on faith and religion in middle america in gotland. watch tonight at 8 pm eastern on cspan2 and enjoy books tv this week and every week on cspan2. >> the supreme court justices return for the new term next week . the first monday in october with the court hearing cases on employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. the trump administrations winding down of doctor and state funding for religious education. listen to supreme court oral arguments on our website, c-span.org and watchon c-span . >> jamil jaffer served on the house intelligence committee as their senior counsel from 2011 to 2013 . he was at george mason university law school, founder of their security institutes, welcome to the program.

based on your experienceof the house intelligence committee and there's a lead committee on this impeachment inquiry, what national security concerns do you hear coming out of that one piece of evidence, that memorandum on the phone call ? >> guest: obviously the phone call is concerning . if the president is making commitments are asking for things from foreign leaders that don't go to the national interest , that go to his personal interest, that could be a concern to the committees in the house not just the intelligence committee but the judiciary committee which will vote on impeachment and send them to the floor. the house as you point out is doing all the investigation. when i served under chairman mike rogers, it was a bipartisan committee. they spent time figuring out a way to work together and create common cause to support the national security . as we seen in recent months and on the past two years, the committee has become partisan on both sides and we

can blame the former chairman, the current chairman but it's become a partisan committee unfortunately and that maybe partly the climate we see in play that one of will unfortunately play into the climate. >> in your experience that partisanship that we see in the public hearing that c-span covers, thoughthat carry on into the level of the staff councils as well ? >> it didn't used to. when i used to serve it was a bipartisan place . when the chairman would come in they wouldrenew the committee at the time i joined . . it had previously been very partisan so the committees gone for the spaces of being partisan and bipartisan. tiand unfortunately we're in a place where i think not only is it happening in front of the cameras that it is evolving into the staff level and the staff shares a common ngfaith, their work in the same sort of large open area in the facility in the capital. so they're not far apart. but given the current dynamic out in public, i think it's hard to imagine it bipartisan . >> we've linked to the

released report, the redacted report from the office of the inspector general. by the whistleblower. when you look at that, i assume you've taken a look at. what would have to rise up to the impeachable offense? what more would have to come out of this the individual events? >> the constitution reversed the high crimes and misdemeanors as we know having gone through the impeachment back in the 90s , those terms don't really have a defined meaning . at least not one that we have identified specifically. there's talk about what the original meaning was in the era of the constitution was written, there are people who believe you should look at in an evolving way but it turns out turns out to be more of a political decision is a legal question. legal standards say the house is on impeachment and the senate convex no court will say that is inappropriate. it doesn't me high crimes and

misdemeanors, for the political branches. it's for the courts to say the house essentially thesame become the joint germany . and so does it become a federal crime? does it need to besomething more than a federal crime can prosecute? it doesn't have to be . so the question here is does the house believe it has the votes to recommend articles of impeachment to the senate and the senate, all the backs are proven to be true, prosecutors bringtheir and the prosecutors will be members of the house of representatives , does the senate find fault and if they do they remove the person whether the judge or a city number of the candidate when the president in this case and we will see what happens but based on the current facts, i think there's an opendebate.

a lot more is going to come out. the house is doing a big investigation not just of this whistleblower complaint but of other things around . that i would be curious to see what comes out and whether that needs to think people believe are impeachable defenses see one he served as senior counsel for the house intelligence committee, welcomes your comments andyour calls on the impeachment inquiry . democrats 202-748-8000 one and independent another 202-748-8000 two. send us as we as well and asked us to o2 748-8000 three. a lot has been made of this term and the presidency is that quite often with protocol, saying there was no quid pro quo. explain what that means and does there have to be a quid pro quo for some sort of offense to be cited? >> guest: the term quid pro quo means in exchange, onefor another. i give you this, you give me that . and so the reason people have been debating this question

was there quid pro quo or not is because if in fact the claim on the table is the president was saying look, if you do this favor for me, investigator joe biden, look into the server of the ukraine and there's confusion by the president what might have happened but do this favor for me andmaybe i'll do some papers down the road . does there need to be a quid pro quo? e number as we talk about impeachment, it's a political decision for the house and senate. so there's no requirement that the president violateany law. the law is on the table and some people said might be in place is the prcampaign finance laws . does the president ask for something of value for his campaign in exchange for something of value from this government, that's why the quid pro quo debate is taking place and the reason people focus on that those two pages , two and three. the transcript is this discussion by the president of ukraine saying i want to

