>> be sure to watch t ends washington journal live that seven time and join the discussion thursday morning. >> the reviews are in for c- span the president's book i recently talked to the new york times new and noteworthy column. they call it a milepost in the evolving reputation of our president. from the new york journals at the president makes an engrossing read. with father's day this weekend, this makes a great gift, notice how historians rank the best and worst from george washington to barack obama, explore our leader, the challenges they face and the legacies they left behind. this is now available as a hardcover or e-book today at c- span.org/the president. or, wherever books are sold.

>> joining us now is the editor- in-chief of the fulcrum. >> what is the full? >> this is the newest news site based in washington a nonpartisan nonprofit news space devoted entirely to the issues of democracy and those who fix them. >> how are you different from others? >> we narrowly focus on the issues and we feel like we are niche publication addressing an undercovered story in washington and around the country which is all the various generalized sense among the public that the government has spoken. if it's not a galvanizing space for people interested, they can go to read about changes to the campaign fund.

but we will talk about this in a few minutes. for redistricting and gerrymandering, we are now the focus on that and we are doing news and commentary and be a community gathering place . >> let's talk about the big vote yesterday, here was a headline in the washington times to empower the democrats have subpoenas and the committee chairman can now go right to federal court in this area, put this into context if you could . >> this is a new approach from the house judiciary committee, you've got to give credit to democrats. usually, what is happened when this is been defined by a president and congress is both parties, the request for information from both parties, what they've done

is actually hold an official lincoln town and try to force the information out that way. that's not what they're doing, instead of holding these officials, they are taking a new and different approach. they say in the interest of time together trying keep the balance of power alive and things not right this combative as the past . >> how do you expect the democrats to use this? >> i think a lot is much as they can. i think what this does is a practical matter is it assures that the balance of power will continue for month, maybe even into next year and includes possibly be on the next presidential election. courts don't feel rushed to address these issues, this will go to a trial court judge with

a party run a couple rounds and then it was in or later go to one of the places that will end up at the supreme court and travel when the legislative branch and the executive branch will gamble all their marbles on the branch of government breaking the tie moving from one side to the other. >> would we move towards impeachment possibly? >> one of the things i described them as doing impeachment in name only, impeachment but not in name. it's clear that house democrats have made a decision for now i think most reviewers know that pelosi made the decision not to pursue impeachment and knows that most of the caucus doesn't want to directly pursue impeachment, so instead wants to do something short of being

called impeachment but is a pursuit of what democrats believe and his behaviors fall along the line . >> do you see more pressure coming from the caucus? >> i think it could. there was something this morning that could change the dynamic but this is in a three-year period where every time we wake up we think it will be a status all day but some intends to change. so who knows, i think that is perhaps one of the gambles are one of the variables that all sides are willing to play into the who knows, maybe something will change or maybe something will change dramatically to liberate the president from this , something that would change that 60 vote for impeachment to something like 180 . >> on the bottom of the screen

for the gas that republicans democrats and independents, were talking about congressional oversight and the trump administration. now we go back to monday's hearing of the house judiciary committee and what is your take on the hearing? was it worth the effort and what came out of the event? >> not too much, to be honest. for one thing, the hearing occurred at a time of day when another news event happened but not that many news channels looked away, there was a helicopter crash on a tall building in new york but the producers who run the networks hang out in new york in midtown manhattan and when there is a lot of anxiety about an aircraft crashing into a building and they all cut away.

i also i guess i thought rhetorically the republicans on the judiciary committee probably did a better job than the democrats they called him the ghost of christmas past, a memorable line. i'm not sure what it did to advance the cause it was just the best they had. let's get callers in verse, diane from oak arbor, hi diane? >> high. i called because i don't agree with what's going on. if people are wasting our money i don't believe in what you're doing at all. because, if you care at all about the people that they should not be doing what they're doing at all . >> so when you say you i assume you don't mean the two of us,

