is why you see the white house standing back from the process paired the president adopting in many ways what resident clinton did, trying to business of the presidency, meeting with troops in afghanistan. host: do you think taking this overseas, the president heading to london, do you think there's a lot at stake for the president at that nato meeting outside having the impeachment package? -- baggage? -- payallies will play close attention to how he describes the nato alliance and the russian threat. magazine,ime president zelensky speaking out sankey feels like he can't trust -- peeking out saying he feels like. will be things that people will be listening to. world leaders,- where does this proclaim to nationalists president going to be on key issues? they are also going to be listening for whether he meddles rhetorically in the upcoming u.k. election. host: which is coming up -- december 12. our guest, here to tell -- talk about impeachment. four republicans, democrats,000 four (202) 748-8002 four independents and others. it is a good thing that now adam schiff -- the face of adam schiff and the intelligence committee moves to the sidelines and the judiciary committee takes over? guest: betty moderate democrats enjoy that chairmanship has been running this progress because they feel he has been measured, however this is such a charged political process. modern house democrats and republicans are nervous about how this is going to play out. if you are a moderate republican, a suburban district, you are under pressure from centrist voters to perhaps go against president trump and felt for articles of impeachment. if you're someone like collin peterson from minnesota who is in a conservative district, he has been against the process because he wants to focus on other issues. that is where the pressure is going to be felt. more toward the center than the edges of the spectrum because both sides are dug in. host: the issue of impeachment playing into the decision -- likely decision by the governor of georgia to appoint the candidate to fill the seat of johnny isakson. politico is reporting the governors setting to bump president trump on the issue of impeachment and take kenny loeffler to fill the vacancy. the president has been forcefully pushing for dog collins, the ranking -- doug collins, the ranking member. collinsllies of doug have been pushing for doug collins. this is a classic washington fight for the governor, who ran in theump ally, is now same way as governor desantis of florida, been governing toward the center. you look at governor camp in georgia, he has seen his approval ratings take up because he is seen as someone who is trying to put together bipartisan coalitions in florida -- despite running more hard-line campaigns on the conservative value front. that being said, you see have hiskent want to pick, he wants a woman in loeffler. he knows george is going to be competitive in 2020. he has two seats up, not only the seed that is vacating, but senator perdue is up for reelection. you can see the governor wants someone who allies with him, and someone who appeals to the suburbs. congressman collins has built up a relationship with president trump and he wants that seed. being in the u.s. senate is something that people will fight for. this will not play out in a peaceful fashion. collins' doug supporters want a full support of the president. guest: the president is not going to lack defenders in the senate when you have senator graham, senator paul, i could go on and on. it is true, having doug collins there would give the president another political foot soldier. at the same time, this is a georgia politics story or than an impeachment story. callers.'s hear from this is joan from new jersey. say onei just want to thing, if you will allow me to speak. -- c-spanly had recently had a gentleman, mr. moore on, he is an activist and he went on and on. democrats called in, not so much republicans. c-span, why are you slanting towards the left? we have been talking about impeaching president trump for the last three years. we have so many things in this country. immigration, infrastructure, drug addiction, homelessness, so many things. this is what the american people want. not people who dislike the president. the media pushes a narrative. only 25he people -- percent of people in the united totes even have passports, go to other countries and see what they are like. we live in the greatest country in the world. we will pick up on that and ask robert costa. she brings up a number of issues. there are a lot of issues facing congress. the top of the list is getting a budget done. guest: that is very true. there are other issues on the table. congress needs to pass a budget so they do not have a shutdown. you also have usmca hovering out there. president trump wants to get it passed. to see theats want usmca brought to the president's desk. however, democrats believe -- they have to move forward on impeachment at this point because from the transcript we saw in september of the president's call with president zelensky, they can't ignore his conduct. feelinger pelosi, pressure from freshman members and moderates decided to move forward with the impeachment process. if you step back and think, i am a reporter up there, she is moving pretty quickly. because of the issues brought up, she knows she wants to get through trade, the economy, different issues, prescription drug prices. you