buy some javelins and the president is his response is not how that would work, his promise is i want you to look into this for her by ukraine. it could be that the president changing topics in which case is not a quid pro quo, there's not a suggested one goes the other the president of the grade ask for ask, if you give me will live and they'll think about it, people lose focus on those two transcripts to in figure out what that was a quid pro quo. there doesn't need to be but that the ongoing debate and if you're going to convict in the senate there needs to be the suggestion might have been what's in play. >> reporting says house investigators not just the intelligence committee are submitting the president's personal attorney for records of ukraine. typically what sort of records in this kind of investigation would become a defined -mark. >> they're looking for anything that would go to the substance of the allegation n that the president was engaged in this inappropriate id exchange of value with the

ukrainian prime minister, ukrainian president or government or something of value for the us government. and it's somehow inappropriate, if there was it would be impeachable . because the president rudy giuliani into the conversation during the transfer it's not surprising investigator want to know if giuliani will you doing that once he quite a bit talking publicly in the newspapers about his role in the ukraine and whathe was doing . and so the question is does he have any way of protecting information because what do you. does he have a and theremight be a few privileges you might pick up . rudy is mister trump's president trumps personal attorney and the question was mister giuliani has said publicly i wasn't behaving as his attorney that might undermine privilege but the question is executive

privilege, was he a personal envoy of the president in his official capacity as commander-in-chief, the sole organ of the us report and was he on admission. if youremember back george washington said chief justice john j , he refused to give the house when asked records of the negotiation. so washington wrote a letter and said i'm not going to give you that, not part of your role . i'm not going to give you those private negotiations. the rest of it is mine and it doesn't matter i use aperson acting in is not official capacity those negotiations . you will not happen and refuse to provide. >> that's some long-ago precedent. >> 1792. >> frantically is ourguest . democrats 202-748-8000 and independent another 202-748-8000 two. will hurt your first from new castlepennsylvania. go ahead . >> you for taking my call. this is very important. what i would like to ask this man is how could they be

owing on with this inquiry, wanting to impeach when they have no proof. it's all hearsay. we hesaid, she said. they said and nobody wants to come out and say i said . i heard. this is ridiculous. and you know what, really of people in this country, it's a shame. but they all need to really check on their own, what they've done in their life. have they live here? have they set a white lie over there -mark it's about time we all get down on our knees and ask the lord to please take charge of this country. he said from baird to do a job and believe me nobody is going to take trump out of there because god almighty sent him. >> guest: truly raises a good point with about these whistleblower complaints.

a lot of people as a complaint is inappropriate and that it doesn't claim direct knowledge of the facts . was lower from something else that the call went this way, heard from somebody elsethe records have been short in some additionally, department life file . it was all sort of hearsay. but of course the flipside to shirley! is that now president as release transcripts which doesn't hearsay, record of his direct conversation with mister solanki and this debate over what the president said, what he was implying my talking about the server and ukraine and joe biden while zelensky is asking for weapons. does that mean he was going to change value? that's not hearsay. that's direct evidence. now he committee is looking to get testimony from some of the people on the phone call, pompeo was on the phone call. remember the hard part is it's very unusual for a transfer of a phone call to be release. it's unusual for presidential

aides whether their cabinet officials or white house to be called tobitestify . the reason why is you want to protect the confidential communicationsthe president has with foreign leaders . if they could have come out publicly or referred to in congressional hearings on the people given advice to the president, that could invoke privilege also so unique candid conversations . more that comes out the less likely we will get those conversations going and there are questions , the president would likely try to defend that line of privilege and congress is going to want the documents and there's going to be that possible. the president has been transparent in the sense that he's given the transcripts, he's given the whistleblower complaint may be to his detriment . ro>> let's hear from glendale arizona . >>guest: how are you doing . i was looking over the internet, is not going to be the bidens here, you're going

