calendar sure what's, the case against hi impeaching trump. "washington journal" is live now. ♪ good morning. 26,s wednesday, december 2018, day five of the government shutdown. both chambers expected to meet again tomorrow afternoon. we are with you for the next three hours on the "washington journal." with the ongoing standoff taking place against the turbulent backdrop, we want to know whether the shutdown has made you more worried about the u.s. economy. give us a call. 1.publicans, 202-748-8000

0.mocrats, 202-748-8001 independents, 202-748-8002. you can also catch up with us on social media, on twitter and facebook. a very good wednesday morning to you. you can start calling in now as we take you to the front page of the business section of the "new york times" today. bracing for another day of bad news today. if stocks don't reverse the -- nearing losses of 20% from their peak, which would end a decade-long run of gains.

that is being watched today on the stock market. if you prefer that sentiment in editorial cartoon form, this from the opinion pages of usa today. trying to keep 2019 from falling off the stock market cliff. theof this going on amidst government shutdown over funding for the border wall. president trump, no idea when the government will reopen. president trump talking to reporters yesterday morning from the white house about his demands during the shutdown. [video clip]er.com/cspanw >> many of those workers have communicated to me stay out until you get funding for the wall. the democrats don't mind open borders. open borders lead to massive amounts of crime.

yet, every one of those -- let's use "almost everyone" -- approved a wall or fence, or exactly what we are talking about, as little as three years ago. the only time they went against it, when donald trump said we want to build the wall. as soon as donald trump said we want to build the wall, they went against it. take comey. everyone hated comey, the democrats hated him, they were calling for his resignation, they were calling for his firing, including schumer and nancy pelosi, until i fired him. once i fired him, everyone said,

"why did you fire him?" this is what we are doing now. take a look at some of these people. literally the day before i fired him, they were saying he should be fired. said,i fired him, they "why would you fire him?" host: that was president trump yesterday from the oval office on this fifth day of the partial government shutdown. an economics question for you -- has this shutdown made you more worried about the economy? republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000 . independents, 202-748-8002. federal workers, 202-748-8003. we will be having this conversation in the first hour

of 202-748-8002. -- the first hour of "washington journal." caller: i am an ex democrat who walked away before trump got in office. part of my retirement is based on the trucking industry. i have several colleagues in the industry. the industry cannot keep up with demand. ay 3-4% gdp? is going grandsons into the military. we are confident that we can have a commander in chief and peace for once. the trade schools will help my other grandsons. my daughter died of cancer 16

months ago. there was a medical procedure that would assist her from suffering. because of government red tape, she did not get it for about a year. donald trump has abolished all those regulations. as far as the federal reserve goes, i'm going to do some .nvestigation these are appointees -- to have little control over them, the swamp is so bad in washington, i wouldn't be surprised if they were part of the swamp. it has to be cleaned. -- theyunderstand should be back in control of the borders as much as anybody. host: on the issue of the federal reserve, in that same

oval office q&a yesterday, president trump with plenty of criticism for the federal reserve and their interest rate increases. they are raising interest rates too fast, a practice he blames for the volatile u.s. stock indexes. the wall street journal noting --

biloxi, next in mississippi. good morning. caller: i think everybody needs to leave president trump alone and let him do his job. he promised the wall to keep out the immigrants. he promised to make america great again. every time he tries to do something, everybody jumps on him, especially the democrats. everybody, let him alone and let him do the job we elected him to do. host: leroy is next. democrat from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. 100% with the woman who just called. he promised he would build that wall.

he also promised mexico would pay for it. and let him build the wall but make sure mexico pays for it. host: ruby. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm an independent. have not satisfied our needs. i'm a retired mailman. i used to work for the federal , but we are outside of the federal government. they take our pensions and use that money to pay for other things. that's one problem. we haver problem is such a not educated political -- such an uneducated political populace. we just had a woman say leave trump alone.