see speaker pelosi balancing hertically the interests of base, activists, moderates, and trying to get them on the same page moving forward with impeachment at this 11th hour of the year. at the same time, not ignoring issues like health care and the economy because she knows those are issues she wants to repeat again she made in 2018. there will likely be concentrations on those issues. host: so the timeline, democrats have to get the articles done and a photon impeachment. surprised,uld be based on conversations with democrats that it would take longer than mid-january. onhink any democrats, based conversations with them would like to see this done by christmas. host: let's hear from kathy, independent, cambridge, vermont. .aller: hi i have a simple question. , what about all of the senators running for ?emocratic presidency isn't this a conflict of entrance because he is -- interest because he is a potential opponent? guest: we just have mr. rosen. interest conflict of -- it is pretty minimal and how it is spelled out. the house acts as the prosecution, and then it is tried in the senate. the biggest concern for many of these democratic senators running for president is that they will miss time on the campaign trail because they have a duty to sit and listen to a trial as members of the senate. many members are coming into this trial with their own notions as to what president trump has done and they may not have reviewed the evidence. unlike a typical jury which may be selected based on perceived biases and backgrounds, getting a jury that is pure as possible, that won't be done. you cannot pick and choose who from the senate should be included. they are all going to be included whether you like it or not. the constitution says the senate's de jure end to the jury will take the time to decide. theysenators have told me want to prospective -- respect that. as much as this is a removal of office process in the constitution for the president of the united states, it is a political process. this is not a legal process. president trump does not risk going to jail through the senate. he would only risk being removed from office. this is not a legal process. because it is not legal it does not going to have the same kind of conflict of interest concerns in terms of a jury that you just mentioned. host: news from the campaign trail, reports that steve andock is stepping down, joe sestak stepping down. neither had much support, but how much is the impeachment story taking away from the issues that those democratic candidates want to focus on? guest: the impeachment process is playing out, but the candidates on the trail have been focused on health care. there are real debates on medicare for all among senators warren and sanders, and buttigieg and biden. the challenge for someone like governor bullock is, in such a crowded field, a moderate like himself from a state that was won by trump, he was not able to get traction. you think about why governor bullock did not get traction yet a mayor from south bend has, part of it -- if you look at the reporting -- buttigieg get in pretty early in 2019. bullock, because of his work in montana as governor, he is taking time to make his decisions. while buttigieg and biden are out there campaigning, or at least informally campaigning, bullock is not getting much attention. he gets in late. it is a lesson perhaps for the future that if you are a little-known candidate you have to start earlier if you want to have media attention early on. bullock was never really able to pull it together. you can see now pressure on bullock to run for senate, since he is not now in the presidential race. he could be part of the vice presidential list, as someone who has one in a red state. host: albert next up. augustine, georgia. caller: can you hear me? host: we can. caller: i just have a quick question for your guest. what bill clinton was impeached for? i know he says impeachment is removal from office, but bill clinton was not removed from office. -- be veryl me specific what he was impeached for? thank you. president clinton was impeached by the house of representatives for lying in a in the pollard jones case, i believe it was the pollard jones case. that, congress decided to move forward. it did pass the house which was controlled by the gop. , the it goes to senate senate acquits. meritsd not believe it removal from office. as the gentleman was saying, the house can vote to impeach. just because a president is areached does not mean they removed from office. it means they move to a trial phase for the senate decides their fate. costa, host of washington week on pbs. your thanksgiving program was less about current news, but historians -- what were some of your takeaways in terms of the historical perspective offered? guest: it is important to chaotic 24/7is news and political environment about history and where this is all going, and what it all means. we are so close to the glass day toay that we are not -- day day, we are not appreciative of how much we are covering. president push the limits of executive power. presidency mean as an institution? how far can it go? from maggie haberman of the new york times, we heard about president trump as a person, his tactics, and what we can learn about his tax six -- tactics. , a real at his past estate developer who fought on the tabloid pages of the new york post, this as somebody who has always been a political