to have arrests, inquiries and i don't think these guys are going to be carrying that , it's a serious matter er they're coming out here. >> host: matt is talking about an earlier color rally in washington but let's listen to indiana, republican line. >> guest: thank you very much that you took my call. i'll i want to say to this guy that there's nothing in the history of the united states to impeach somebody when he had a conversation with somebody else . and the democrat from the first day mister trump, he got elected, they were after him. andthat's a fact . they want hillary to get elected but he won and that

was an election. they chose him as the president. >> guest: codes raises an important point which is there is a feeling in the country after the election and the surprise election of donald trump and a feeling that i think ndthe president has still rose to end the conversation in the back of partisanship on capitol hill of democrats and republicans are still this idea people have always been to o remove donald trump from office and out of office and this is the latest thing and now they're going to grapple with. democrats have wanted to keep him sensei one. they felt concern among a significant population and i think the question is how does that play in the question whether the house will vote or on a future article and whether the senate will commit. i will hate waiting in the minds of the center. should it? the harder question. it should be on there was is

the fact that a president felt like there is a conspiracy against him republicans have felt the effort against the president and people out in the country feel a lot of people believe because there is an effort and to put the president on any basis whatsoever. thishappens to be the one people grabbed onto . >> it will be on this the speaker proposing that a focus on the ukrainian issue and the president's phone call. a very narrow if you will ask . will the intelligence committee right those e articles of impeachment? will that be passed on to the judiciary, how does that work .it >> as i understand it and again, this is a fairly new dynamic with the impeachment of thepresident the date . this is the fourth and or attempted impeachment i should say. as i understand it, the

committees will do their investigation and provide evidence they find, try to report on what they find in this jurisdiction but they judiciary will grab articles of impeachment that will be voted on in the committee and go to the house floor . andthen if , they will be possible by house prosecutors appointed by the floor , by the majority of the house represent those articles for trial in the senate to provide over chief justice of the united states. >> but there's nothing inthe constitution that says the house as the boat first before we had this inquiry. people are saying you have to book 1st, they don't have to vote before they start . >> as a general matter the house investigative powers and the house oversight powers don't require a vote of the full house to begin and we have to go back and look at history but my recollection again just by recollection from the impeachment is i don't recall voting to begin an investigation . that was done under the purview of the chairman of all the committees and paste the judiciary. >> let's hear from democrats line in plymouth wisconsin. >> guest: good morning. eri have a couple questions an comments . hi'm wondering why the program

this morning started with our host saying quid pro quo and the guest adding after the word solicit the words and get somethingin return ? if people would look up the law, cfr 110.20 , there's a whole position on solicitation by foreign nationals . it doesn't say anything about getting anything in return . i also find my comments because i find it interesting. i had that withmy husband this morning , he wouldn't take it that c-span decided to make the call 5050 this morning so that half the calls were showing that they were against impeachment as i'm seeing reports this morning that the polls are showing a rise in impeachment support. i feel that you do that to

help republicans s in your helping them to feel comfortable that half the country must be on the side of this lawbreaker. >> we separate them in different ways for various events. that's not the reason, we just tried a way to divide up the phone lines to her birth voice on quid pro quo versus elicitation and she cited the law there about what it says. >> the federal election campaign act, the relevant law at least some people have said my apply here does from the bus solicitation by an american of a foreign national for campaign contribution. if you're looking for anything of value and remember the campaign contribution doesn't just mean money . in the information, some have suggested that these are debatable points in the law but it canbe something of value . it's not just that i had to ask for cash, i can ask for you to paint my house or my campaign office and that would be campaign contributions and a so-called

in-kind contribution. if you are still solicit for an individual, is a non-american citizen, that would be unlawful under the federal campaignlaw . there's the question was the president soliciting campaign information, a debatable point. there's a lot of legal questions about that but impeachment is not a legal issue, it's a political question for the house and senate . but on this question was what might be made? you might say i want to investigate corruption in the ukraine in this issue of joe biden's on, it was all about corruption and i want to root out corruption of a foreign country. people may agree or disagree, that's a reasonable or silly argument but it's a callable argument in the sense that you would have to prove that in fact you're trying to get something of value for his campaign that was the goal in order to prove go to court and show a legal violation. >> the process of impeachment is not a political process