look at what happened when kelly left. look what happened when he was alone. there's no crying in the presidency. -- no.s no "i'm sorry" the buck stops there. you run for president to be able to represent the people, not just some of the people, not just your fans, not just the people you're running for. are people waiting for a raise in social security. why? i put 50 years of work before i got a penny from them. it is my money. it's money that i earned. i'm not just speaking for myself. host: rudy in california this morning on day five of the

partial government shutdown. economic bendh an -- has the shutdown made you more worried about the economy -- 2018ing into 2019 going into 2019? federal workers, call 202-748-8003. here's another headline on the state of u.s. stock markets, a turbulent time on the stock market, see me eager to turn the page on 2018 -- seem eager to turn the page on 2018. lisa, how would you put it? caller: i've always been a democrat and i'm still a democrat. there are many democrats in the supportjust like me who the senators -- the democratic senators who are holding this line strongly in support of

american values where we believe to think is a disgrace that a border wall represents who we are. i live in the state of texas. we do not need this type of language in this type of dividing people according to their heritage or something like that. beare the ones who should safety on how to have and security at the border and we have the most experience with that. i voted for beto. there's still plenty of us democrats here in texas and we are not going to stop supporting the senators, the democratic

senators in saying no. you have money for the wall. you take the $1.5 billion and use that. host: you mentioned beto o'rourke. would you want him to run for president in 2020? caller: that is a decision he needs to make. there may be other candidates. as far as the economy, i am concerned about the economy. i'm 59, my husband is 53. moneyeek, we had to pull in our 401(k) out of the stock market because we lost all the gains we had made this year under this administration. this is the trade wars and everything. this should be stopped.

we shouldn't be shutting down the government over a wall. we should be opening the government and making better trade decisions in order to support our economy. i'm definitely worried about the economy. wars, stick trade around in our 8:00 our. we will be joined by jenny a tradeof bloomberg, reporter there to talk about what is in store in 2019 on the trade front. mentioned this shutdown fight over funding for the presidents border wall -- president's border wall. [video clip] 115 miles worth of wall in texas -- i will be going there at the end of january.

we are talking about 550 miles -- it is a 2000 mile border. much of it has mountains or regions where you can't get across. we gave out 115 yesterday. we gave it out at a great price. we have other sections to give out. one other thing people don't , we haved or know renovated massive amounts of very good wall. you don't have to replace it, but you have to renovate it. we renovated a massive amount of wall. importantly,very we built a lot of new wall. the new section is very exciting. you will see it. in january, i'm going there.

it's probably the biggest section we will get. while we are fighting over funding, we are also building. it's my hope to have this done completed all 500-550 miles either renovated or brand-new by election day. was: a bit more on what happening in the oval office in , specifically on that contract the president talked about signing to build parts of the border wall. he declined to answer questions inviting him to be more specific about that, especially on that contract to begin construction. officials at the white house did not respond to a request for comment on specifics about that contract. look for more on that in the coming days as reporters dig into what the president was talking about. this from nancy pelosi, an

interview with "usa today," mocking the president's message on the border wall, saying "first of all, the fact that he says we are going to build a wall with cement and make mexico pay for it and now he wants a beaded curtain." we are getting your thoughts on the government shutdown amidst the turbulent market these days. republicans, democrats and independents, phone lines as usual. michelle calling in michigan. republican. go ahead. caller: i'm not worried about the economy with the government shutdown. withry about the economy

the raising of the interest rates. i worked in financing for an automotive company for a long time. when i started, they had done the same thing, raised the interest rates. there was hardly any business. companies the auto started subsidizing the interest rates, we got busy until the interest rates went down. then everything was fine. i think president trump needs to get rid of the chairman of the federal reserve. there's no reason to raise interest rates. host: that is michelle in michigan this morning. the president yesterday in the oval office with plenty of criticism of jerome powell.

that, following a tweet from christmas eve. the president saying the only problem with our economy is the fed. they don't have a feel for the market, they don't understand trade wars or strong dollars or even democratic shutdown over borders. that is the president from christmas eve morning. jerry in pennsylvania. a democrat. trump imposed a 15-20% tequila --on host: let's go to cindy and minnesota. caller: good morning. merry christmas. government -- are we worried about the economy?