you mean the house democrats? >> i mean the house democrats i mean all of them, pelosi, the whole bit. this is ridiculous. this is a free republican i can understand what's going on . >> okay. >> i think what is going on is, if you take a step way back and be dispassionate and nonpartisan about it, oversight of the executive branch has been going on that it's an essential part of what framers of the constitution said they should be doing. the right legislation to oversee the executive branch, this is an essential part of that. the president characterizes this as a witchhunt and that of course is right but to be honest, i don't really see what

congress is doing as out of normal boundaries that this happens in divided government all the time, you do remember during the administration when republicans were in charge of the house, the republicans had some pretty by cooper of hearings and what turned out to be life small matters by today's standards but as behaviors of the white house travelogue and then when obama was president that republicans ran the house and all manners of investigations into his behaviors in the democrats of course did the same when bush was president. >> are you there? >> yes i'm here, >> the problem we have is we should be a country that's united as we stand. we went

through a radicals age with regards to fundamental transformation. what were witnessing now is one party covering up and it's huge, a huge spying operation. we have watergate and now we have russia gate/spy gate orchestrated sadly by the obama administration and the threat is complicit in all of that. so, now what we are seeing is everyone rushing to the distend bipartisan views at the x expense of the american public. i think the majority of people are tired of it i won't tolerate it and i is an independent want to be my country succeed, i don't want to see my country fail i'm tiled -- tired of radicalism weaseling its way into the

highest offices in the country . >> i think you make an important point is that we have to come as a country, polarized politically and congress itself has become polarized and it's often hard for half of the country to take seriously are at face value with the other side is saying and until our politicians and voters become willing to accept that everyone is acting in good faith it will be hard to get to the bottom of these . >> there's more oversight and there's a scheduled hearing, markup you can watch on cspan-3. this headline in the hills is offering to delay the vote today

if he can get a sense of document, he will hold off for the attorney general's official with this document today. were not sure were things are right now it's 9:20 am but we will see how things play out . >> i think this is sort of reinforcing what we talked about a minute ago is that the democratic positioning suggestive voters that they are after the investigative steps and not the people, they're trying not to go out to the people, they want to get the documents they're seeking but the issue here is in the headlines in coming weeks, the issue were talking about is for the supreme court and they are expected to rule by the end of the month whether the census that we all will be taking in april 2020 will ask us whether were citizens are not, that is

not a question that's been asked on any census forms since the 1950 census but they say it needs to be on this current census as a way to enforce it. the other side, people say it's not necessary and it's not about enforcing rights but it's really about the turnout of latino voters that works as a benefit to republicans and democrats so they subpoena the records and it's essentially about the process that led to the inclusion of this . >> here's a pushback in the washington post using census material and that the attorney general will shield the documents from the administration to answer the question. and there's a piece of the

drama here. >> it's very complicated and the washington post has a definitive posted with 28 different subpoenas or investigations and that the trump administration is to various degrees of intensity helping everyone. >> we have a caller from oklahoma >> are you with us. >> yes they need to drain the swamp and washington d.c. it's been all around us slow down and forget about it . >> i think they have during the swamp i think most people who advocate would agree with that.

>> good morning . >> you were all talking about and asking if people will were citizens and they did ask were citizens and we were happy to say yes that we are citizens and it's just beyond their and if you're american and if that's your citizenship you would be more than happy to put down that you are a citizen of the united states, that these democrats are trying to tear us apart and make us into a socialist country. people need to take the blinders off and look at what they're doing. the person earlier said how they were brainwashing the people. i mean, the people that went to

college, they had to pay off student loans, south america. and why would they? they did that, they don't have sense enough to figure out how we can ensure the people over here that don't have insurance unless the people keep their healthcare. americas better than that and they can figure that out, but the democrats lost control of that as well as the republican party. i can't believe what i see and how they are doing this. but, i just pray that if people open their eyes and see that this president loves this country and he is trying to do

for the people. you not willing to spend a little bit more to stop america from being robbed by these other countries? come on americ >> thank you for calling . >> a lot of different points. let's go back to the first one that i should've said this about the census that you're supposed to make a point that the founders created the census in the constitution and this was clear-cut it was to count everyone living in the country, not citizens, it was to count the total number of people in the united states. now, to be sure and i should hasten to add that when the constitution was written it took a different approach to the counting of african- american people and enslaved people, they only counted as 60% of a person but it was not all about citizens it was about people and the apportionment of our congressional district is