until and if and until the president actually found guilty by the senate and the senate trial. could a president be held responsible for could he be charged with crimes if he were convicted by the senate? in criminal. >> ,in civilcourt after he left the presidency ? >> i don't know that we take a conviction if the president were to leave office . as a wgeneral matter the government has taken the view that presidents can't be prosecuted for official acts while in office, almost like he and debate clause or members of congress . is not free from doubt. the clause is one thing, that is very clear. if you're on the floor of the house or senate or maybe you're on route to a session of congress . >> can't be sued. >> right. whether the president could be for anofficial act or a pseudo-official act, that's a harder question . the general position of the

government and then you can't do that the president is in office really wonder once he's out of office whether he's removed or left office by a normal course of operation of elections, or the end of an eight-year term , and the more open question and also goes to the question was the official? was he asked official in the time during his office but it was unofficial and campaign contribution rights? those are harder question that they or may not be debated down the road. we haven't really seen prosecutions of presidents after the fact. we seem suits against richard nixon from my recollection i can't recall how bad right now any prosecution by the government of the president and there are also political questions. imagine the opposing party is elected in the executive branch and the presidency and they were to pursue a president criminally of the other party e area that would cause huge political tensions and maybe that might be why we have to do that. >> trend as senior counsel in

the house intelligence committee 2011 elto 2013, not at george mason law school. he founded the national security institute. >> we set up about two years ago to identify hard questions of national security law and try to find practical questions. academia a lot of the debate on national security is less about national security and more about liberty and the important debates and george mason is avery well-known institution that talks about civil liberties . we thought it was important to have a conversation about civil liberties at the same time and have a question in public and open way and help give ideas to members of congress and elected officials in the executive branch but about how they can solve these problems and reconcile the competing values that protect our national security while preserving the civilliberties americans enjoy . >> let's get back to the calls and hear from me in hendersonville on the independent line . >> good morning, you for taking my call.

i would like to know, does the president have a right to inquire and i believe he does by law to a foreign government about corruption in a utform of election in 201 . does he have a right to inquire to any leader of any country about corruption in our own government. this letter, the way i understand where the whistleblower second hadley got information that the president was looking at buying. hewas looking according to the letter i understand it , what the president said on the phone call was he was inquiring about corruption in the 2016 election.

fact or is there something that is worth debating atbecause nancy pelosi wants something that is right for impeachment and just it's confusing to me why she's pushing something and saying that our national security. it is our nationalsecurity . for a president to know whether there's corruption in our own government . >> okay city. >> this is again another important point this is the debate . congress and the democrats are concerned that the president was asking the government for some political gain. republicans in the senate and house are saying no, the president wanted to root out corruption in the prior election, tthe root cause of how this investigation into russian, alleged russian interference in the election that began.

and that's what this is all about, these were not official acts in his role as commander-in-chief. the sole organ of the nation in foreign affairs not be questioned by the legislative branch on foreign affairs issues and this is a debate the countryis going to now have . say what you want about what happened and i think there's a lot of debate about that and a lot of people on troubled by the conversation. the president is then transparent in the sense that he's put the transcript out and said you decide so we're going to get the chance now to have that debate in congress and have that debate essentially in the senate during the trial about what was the meaning of this phone call ? are there phone calls like it ? were there other conversations of other foreign leaders where exchanges of value were discussed or how the us government functions were discussed and is it important for the country to know that and if so how much do we need to know what to mark we do we need toknow every transcript of every phone call the president has ?