no. is doingal reserve what they did at the time of the founding fathers before they try when they tried to hang on before the civil war. i wish i could speak to him. we do need the wall. the democrats know it, too. the biggest thing that scares me what the wall is daca. i do not islam growing in this country because it is dangerous to the christian faith. the pope knows this. the blessed mother herself petitioned saint raven of pinafore to battle those that were traveling into the holy land. host: bring it back to 2018. caller: we are in 2018 history

repeats itself. we always seem to want to constantly take the hard road. host: what is a simple answer here? caller: people need to start standing on their own merit. we have a 10 commandments we used to use as our number one law of the land. today, everything is just a jumble. we make it difficult. you can join the conversation via social media. a few comments already with this question about whether you are worried about the economy amid this ongoing government shutdown. "the economy is probably going to suck for a minute, but if it means ending the fed, bring it."

"i worry about anything president trump touches." tom in winter haven, florida. an independent. caller: a lot of what people tend to be worrying about tends to speed the normal cycle. we have to have bear markets. rates to slow the economy down when it is getting too hot. finger-pointing, there's a lot of pointing in the wrong direction. the president doesn't spend money. congress spends money. the president may declare war, but congress has to fund it. it is the supreme court that makes the decisions to keep or

overturn something like that. it is just the normal cycle of what an economy goes through. hold on. solde like the woman who her stocks -- that is the worst thing to do in a bear market. sit on it. leave your money alone. host: in florida, this is duane in ohio. republican. good morning. caller: i'm really supportive of the president. i want him to go on national tv in a formal address to the tell the american people what is at stake with their border security. current, insane immigration policy -- this is

unreal. we have to stop this nonsense. the more people that come into the country who are illiterate and only speak spanish, it puts more pressure on the people who are already working here who only know english as their primary language who don't have to learn spanish to be able to keep a job. especially for police, fire, hospital workers, teachers -- it is insane. stop the insanity, mr. president, and bring the focus ofcountry on the issue border security and immigration reform. host: why doesn't oval office address do that more than that's why does an oval

office address do that more than the tweets? caller: the tweets are just temporary. 15 minutes after they are published, the tweet machine or whatever, there's critics belittling the president. whenever we have a president address the nation in a formal setting such as the old broadcasts from president eisenhower, kennedy and whatnot on critical points in our american history, people pay attention. he has to command the will of the american people that they want this insanity at the border to stop. the other alternative is to close the border entirely for three or four months, charge people to cross the border from mexico, like you do when you pay to visit a national park, or

years ago when we lived in el paso, they had a penny bridge. now, you would have to get $10 a head. haltve to put a screeching to the system the way it is. host: speaking of the situation at the border, this story getting a lot of attention this morning. it is from the front page of "the new york times." an eight-year-old boy from guatemala died in u.s. custody early christmas day. raising questions about the ability of federal agents running the crowded migrant border facilities to care for those who fall ill. the boy died just after midnight on tuesday at a hospital in new mexico, where he and his father a bordertaking by

security agent. of aeath follows that six-year-old girl from the same country. the hispanic caucus sending out a tweet yesterday from their chairman elect, joaquin castro "i'm deeplyying saddened by the death of philippe alonzo gomez and offer .y condolences to his family we must ensure we treat migrants and asylum-seekers with human dignity and provide the necessary medical care to anyone in the custody of the u.s. government. congress should investigate this tragedy upon its return to session." several democratic members of congress tweeting yesterday --

congress does not return to session until tomorrow afternoon , 4:00 p.m., when both the house and senate are expected to come into session tomorrow. calls. your phone we are asking at the government shutdown has made you more worried about the u.s. economy. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. tony in new jersey. democrat. caller: good morning, john. merry christmas to everybody.