brawler. he has been cultivated as a public figure why lawyers like roy cohn and rudy giuliani. sensibilityew york to everything president trump is doing with his impeachment fight, and it is important to understand that. when you see president trump lash out on twitter, or try to build together coalitions in the republican party, you remember that he is always someone who has dealt in power politics. not necessarily partisan politics. he is someone who is outside of the political and party system. it is based on personal relationships and expectations of loyalty. that mo informs this debate. host: you have interviewed president trump a time or two, what is your sense, would he like to testify? was advised not to testify. it is highly unlikely he would participate in a senate trial. this is someone who likes to avoid being pulled in front of a legal setting. he prefers a political fight. he has often been litigious. he has used lawsuits as weapons in the past, whether real estate, political or personal. here's someone who is quick to drop a lawsuit. butants to defend himself, his lawyers are cautioning him to not agree to any kind of formal interview. if you are under oath, the president's way of speaking could, to say the least, include lies, false is -- falsehoods, stretching of the truth. his lawyers know that and they told him to sit that one out. host: you have covered a number of his rallies? guest: florida. host: how have they changed over the couple of years? guest: there were 21,000 people in sunrise, florida. in florida last week, raucous crowd. they have gotten better -- bigger in the red states. this is a president who has a cooler base of voters. if anything they have gotten stronger as his presidency has played out. they believe he is a victim of the establishment. when you walk around that arena, you could sense that these people are there not because they are republicans but because they are supporters of president trump. they too have grievances with the establishment. they have grievances with the global economy. they see president trump for all of his flaws, which they readily acknowledge in terms of his conduct and behavior. , andsee a fighter for them it really is old-school populism and antiestablishment appeal. that is the foundation of the trump presidency. that is why the rallies matter to him because his whole political base is not like most politicians, to reach from the base to the center. president clinton in 1996, george w. bush in 2004, president trump goes more towards the right to stoke the then -- and to the base to have a fiery message. the way republican campaigns are one nationally. most republicans after mitt romney lost would have said it would be very difficult for anyone to win wisconsin and pennsylvania in the future if you are running as a free market republican because that message does not have appeal. yet, president trump is a protectionist on trade, as a hardliner on immigration was able to win those states. we saw suburban voters walk away. base going to be all the in 2020, or will he make some sort of appeal to the center? work on opioids and prison sentencing is in -- an effort to get something done in the moderates. usmca, that is one that the democrats would -- house democrats and -- would like to get done too. our democrats on the hill afraid of giving the president they win on that? guest: there are democrats that do not want to see detect this victory on his own -- who do not want to see the president tout this victory on his own. if you are a michigan lawmaker, it makes sense for you to want this to pass because the tries to press mexico to raise the amount of money they pay workers on automobiles. they are trying to come up with different roles on the usmca. it is essentially a version of nafta, but they want to make sure mexico is paying a little more in terms of salaries. they want to protect u.s. jobs. they want to protect intellectual property. if you are in an industrial state, there are tweaks that are appealing. -- thosehose appeals parts of the usmca will ultimately outweigh the idea of giving president trump a victory. host: here is called -- coleman from tulsa, oklahoma. caller: i would like to get back to the basis of the impeachment and the transcript. i have read the transcript. there that deals with the basis for the impeachment is trump saying he thought the actions of biden under the corruption issue with burisma was horrible. i wanted the commentator there, the guest, to tell a little bit with the facts dealing administration did to burisma during that period before biden burisma.oney going to hunter biden was hired by burisma to protect them. prosecutor was fired on the basis of biden withholding money. that is horrible in my view. want toy guest does not talk about the basis for the impeachment inquiry. host: we will get an answer. guest: let's talk about it. president trump, as his allies , was highly interested in what hunter biden was doing, as someone who was paid about $50,000 a month to work for burisma, a ukrainian energy company. his relationship with that company, his business work in amid biden being in office has been of interest to president trump. his interest in what played out there and why the prosecutor was fired, what hunter biden was -- how vice president biden handled the ukrainian relationship at the time, it has animated the president. because of that, in the summer of 2019, he is building this