these are very hard questions that we should let the moment not overtake us but there are important values at stake about is it right to exchange this kind of thing -mark is right to inquire because these are tough questions with no obvious answer. >> host: let me get your thoughts on news that apparently the president pressed the australian leader to help the attorney general investigate the mueller inquiries origins, the new york times reporting president bush the australian prime minister during a telephone call to help the attorney general gathered information for a justice department inquiry krumholz will discredit the mueller investigation according to two american officials with knowledge of the call. >> i think this is one of the things where let's see the transcript n. it will be interesting tosee what was said and i'm not saying the president is going t to give up the transcript . having seen him do it once he's taken by the results of transcript and there are reports equities when it comes to executive privilege and for affairs that might

come into play but if you look atthis transcript will learn more about what was said . the prime minister of australia wants something and if you don't help me out with this and i'll give you this, if it was, i think we will find that troubling. it's a scenario where the presidents saying look, this investigation began with a conversation with staff, george papadopoulos and one of your diplomats in england, and australian diplomats. it's not crazy if you're going to investigate the roots of this probe, to start there and that's where they began. there are a lot of people who would debate whether the president should be investigating this at all . he said publicly he's going to do this investigation and said publicly aboutconstruct the attorney general to do it . is that a problem, that's a different question . >> what you make of the reports that the phone call or transcript of the phone call kept in a separate server at the white house, is that protocol with thesesorts of things ?

as a general matter of these phone calls are classified. phone calls of foreign leaders because the president is tying the thingsthat are sensitive , but also and because the context of what's being said and the way the conversation is being played plays out to leaders in their own country and how does that play out for the united states are hard to protect so thegeneral matter is in my experience of phone calls are classified. typically it confidential , typically not the top-secret or department information level. there's one interesting fact that a lot recently that raises the facts that why we study calls with that code word file. this was a computer maintained by the national security council used for covert actions or public reporting . you recall one of the key phone calls were split in the same.se was the conversation the president with the russian diplomat about foreign interference and ostensibly said i don't care about that

because we do it too. if we do such things there are historical examples of the us doing these, it would typically be done in the form of covert action.so they recently sent well, the president might be going to some prior one thathe's aware of . we need this conversation in a covert action file that explains, that might explain the conversation with washington officials but it doesn't explain the zelensky conversation so there might be some issues here and not all the things .on the same so as it all plays out, it's an interesting debate but not difficult to put in top-secret s fbi files so there's something sensitive when talking about a sensitive brand and unless there's something transcended we don't know about, there might be some. >> it was a memorandum ofa phone call . >> but same thing, these are what amounts the transcripts and it was a direct transcript, there was not call records these phone calls because you don't have summary taking us.

>> your separate joining us from largo florida on the democrats line. >> i would like to correct the lady that called earlier saying that god donald trump in office. that's incorrect. ecdonald trump has children in cages. taken from their mother. and he's using the secret service to cover up his corruption. he then corrupts since day one. >> host: we will go to lauren in alexandria minnesota on our republican line, good morning . >> guest: that morning. these gentlemen want to impeach trump because they lost the election, that's what it's all about and trump is doing an excellent job and the thing is nobody local law but what they should be saying is nobody above the law except us and the illegals, that's whatthey're saying .

>> aye we read his story in the washington times, the headline was target whistleblowers and whistleblower inquiry even, attorneys here for accusers see war against retaliation saying stthat his notoriety has brought about a reported $50,000 bounty for revealing his name. in your experience in getting a whistleblower or somebody whose identity needed to be kept secret to testify before a committee , typically how would that be done to mark . >> this is an unusual circumstance because the whistleblowers in the government . the president is the executive branch under the constitution, he has executive power and in theory order is officials revealed him the name of the whistleblower. that was tnot be unlawful order, it would be hugely problematic. it would be a crisis i think for the executive branch officials were told to do that. and after the test about whether they would do it 20 >> . >> it's hard to know.

as a general matter, they're protected from retaliation. not protected from the identity being revealed. there is a different law that protects intelligence office identities from being revealed publicly not from being revealed within the executive branch and the president would have to executive power as the chief executive in theory, he has the ability to direct anything in the executive branch so and by the way interpret the law or the executive branch, he can interpret the law to say it wouldn't prohibit mefrom doing this . impeachment is the real check on the president and our founders design and that the e check we see playing out here and the president may understand it or we may see another president understand, is probably not a hagood idea to seek out the identity or to target the whistleblower atbut that hasn't stopped the president from tweeting. the presidents hang a lot on twitter so we will see how this plays out but the real