i'm not worried about the economy at all. he's going to wreck the economy just like he did all the casinos in atlantic city. i don't know what kind of drugs they are smoking or taking, but this man is nothing but a crook. everyone in new jersey and new york knows it. all the people calling and have no clue how this man is going to destroy this country. he's already doing it now and he's lying everyday. you just showed a couple lies already. c-span, go through the archives and dig up what's really going on at the border. we will try to hold off on allers.lling of other col north dakota. independent. go ahead. caller: i don't think our

economy is in any trouble right now. president trump has helped the economy. thank god for democrats. us an ability to take and look at what they say. the economy is great. the people in the united states live beyond their means. area, the average income is $41,000. if they want to buy a brand-new vehicle, the most they can afford is $230 payments. payments, which is over, which makes our economy look good. democrats and the

do the opposite and you will be ok. host: gary and sterling, virginia. go ahead. caller: are you the man i talked to a little over a month ago about the mission statement of website i you gave a could go to? i don't use a computer, unfortunately. i will give you a couple minutes to think about that question. i would like to talk about the children dying on the border and all this immigration strife we have in this country. it's really simple. there's no birth control. look at all the child trafficking. witness the tv shows about pedophilia. birth control is cheaper than the wall. when eachds me of

bush refused to help the after we kicked the busht union out or when rushed into iraq and said we had to go because the weather, the summer was coming. is there a gofundme page four that mueller fella? host: you asked about the mission statement. always happy to talk about our mission statement. you can find that at www.c-span.org. let me read it to you.

-- that is our mission statement at c-span. caller: i really do appreciate that and i appreciate all the other people who are paying their cable bills. thank you and have a merry christmas. host: lee is in clearwater, florida. a democrat. go ahead. caller: i'm a retired veteran.

i don't get how people on the republican side can continue to support someone who is so unhinged. not only is he a psychopath, but he's also a sociopath. he lies every other word. he made a deal with the democrats and republicans because these loudmouths like rush limbaugh and sean hannity are running the country through the sky. -- through this guy. the guy is just disgraceful. this is why we call him mr. draft dodger. this is why we call him a liar. nots the absolute worst only president but human being to ever hold that office. if you continue to support this

who didof our country not go visit the troops yesterday, who did not go to excuse,n, who makes an who does not take response w lity for anything -- you would want your daughters to date someone like this? i can only imagine if obama was in this position right now. host: jared in minnesota. independent. go ahead. going --he economy is it has been going to crap for a while because we spend all of our money on war and genocide and bombs. saudisrump is giving guns to murder children around the world, we are cutting

medicaid from our elders and people who need it. this is what real soldiers do. real soldiers don't go pick up a gun and go into another country -- they save our own people by giving people homes in education without lies. natives, theye put blacks into slavery, women had no rights whatsoever most of the time. what people need to understand, there is no democratic party, there's no republican party. there's the rich, the haves and the have-nots. becauseer obey the rich

they pay you out of their pockets and you screw the poor and taken away from them -- take it away from them. we have outlined for federal workers -- host: we have that line for federal workers. mona is calling in on that line. work as aused to citizen -- i'm not angry. i am scared. -- it is is our money going to affect my retirement pay -- what good is our money when our safety is at stake? these immigrants that cannot uneducatedsh and are and forced their way into our

country, they've already broken the law, they are not going to go to the rich neighborhoods. they are going to go to my neighborhood and the poor neighborhoods and we will be victims of their crimes. i'm scared. i'm elderly and i'm white. your last caller scared me even further by denigrating white people. on this fifth day of the anrtial government shutdown, economics question for you -- has the government shutdown made you more worried about the economy? story on the front page of "the washington post" talking about the global economic situation.

that story by david lynch on the front page of "the washington post" today. earlier this month on newsmakers, we were joined by the chamber of commerce vice president to discuss the u.s. economic situation. here's the picture he painted. [video clip] >> we are in the ninth year of a recovery long-duration. a lot is being made of the numbers coming in slightly below