relationship with president zelensky of ukraine and he wants to hear more about what the bidens were doing. in pursuit of that goal, encouraged by rudy giuliani, he has this phone call with president zelensky where he mentions that he would like to send zelensky to do him a favor and to think hard about these issues. zelensky has denied a quid pro quo. many u.s. officials have testified they believe it was a quid pro quo suggestion by president trump. interpret this is up to you. you're the american citizen. you decide whether it merits impeachment, but there has been explosive testimony that many u.s. diplomats working under president trump were uncomfortable with what president trump did. there were concerns within the administration about vice president pence -- vice president biden. during this, congress appropriated aid to ukraine which is in a hot war with russia, more than 250 million dollars. that aid was delayed. i was in warsaw, poland covering president zelensky and vice president pence in september. i saw a close the tensions about this aid that was being delayed. a few weeks, -- a few weeks later, there was a whistleblower complaint about how this was unfolding. here we are today with an impeachment inquiry wrapping up in the house of representatives. on the day, you sought sunday shows with senator kennedy, many republicans will maintain that president trump's conduct, however unorthodox was acceptable because he was in pursuit of knowledge of the bidens. many democrats and some republicans would say it was inappropriate. it is up to the senate to decide whether this requires impeachment. host: michael byrne from kyiv reporting that zelensky making headway, but -- the president also treating about zelensky this morning. breaking news, tweets trump, the president of ukraine has again announced that president trump has done nothing wrong with respect to ukraine. if the radical left democrats were saying, which they are not, it would be case over. he also says the do nothing democrats get constitutional lawyers for their impeachment hoax. they will need them. the president leaving this morning for the nato summit. robbie is in fairfield, ohio. yes.r: i am a democrat. trump, and he has unanswered some of the questions i want to know about. it is true that one lady come on the line, she was mixing about we got so many other things to take care of besides what the democrats has done. i agree with her. we need to many other things done in this country. our children that we grow to up with, this happened in my time. i was working for chrysler corporation making pretty good money. my planes, andto want our kids to take cuts for their hard work. they were making about seven dollars an hour, i was making 20. we -- nafta, and that's what happens. clinton signed that -- i blame both parties for that. host: all right. jack is in melbourne, kentucky. caller: good morning gentlemen. bob, i watch your show every week. i have been watching it ever since -- was on there. i enjoyed. i do have one little thing on this impeachment thing. everybody on their usually agrees with the dems. i would ask you to do one thing, i would get a little of the other side on there. i think it would equal it out a little better. i love your show and you guys are great. have a good day up there. time, i appreciate your particularly on a friday night at 8:00 eastern. washington week with a roundtable of reporters. it is a busy time for people. friday night you may be wanting to go to dinner or go have a glass of something. to take the time and a friday to engage in a political roundtable and to really be at the table, that means a lot to me. it is fun. on to your point about the perspectives of reporters, it is a fair critique. -- it is a fair critique to say that at times reporters seem to agree with each other a little bit too often. i would state that your critique about it being aligned with any party is inaccurate. the reporters who are on washington week are in the story. they are reporters who care deeply about their beat. this program, as you know as a regular viewer, has been on pbs for over 50 years. i am honored to be the moderator, following in the footsteps of excellent hosts ifill,ul duke, and gwen who passed away in 2016. i have been trying to follow in their footsteps of of having reporters who are nonpartisan discussing issues of the weekend focusing on substance. process, at times so many reporters in washington can sometimes have the same perspective on whether an issue is going to pass the house of representatives, or whether a certain candidate is going to be able to catch up in the race. i am committed to providing nonpartisan, vigorous journalism on washington week. we do that every friday night. i will be the first to acknowledge over a cup of coffee that we are often imperfect, but let me insist that we are trying, and we are never going to align with a political party. it is going to be about the viewer, the citizen, and the reporting. host: mentor, ohio. caller: hi, good morning. i have two things to say. the intelligence committee questioning, state department official made a cut tont that aid was the central american triangle countries. that, in my view, destabilized that region and people to caravan of migrate north. the immigration problem was started by the administration, in my view. saga with trump reminds me of james jones. why are these people being -- they don'those have their