check on abuse of presidential power or perceived abuse of presidential power is not the law per se, is the impeachment process and that's what we see playing out here. >> here scanning in north carolina on the line . >> the morning, thanks for taking my call. you people in the press don't seem to want to ask avery simple question . here goes joe biden over to ukraine. and he brings his little boy with him. and all of a sudden hunter biden is paid $83,000 a month sitting on a board and he knows nothing about petroleum or natural gas industry. what do you think they were at paying him for? they bought joe biden and he went up for auction and was

bought off nicely for $1 orbillion in china. i mean, let's be honest here. biden is about as crooked asa bag of elbows .bo >> j in north carolina and are guest is not a member of thepress. your thoughts . >> this is obviously a concern for a lot of people in the american public and for the president himself, this question of whether joe biden maybe thepresidential candidate for the democrats in the upcoming election , whether there were improprieties going on with his family. this is first time we've heard concerns about the bidens sun or frankly he has a brother that if i recall correctly one of the goals of undermining who's been alleged to have been engaged in inappropriate activities related to the center. there's no evidence for buspar that the vice president, senator biden when vhe was vice president or in the senate that he took any action as a result of his son

or his brother's activities what those activities are obviously concerning area we seem false raised questions about that. and i think that as a political matter, we will look into these things and try to raise them.should the president be doing outhat from the oval office to mark it depends on whether his view is while this person was in office, as the president or centerdid something inappropriate .and it's appropriate for a future president to investigatethose questions . that's a hard thing to figure out. and if it is appropriate, how do you do it without being partisan, how do you do it without foreign leaders involved or like you're engaging a parochial quit. particularly when the person involved, the politician involved the candidate and an upcoming election as we have right here . >> brought a question and maybe our your realm is out

of political corruption in the ukraine the national security threat to the us? >> if you play out the working theory which is the color layout which is hunter biden got this highly paid position in the ukrainian not governments but private petrol company, paid allotment area heapparently didn't know a lot about , if all that's true, why did he get that position when the vice president was in office and working onukraine matters . was there something that they sought to gain by benefiting the vice president's son that's true, didn't have an effect on the vice president's actions and if so did that have an effect on national security at that time ? >> is in pennsylvania going on from your on the democrats line. >> you're on the air. go ahead. >> i have some commentsplease . first of all, i think trump is a criminal. and i think it would be

obvious to anybody that has half a brain. and these republicans, these bible numbers are in some kind of a republican euphoria , they're in denial. you know, it's really sad that they think trump is the second coming of christ. and that's a joke. he's a joke, they're a joke. thank you . >> to the republican line we will go and hear from long beach washington . >>. >> good conversation. first of all this made me prominent about this was lower. it bothers me the fact that the democrats are changing the rules about all whistleblower. that whistleblower should have gone to someone that said these things were going on and that person should have encouraged them to become whistleblowers but that's not what they want to ask you . you said if the house convicts, he goes over to the

senate. i sent leader has already said there will be a trial you said that trial then i guess would be handled by the supreme court justice . i .read an article on the internet that said if that would be the case that anything and everything and everyone to be the unit and it could go all the way up to the president obama, is all that true? 's. >> guest: when the house considers impeachment charges and the senate then sits in trial of impeachment charges, both houses are acting not typically in their classic legislative capacity but almost a quasi-judicial capacity , almost like a court area the house acting as prosecutors gathering evidence, deciding whether it's enough to bring charges and voting on charges and that those charges are voted on, taking the case to the senate, prosecuting it as a

prosecution attorney and then the senate in its laws i judicial of the chief justice but the senate sits as a jury , all hundred members of the senate. it's a large jury to consider whether they wouldvote for conviction . so as a result , the color is right that it's an unusual process and it's also unusual in the sense that you might think and i think people have argued historically that both the house and senate additional powers that go beyond their legislative power so where you might be able to get evidence that otherwise material, stuff like phone records of foreign phone calls that you wouldn't otherwise get in the classic situation are needed.even in that washington case i cited where he refused to provide the records in he said he and his transmittal i'm not going to give you these records. if you are sitting in impeachment i might have to i'm not going to . i'm not going to give you anything, impeachment is a