-- strong growth, which growth --ve 3% annualized basis wage growth above 3% annualized basis. as we look out to being able to sustain this level of growth, we are concerned about having the workers we need to fuel the growth. good, strong numbers. markets,mentioned the the volatility recently -- investors getting anxious about possible signs of a recession. aboutncerned are you economic growth slowing down next year? >> we are more concerned about policy missteps that could lead us into a recession. two of the things driving the stock market this week, tariffs

and what's going on on the trade front. that would push us into a recession. also making sure the fed gets the normalization of interest rates right. paid of attention is being to both of those things. fundamentals we need to be concerned about as well. we need to make sure we don't make policy missteps in the meantime. host: you can watch that program on www.c-span.org or join our conversation this morning as we continue to talk about the ongoing government shutdown, asking how it's impacting your view of the u.s. economy. phone lines for republicans, democrats and independents. you can also join sbs social -- you canaclyn did

also join us via social media, --jaclyn did, saying one more tweet this morning, saying -- just some of the comments from social media. or, you can call in like helen did from north carolina. republican. good morning. caller: i'm calling concerning the wall. the people who do not want the wall evidently are drug addicts. they want drugs to come over here. they want disease to come into our country. rebuild.e to it is too far gone to be saved. maryland.e is next in

a democrat. good morning. caller: thank you for having me. regarding the market or the economy, i'm not concerned at all. the last month or so of the stock market, it has been bad, but to me, this is normal market cycle. we've been parabolic over the last two years. this is a simple normal correction. for people freaking out over what's going on and how the money is going to get completely dumped back to zero, it's not going to happen. it will cycle up and down. regarding the wall and before,ion, two callers to older lady, i want people understand that there's a need to be open-minded and

self-aware. their own particular issues and their role in this. over the weekend and during christmas, i spent my time on christmas eve with undocumented immigrants. they are educated, they are smart, some of them are politicians, some of them are attorneys, soldiers, everyday people. guest: where did you go to do that? caller: i will not say where i went to do that, but i was surrounded by a number of them. this generalized fear that and the fact that we tend to put one group of people into one categorized vat or group does everybody a disservice. let's just remember that jesus himself was a refugee, he was an immigrant. if you follow the word of jesus,

which i do not, it's not my cup of tea, you would understand to have a bit of empathy toward this. we need to look at ourselves in the mirror. when we blame other people for our own issues, we are showing that we don't believe that we are the problem. we tend to believe that we have all the answers. if we took a long, hard look at ourselves, we would understand we are not a solution to this problem. we are the problem. this takes bipartisan work together to negotiate and come up with strong solutions rather than pointing the finger at the other people. out, haveon't freak empathy for people. we are all here and in this together. abraham, a federal worker in newport news, virginia.

are you currently furloughed? caller: no, i am not. time.s point in but i agree with the president. we need this border wall protected. him $25crats offered billion in exchange for amnesty for the daca personnel. they also want chain migration. then, the $25 billion was wasted. wants $5 billion and decided not to go along with aca, now, according to the democrats, $5 billion is wasteful. the president is trying to protect this country. host: do you think there is a

deal here to be made if the ca back onputs da the table? caller: no. back on theaca table, the democrats will bring about teen migration. the elderly white lady who was worried about people coming into her neighborhood and destroying her neighborhood, she has a valid point. once you apply all these country,s here in the the poor americans who are scraping for jobs now will no longer have jobs because the immigrants will undercut them. poor whites and poor blacks will have to become permanent social where fair recipients.

-- social welfare recipients. host: jeremiah, good morning. caller: i don't support any on everything they do and i support some presidents -- i support presidents on some things they do. i hope he doesn't deviate from that stance. you can't allow people to come into this country -- we have laws. when democrats choose to break law rather than changing and put everybody's health and safety in jeopardy, i'm sure most of these people are good people, but they needed to be medically checked and they need to be checked for background -- their backgrounds need to be

checked. host: how do you do that if some of these people are coming with just the clothes on their back? caller: there's a lawful way. do not break these laws that we have. that is a slippery slope. that leads to other laws being broken. i do not support the democrats on this issue. we need security in our country. it's just a fact of life. nobody lets anybody into their house unless they know who is coming into their own home. america is my home. host: that's jeremiah and alabama this morning. -- in alabama this morning. wanted to keep you updated on the other headlines this morning , the issues that callers have brought up, including the u.s.