own ability to think and realize what is going on? do we have a united states, or do we have an autocracy anchor -- do we have an autocracy? guest: on your point, president immigration is a candidate and argued that both parties have failed to present -- protect the border. he put that forward in his political agenda in a visceral way into thousand 18 concentrating on the idea of a caravan coming up through central america. pushped that that would voters to come out in 2018. he still lost the house of representatives, but it was his strategy and his view that that was something that needed to be addressed. he went after the caravan day after day, and trump allies told me they would not be surprised to see the president focus on immigration again in 2020. if not the caravan, something related to mexico or central america and that threat he perceives. your broader question about autocracy, this is a democracy we live in a republic. i do not have much else to say about that. host: on the immigration issue, reporting in your paper this --ning, a team of reporters the headline of -- plan created a child migrant crisis. deterals aiming to illegal immigration, new policies would leave children languishing in shelters, they move forward anyway. migrantusands of children ended up stranded at the border patrol station, president trump's administration characterized the crisis as a spontaneous result of the record rush of migrants overwhelming the migration system. the backup was also part of -- officials knew it would ensnare minors in conditions and leave them in squalid conditions according to internal documents. if you like a reporting from other reporters like michael share, they wrote a book called border war, -- guest: history, when we have time to look back on president trump and his immigration policy, it will take a long time to really understand what happened here. the posttest tried every day. they reveal more about what is happening inside government. stephen miller is the senior advisor to the president. chief immigration advisor working with ken cuccinelli. it was really miller, who is in his mid-30's, who is so close with president trump, and you have the president and his top advisor controlling immigration policy in a way that they don't control other. . parts of the government there is a much more independent cabinet. dhs is always something that miller has had a grip on. you have had different secretaries of homeland security, whether it is john itly, but it is always -- has always been miller and trump directing policy. hardline -- underscore that word. --came after jeff sessions he came out of jeff sessions' office when sessions was on the fringe of the gop on immigration. legalg to limit and cap immigration levels, bolster their border, and now that entire sessions project that was lingering on the periphery is now at the top of the federal government. it is seeping down into how dhs is run and how immigration is run. it leads to these crisis type moments where children being held and detained, and it leads to an outcry among democrats and many republicans, yet it persists, this our land policy, because president trump stephen miller agree. host: is that dynamic wind of the causes of the turnover we have seen in dhs? guest: if you're running dhs, it is difficult to run dhs because the president and stephen miller , and others in their orbit are always putting their foot on the gas or trying to run dhs from the white house. it has been a place since day , where the west wing has been in that office if not formally, then in spirit every day. john, bridgewater, new jersey. caller: i believe your title is national reporter, political reporter,. reporter was's, a objective. number one, can you convince me that you are impartial? -- when it comes to trump? i understand when you are on msnbc which is total entertainment that you have to act accordingly -- guest: i do not act. caller: you do. guest: i do not. sir, i hope when you evaluate my work you evaluate the work, and the way i communicate my reporting whether it is on msnbc, or c-span, or pbs. i am committed to objectivity. i have been committed to objectivity since i started in this business. i believe you need to be vigorous. vigorous reporting is sometimes perceived as partisan, unfairly so. you need to be vigorous and tough on all sides, and you need to be calm and measured and make sure you are being perceptive in your analysis, but not partisan when it comes to president -- i spokes someone to candidate and president of the united states, i have been at the washington post for six years, when you look at my reporting, my motto as a reporter sits on my desk is "assume nothing." i did not assume that president trump could never win the nomination. i took them seriously as a candidate from day one. i take other candidates like senator sanders in 2014, -- 2015 seriously. right, you are on the and a populace, or a democratic-socialist on the left, as a reporter, i am committed to taking you seriously in this chaotic moment in american politics. you have the right to interpret what i do, what others do in whatever way you want, but when you ask for my opinion of my work, that is that. host: john in new jersey, go ahead. caller: one positive thing you said about trump. host: -- guest: it is my job to be accurate. it is not my job to be positive or negative. host: we will move to marion in grove ssent, georgia. caller: did you say