based on the number of people living in the district, not the number of citizens, the number of people of all -- >> he can stay for 15 more minutes, here is the site right now. >> so the story right now, perfect story it's one of the big the more revolutionary ideas in the good government movement. to change and weaken the two- party system and weaken one way or the other way. rank voting in which voters are allowed to rank candidates in order of preference, as many as they'd like. if they only want to vote for one key they can vote for one or they can vote for a person

and then mathematically if no one wins out right in the first round of the lower candidates drop out and the second and third place are distributed to others. there's a new way of doing voting and it's only been tried at the congressional level in maine and it produced a winner not the winner in the first round but now what they described this morning is that presidential contest and will play a role in in the primaries and caucuses but, voters in the iowa caucus will be able to there will be 23 candidates able to rank as many as they want down to five, then those votes will be redistributed mathematically to allow people with second and third choice to get some . >> we have al dean on the line.

good morning . >> i like this david hawking's guide i saw c-span and he was on there. but i think this whole democratic primary thing is nothing but an exercise in frustration. these people have blown themselves up left and right they just don't want to report it, what's important to me is the u.s. female soccer team scored 13 points in france and they were punished for excessive enthusiasm. every time they scored the fans went nuts and crazy and i think that is not's. anyway, there is about a dozen pulitzer prizes available when this whole thing hits the fan and i hope that david gets one of them for sure. >> thank you so much for taking the call . >> that's it right there, thank

you so much, david . >> >> i should point out the house intelligence committee is holding a hearing and we could take it quick peek looking at counterintelligence the lessons learned in the mueller report regarding russian interference, this is another aspect of the effort that democrats are looking at. >> it is what, when mr. miller a couple weeks ago now made his one and only public statement that they were very carefully crafted, robert mueller, the special prosecutor began and ended with the same point. whatever you think of the president's behavior, notwithstanding that it's clear that the russians interfered in the 2016 election and it were that they are hoping to do so again and this is something all americans should be concerned about and the democrats in

congress and some republicans as well and there are plenty as well who want more oversight and want to actually take tangible action to make sure our election system is protected in 2020 . >> we have ben from springfield massachusetts expect thank you for taking my call. i agree with the objectivity of your guest and i sensed that as well and, one of the things that i've observed the at's why the d

court hearings that they are asking for. the first twohat, years of this administration, republicans have been in charge of the white house, the senate and the house. decision that was made relative to spending money or anything else was made by republicans. calling of the people and complaining about the spending of money by the mother inve investigation, i would like for you to explain to them in your own way who made the decision to retain mr. mueller to investigate the russian involvement and who decided to pay him or who decided to make

the decision. i think the republicans need to understand that. thank you >> just to review, mr. mueller was named -- was appointed to that job. he was a former fbi director and he was allowed to serve longer than 10 years. and mr. mueller was named to the job by rod rosenstein, who was the deputy attorney general and it was mr. rosenstein's responsibility to decide if this should happen because his boss, jeff sessions famously recused himself because of his own involvement in the trump campaign and he did what most lawyers believe was the right thing. the president did not think it was the right thing and recused himself and rosenstein appointed robert mueller. my understanding of how the budgeting for this works is when such a person is appointed and

there is a special counsel appointed, the budget is open- ended and it is essentially whatever that prosecutor and the justice department agree he needs to spend, he gets to spend. this may sound silly to callers, but the amounts of money that we are talking about are not large by federal government standards. they are in the millions, not billions in the justice department is an enormous place and they have the ability to move money around, but the way the law works, it is essentially what this person needs, they get the money. >> it has gotten personal between trump nancy pelosi. here is a short piece where the speaker is interviewed by cnn about the prospects for impeachment.>> the question you asked do we get more by having inquiries? some say yes and some say no. >> if the majority of the