different story. you're bringing charges against me so i don't need to worry about that you raise a quick question so even in the context of these debates about whether you can get records of negotiations about treaties, impeachment might be a special case going back to 1792 and the era of george washington where the president refused to provide records. >> that color brought up the issue of a potential change at the intelligence committee changed the rules on the whistleblower. if we got by the president yesterday, we had several colors and columns about it yesterday, a town hall with the headline in the intelligence committee changed whistleblowing rules to allow secondhand complaints. that's their headline and media matters reporting on that . false report from the federalist about whistleblower complaints fuels trump defenders in impeachment inquiry. tell us what this is all about. >> guest: there was a forum on which whistleblower

complaints were reported in the question was was that form changed around the time the complaint came in to permit this whistleblower to go forward? the principal allegations, some of the allegations he or she may have had direct knowledge of but the bulk of that about the phone call and the stuff about the server and where the files were being stored appears to be stuff that person has secondhand, hearsay as someone said. they heard from somebody else and told them this and they recounted it in the complaint . the whole prior form as the original reporting suggested, the original form said you have to have firsthand knowledge. that's required and the claim is that form was changed. information saying that's not correct, the rules have always permitted it and i haven't sorted through the details about who has the best story but there's a debate about whether the form was changed or whether the change was already in place

or whether the rules already allowed this, that's a debate between these articles you mentioned and the dni or the inspector general and this report in the press. >> host: clearly in the inspector general as it accepted the report. >> and said the dni doesn't turn over to congress, that's what led to this conversation at the end of the day the whistleblower complaint had been declassified by the administration and everyone can read it now. >> host: here we go to providence kentucky, can on the independent line . >> caller: i know it takes a majority in the house to vote for impeachment but actual numbers with the makeup of the house today, actual numbers, how manywould take ? >> guest: i think the majority of the house in anything, they lost one today because chris collins has resigned from the house but it's around 218 in the house so with a full majority about 218 . >> host: let's go to jd in maryland on the republican line.

>> caller: i want to say there's a big difference as you know being an attorney and all there's a big difference between inappropriate and illegal . i don't think what trump did was illegal but what i saw biden do his own admission and implicating obama as well , you need to look that up. he implicated obama. that seems to be illegal holding $1 billion of funds to have a prosecutor fire in ukraine. you being a lawyer should understand that's more criminal and inappropriate. >> guest: we haven't talked about that end of theequation . >> guest: the caller is right that there are things that are illegal and violate federal law or state law and in this case were talking about federal law and things that are inappropriate and things that you might not be happy about the president doing whether it's this president for the prior president and the question for the house and senate is not is it per se illegal under federal statutory law

but does it reach the level of what the constitution refers to as high crimes and misdemeanors.you talked about earlier the undefined term, you might look to the evolving meeting depending where you sit in the constitution but what it definitely does not meanis you have to violatefederal law in order to be convicted . you don't . it may some be something beyond that but you don't have the proof you need in a federal court and criminal trial. there isn't a classic jury of your peers. it is ajury , the senate setting but is not a classic trial presided over by a federal judge in a criminal court you have a prosecutor from the executive branch. let's say the branch presided over by a federal chief justice. >> host: and a majority in the house and two thirds in the senate. jamil jaffer with the intelligence committee in the house now with the national

security institute, george mason university law school, thanks for being here. >> a headline from the washington post today says state department officials won't show up for scheduled impeachment depositions this week. karen the young wright secretary of state mike pompeo fired a broadside at house democrats tuesday saying statedepartment officials scheduled to appear before committees conducting the impeachment inquiry would not be made available until we obtain further clarity on these matters . recusal in a letter to house foreign affairs in a chairman elliott engle described it as an attempt to intimidate, bully and treat them properly distinguishprofessionals at the apartment of state . we secretary pompeo's letter at our website, c-span.org.

>> the house will be in order for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington dc and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span : your unfiltered view of government. >> next, a hearing of the house energy and commerce subcommittee on potential health effects of these cigarettes with the fda's acting commissioner and the cdc's principal deputy director. the hearing included public health officials from north carolina, massachusetts, minnesota and kansas specifying how their faith are responding to a rise in vaping related illnesses.