marion? host: yes you are on the air. caller: first, i want to let all the republicans know that we as democrats do not appreciate hunter biden getting special privileges. said, republican stuart all the time as well. take a look at a vodka, chair -- ivanka, jared, all of these senators' children -- senator's children. they all do it and it is wrong and we should bipartisan we have a bill that says we have to outlaw that. i think we all feel that way. as far as immigration, i feel we all think that is a problem. i don't think of that as democratic or republican, i think it is an american issue. when i hear that rand paul says we should quadruple legal immigration when we know that legal immigration eventually has -- most of the people here illegally came in legally, that is not going to solve anything. host: can you pick up on her point about hunter biden and the larger issue of insider politics, favors toward members of family or people who are inside with politicians? do you think this has raised this issue tomorrow they national level? guest: when i am out there as a reporter, there are concerned about nepotism. you see it in both parties. democratic voters complained to me, why is jared kushner working in the white house? why does the president seem to help his family be part of the federal government? it is an unusual arrangement. we heard these concerns going back to bobby kennedy when he was included in his brother's cabinet. democrats, republicans say how is hunter biden getting a deal with burisma with not much energy experience during the vps tenure? nepotism,erns about insider deals, it fuels on both sides this idea that washington is removed, washington is elite, washington is a protected class. that is why you see outsiders on both sides of the aisle doing well in this kind of environment. , atington is perceived times rightly, as a place where if you have connections you can do better than the average joe. host: speaking of average joe, how has joe biden been able to shake the hunter biden story? guest: here remains at the top of nearly every poll. he has slipped and some of the early states like iowa and new hampshire. he is going to have to catch up in iowa to be competitive there. hebe -- his advisers say does not necessarily need to be competitive there. split, if buttigieg and senator warren win the first two , buttigieg in new hampshire, or if sanders does well there, if biden comes into south carolina and places first, we have three or four candidates together going toward super tuesday in a competitive spot. biden has not given up on iowa. he is on the no malarkey tour, he is calling it. he is trying to come back in iowa. he knows, as a former vice president, you'd in iowa. be fifthws you want to or sixth in iowa. mayor buttigieg has struggled with black voters. that changes, vice president biden remains popular with black voters and white voters in south carolina. host: we are two months away now from the iowa caucus. -- stuff fromck lakeview, oregon. caller: i believe the exposed theinquiry deep state. morrison said "president trump was not discussing talking points, the nsa had prepared for official u.s. policy." -- then you have of it said foreignch said there policy was -- there were second and third hand accounts of what happens. i should not say never, but it rarely happens in the court of law where hearsay is accepted. players believe they control foreign policy. i would love to say one thing about obama, obama would not give you -- money because he wanted iran deal and russia helped the iran deal. if obama did not give ukraine any money for defense trump gave them money. deepnot like it that these state players think they control foreign policy, they need to be put in their place. biden, many in government are benefiting from the aid that is given them. if --uest said that host: we lost the caller, sorry about that. guest: your points there are reflective above -- reflective of how many republicans feel about the testimony where you see republicans critical of some of these diplomats for being so alarmed about president trump's conduct. they see in president trump's conduct -- what i mean by that is there is a real debate right now about foreign policy. the president at the end of the day is the head of the executive branch. he directs foreign. whatever the president says becomes policy becomes -- because the president said it. there is a formal position that the u.s. government takes with its national security strategy document, state department planning, where they come up with goals. that is the point of having a state department. -- to take the threat of a president's words and try to build a coherent policy. that is where the tension has been. the president is testing the executive branch, the limits of the presidency. there was alarmed that he was going so far against the stated policy, but president trump's en advisors told me whatever he says is the policy. that should be followed. there is a real tension. i do not use the term deep state, there is a tension between the state and nonpartisan officials dedicated to serving the u.s. government, and the president who operates outside the chain of command time and time again. host: to linda in midvale, utah. caller: i just wanted to say that it is really important -- every caller that i hear on here talks about the same republican talking points, the same russia talking points -- propaganda. it seems