caucus wants to go forward, would you go forward?>> it is not even close -- and why are we speculating on hypotheticals. what we are doing is winning in court. we won of victory getting the documents for the justice department, although we will still hold the attorney general in contempt. in the path that we are on is a path that -- let me tell you something. there's nothing is divisive in our country in my view that impeachment. >> she also said as part of an interview yesterday that it is done and have ever seen at this personal between the speaker and a president?>> i have not. i date back to the end of the reagan administration, which was present reagan got along well

with the democratic speaker of the house in the mid-1980s, tip o'neill, they were very different ideologies, but they had very similar approaches to interpersonal relationships and it is a bit of clichi that theya would argue during the day and at the end of the day they would open up whiskey and sure drink. it has been downhill ever since. president obama and john boehner were furious with one another and it got close to a very comprehensive deficit reduction and budget deal and it fell apart in each one blamed the other, but they did not do so in personal terms. it was business. this now -- this is the overlay of you are lousy person is unique in my experience. >> what does all of that mean for future cooperation and

progress for the country? >> there is an old adage in traditional politics by a labor leader who said in politics there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. now that is a traditional way of looking at things that this president who is a nontraditional politician, maybe he doesn't subscribe to that, but in theory there could be crises in the country that could bring both sides together. i think trump views himself as a patriot and to go back to one of the callers before, i operate with the presumption that these folks who work up there, they all have human flaws and frailties in their working in broken institutions, but they have all gotten into this because they view it as a

patriotic opportunity for service and that is the way i look at cheach one of them.>> your up. good morning.>> a couple of comments. seems like the left doesn't have a balanced office and common sense says that once you become dependent on another country, that is bad business and that is what trump is trying to do is try to bring america back. thank you. >> on the court it is absolutely true that as long as there have been presidents there were presidents who tried to put people on the bench for lifetime appointments who had simpler views because the ability to perpetuate those

views extends beyond the life of the president. donald trump has not had much success legislatively and he has had enormous success in populating the federal bench with like-minded people who will be perpetuating his view of conservatism long after he is gone whether he is president for two more years or six warriors. joe, good morning. >> this is jeff. >> jeff, we will take you. >> i think ainslie has it right. we have to worry about climate change and i saw it on hbo last night and it's like, that is what we need to worry about.

>> i think you're certainly speaking to the young adults i live with and they think it is the premier issue the country and they wish he was getting more attention. and it is -- unfortunately it is one of many issues that is subject to profound polarization. the president does not view climate change as a genuine threat and virtually every democrat use it as an existential threat to the country. some are framing it as a national security issue and as an economic issue and it is going to be an issue in 2020, so i think whether it is governor inslee or not, this will be one of the big things that we talk about the coming year. >> livonia, michigan. >> i'm glad i made it.

i have a question. i am befuddled. i'm reading to the mueller report and i'm about two thirds of the way through. i don't understand the reference to the steele dossier. when i listen to trump or congress they keep talking about how none of this would have started if it had not been for this corrupt dossier and how it implemented all of this. i don't read that when i read to the mueller report. i want to know why it is stated as such by other gop members. >> that is a great question. i think it is a red herring. you're right. the steele dossier was salacious and there were allegations in that were never proven of salacious behavior by mr. trump

before he was the president. none of it has ever been supported, but there were other aspects that have more meat on the bones, but, nonetheless it is a sideshow to so much more evidence of efforts by russia to interfere in the 2016 campaign and i would echo before i leave what mr. mueller said is that it is a profound and a profound issue to our democracy to have another country trying to sway her voting and it is something that all americans should pay attention to. >> take you for talking to us this morning. he is the editor in chief of the fulcrum. you can go there to learn more. >> in 1979 small network rolled out a big idea. let viewers make up their own minds. c-span opened the door to

washington policymaking bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. a lot has changed but today that big idea is more relevant than ever. c-span is your unfiltered view of government's you can make up your own mind. brought to you as a public service. >> the house oversight committee meets to consider a citizenship question that the trump administration is adding to the census. members are holding william barr and wilbur ross in contempt of congress for ignoring committee subpoenas for documents on how the question came about. as the committee meeting took place, members learned that the president has asserted executive privilege over the subpoenaed documents due to the fact that the committee was moving ahead for the contempt vote.