like it comes -- everyone will say something from fox news. other do not listen to points of view on this, it is really hard to understand that there are testimonies given by people -- all of the people -- trump has committed tyranny against united states. against his own office. against the president's office. it is sad for me to hear all of the people who are employed in pointsep state talking of trump. it is so dangerous to me. i hope that warren or bernie win the election. about they concerned attempts on our election process. mike pompeo, secretary of state this morning, the headline and politico saying that unfortunate that pompeo slams democrats during trump's overseas trip. the first hearing will coincide with the president's meeting with nato leaders. do you think that was coincidental, or a tactic by the judiciary committee? guest: this process is playing out. the president is going to go abroad as president of the united states. help the president stop the impeachment inquiry just because the president is going abroad? highly unlikely. they're trying to move this along because they know it is a -- they know it is in a politically fragile area right now heading into an election. to the caller's point about officials testifying, you make an important point that even if you support president trump, the process the government plays out -- c-span provides gavel-to-gavel coverage of these hearings, it is important to listen to the perspectives of people who served in the u.s. government even if you disagree with them. as a reporter i try to follow every hour of the impeachment inquiry because you learn about how people perceive president trump, how he is operating behind the scenes, and that is your government inaction. you see ambassador jovanovich, lieutenant col. vend been, ambassador sondland, and so many others describe the president and how he deals with ukraine. and they all have different interpretations as to what the president's intent was as he pursue these goals regard to corruption in ukraine. the intent question can be murky if you're sitting from a partisan perspective. it may remain murky. this is government in action. these people putting their names on the record. i am someone, as a reporter, who would love to see more people beyond the record about their criticisms or praise of anything. too often, background reporting informs too much of our national conversation. i appreciate when people put on the record what they believe. this is not anonymous, when you watch these hearings. testifying.nd so you may not believe it, or take it at face value, but these people putting their name out there under oath, it is worthy of consideration. host: i will take you back to mike pompeo, there are whispers that the secretary is considering running for the pat roberts' seat. guest: based on my reporting, he wants to stay secretary of state. he is not going to leave during impeachment. but why not now go run for senate in his home state? he is under scrutiny for his own involvement in the ukrainian discussions with president trump , and how the state department interacted with the department of justice and what exactly pompeo did. secretary pompeo remains undecided. as much as he said he is not going to run, he keeps going back to kansas. as a reporter you say to yourself, actions usually speak louder than words. as long as he keeps going back to kansas, it remains a possibility. host: we go next to our republican line. sean in laurel, maryland. make sure you mute your television. know mr. want to koestler, did you report about the kids. costa, about in the world being in cages by obama? guest: i do not know about what you are referencing. head --i said the u.n. about the u.s. harboring more kids in cages than anywhere in the world in 2015. guest: you're talking about kids at the border? caller: yes. guest: i understand. got it. it has been interesting to watch some of these democratic presidential debates, because at -- and the primary process could at times you have seen critics on the left criticize vice president biden's's for the obama administration immigration for detentions that happened during that period. that is something that vice president biden has had to grapple with, the obama record on immigration. say he iss advisors in opposition to president trump , and president trump's version of a much more expanded version of detentions. the border has been a persistent issue for presidents, not just president trump, but for president obama as well. we see that criticism on the left, and things that happen before president trump pop up during the race, but it has not dominated the race. host: james is next, santa cruz, california. elser: how come everybody -- you know when -- i have been watching c-span for a couple of about people,ing up to six months vetting which would mean the people coming from mexico are not american. , thet about the citizen immigration thing. talk about vetting paired how can you that somebody -- host: not a clear connection, we will go to michael in baton rouge, louisiana. caller: how are you doing? thanks for giving me this opportunity. ok, i am college-educated. i can read very well. i read the transcripts. what am i supposed to see that you see? i don't understand, what am i supposed to see? i believe my intelligence is pretty good, so what am i supposed to see in this transcript? i can read. i cannot read and see anything in this transcript that says that mr. trump -- i am independent -- that says mr. -- onhad any quid pro quo top of that, the prime minister said he said mr. trump didn't say anything about any quid pro quo. how my supposed to believe? host: we will find out from robert casa. 2019, in the summer of ukraine with its new president is dealing with a hot war with russia. russia went into crimea and took over part of ukraine. there is a war going on inside of the country it and ukraine needs money. part of that process for ukraine involves getting a ukrainian ally, the united states, to provide military aid. appropriatedress that military aid in 2019. that aid was you said you read the transcript. if you listen to the inquiry, testimony went into if his words, his conduct seemed to be a pressure campaign that was inappropriate that rises to the level of impeachment or you can look at it and say it's president trump operating as a president would do to try to thele an ally to look into bidens and into corruption in that country and not connected to the aid. how you interpret this will likely tell me as a reporter where you're going to come down on the question. say shrug itans off. this is trump being trump did he ukraine, heessuring wasn't asking for anything specific. when you look at this transcript, you see a president suggesting, winking, he would appreciate more effort of investigation of corruption into ukraine that would involve a spotlight on the bidens, that there would be appreciation for that in the united states. that comes with aid being delayed. it is complicated about how you see the intent of president trump. his words are not always direct in what he's trying to specify. do us a favor, do me a favor. it's almost an explicit quid pro quo suggestion. winding in long and how it unfolds. that's why this has been mounted, to fill in the gaps about the context of this phone call. it's up to you to see what you want to see here. ont: you will see him weekly washington week. he is the moderator of that program. onnks for being with us here watch intro. guest: what a great way to start a monday. host: we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern. have a great day. >> here's a look at live programming today. the brookings, institution looks at the role china plays in the asia-pacific region of how the country is responding. that live today at 2:00 eastern. ae stinson center holds weapons. nuclear that will be live today at 2:00 eastern. campaign 2020.m elizabeth warren will hold a town hall in iowa city at the university of i with assassin. watch live coverage here on c-span. c-spanlive with the free radio out. tonight, the chair of u.s. telecom and the ceo of consolidated communications. ofcks you have 37,000 miles fiber-optic cable, where is it? >> it's everywhere. it's in the ground, it's in the air. thes typically outside urban markets. will beest towns that in the downtown area are places like portland, maine or roseville, california. those are places where we have street,tworks in every extension of those facilities in every neighborhood. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> next, political reporters and former presidential campaign advisers preview the february 11 new hampshire primary. they also compared the upcoming primaries to those in previous presidential races. the university of southern california's center for the political future hosted this event in los angeles. >> tonight's event will be broadcast on c-span and facebook live. i am delighted to have this conversation with seema mehta , covering the 2020 election for the l.a. times. she previously covered the 2012 and 2008 presidential elections. james pindell is covering 2020 for the boston globe. he is an on-air political analyst for new hamp

Related Keywords

Montana , United States , Louisiana , Afghanistan , Alabama , Chad , Iowa City , California , Vermont , Minnesota , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Russia , Ukraine , Hampshire , Maryland , Mexico , Egypt , South Carolina , Bridgewater , Georgia , Iowa , Ivanka , L Vivs Ka Oblast , Cambridge , Cambridgeshire , United Kingdom , Poland , Greece , Baltimore , New York , Midvale , Utah , Portland , Oregon , New Hampshire , North Carolina , Missouri , Texas , Iran , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Olympia , Washington , Kentucky , Florida , Boston , Massachusetts , Virginia , Wisconsin , Melbourne , Victoria , Australia , Michigan , Mississippi , London , City Of , Oklahoma , Tivoli , Maine , New Jersey , Israel , Colorado , Houston , Kansas , Ohio , Brooklyn , Warsaw , L67 , Americans , America , Mexican , Russians , American , Russian , Egyptian , Ukrainian , Soviet , John Tyler , Andrew Johnson , Elizabeth Warren , Jerrold Nadler , Nancy Pelosi , Joe Biden , James Jones , George Bush , Vladimir Putin , Adam Schiff , Jeffrey Rosen , Pete Williams , Mike Pompeo , George Washington , Stephen Miller , Harry Truman , Jared Kushner , John Bolton , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Michael Byrne , Bader Ginsburg , Bobby Kennedy , Paul Ryan , Joe Sestak , George Soros , Robert Costas , Jerry Nadler , Molly John , Woodrow Wilson , Andrew Jackson , Los Angeles , Tom Mcclintock , Bob Udell , Joe Cunningham , Maggie Haberman , Gerald Ford , Catherine Lucy , Barack Obama , George W Bush , Lindsey Graham , Mitch Mcconnell , Richard Nixon , Rudy Giuliani , Seema Mehta , Glenn Beck , Andre Carson , Hillary Clinton ,