syria, theverseas in military presence there set to go down to 0 -- turkey working with u.s. to coordinate the .ithdrawal of u.s. troops four weeks, turkey has been threatening to launch a new offensive against the kurdish fighters -- a delegation from turkey was headed to moscow to meet with putin.r turkey is negotiating on behalf of the syrian opposition with russia and iran. topic,of op-ed's on this including this from the front

page of the commentary section of "the washington times" today. exits is thehe column today. meansg syria too soon abandoning the kurdish forces that fought with us against islamic state. they will be slaughtered by syrian and turkish forces. clifford may rights for "washington times." debbie in north carolina. good morning. caller: our president trump is doing a good job. man was here between two representations, the democrats

and the republicans. when president trump came into office, this became his mess. this mess was here before he became president. it's been here for years. instead of blaming one man who did not create this mess, you need to blame both sides of the parties. himle who are criticizing need to stop. he's not a racist person. people putting him down and calling him names should be ashamed of themselves. he's not to blame. this mess has been going on way before he became our president. host: larry in illinois. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning to c-span. i'm not going to sit and talk about my fears and all that because that's not going to solve any problems. the real solution is using

logical thinking. we can solve this whole mess by --ply asking the president he said the tax breaks would pay for themselves. mr. president, here's the question. what was your plan to get the mexicans to pay for the wall? expose it now. wrong?nt that was a lie. you had no idea how you were going to do it. ?ho would go along with a lie if you did know how you were to geto do it, you have off this $5 billion ransom because you didn't have a plan in the first place. what was his plan to get $5 billion from the mexicans? he campaigned for months saying

he was going to get the mexicans to do it. if you can't come up with a wrong, thathat went means everything he was saying was a lie. go alongould have to with a lie. if you can prove that you had a plan and some way the plan went ok, i will give you some money. host: what did you think of the president's explanation that his newly negotiated trade deal will help pay for this in terms of money saved by the united states? the same way i feel about the tax breaks. that it's going to pay for itself. we've never seen a tax break

that paid for itself, have we? let's be logical and reasonable. if it doesn't sound like the truth, it most likely isn't the truth. host: baltimore, maryland. independent. gideon, go ahead. caller: i'm very concerned about the economy. the way the stock market has been very volatile over the last month ever since president trump announced on twitter that -- the dow lost 1000 points. thing, the last i'm bus bill, themni

president received $1.6 billion for border security. he has only spent 6%. 94%, whyd to spend would we increase your funding at all? that's for anything. host: unclear if the president is referring to signing contracts for large segments of , if he is wall referring to that money. you mentioned the president backring he was tariff man on december 4. the president saying --

that's what the president tweeted. jackson in philly. go ahead. -- jaclyn in philly. caller: i think president trump is a very courageous man. almost every station on my tv is democrat. they are all against him. i think it's because of jealousy. got cannot believe this man to be president. he's doing a great job. they are doing the wrong thing by going against him. let him do his job. he is trying so hard. he's an ordinary man. host: how do you think this shutdown ends? be if: i think there will

the democrats give a little, donald trump will give a little. he's an ordinary man. they can believe this man became president -- can't believe this man became president. i love him. he's just like me. i don't mean everything he does is good, but the democrats are so against him -- every channel i put on. that's why i watch c-span. i'm so sorry that the children are getting sick and dying. that's happening all over the world. please, i begged them to go back to their country and get good care. america will help them in that respect. host: diane in d.c.. a democrat. good morning. caller: i'm very proud of all the callers that have called in

and reasoned through this discussion. that is something we need to do as americans. i have a lot of strong opinions about a lot of different issues. at the end of the day, if we can reason things out, we can get to an end of this that is healthy. host: have we come to some sort of give-and-take here? caller: there's a lot of fear and a lot of fear mongering. anothers turning on one and falling into a state of fear instead of reason is one of the biggest threats in the country right now. everyone reason. to not attack the free media. we are hard to have free media. that is a right and a privilege that we had to discuss things openly.

seeing a lot of different people with a lot of different opinions on regular basis daily is something i believe to be a healthy thing and i would like to encourage everybody to continue to discuss this in a reasoned fashion. i'm very disappointed to see that we have a leader i cannot allow my five-year-old to watch on television because of the things he says and does. it's very interesting times right now. some ofw regardless of the emotional statements about how people feel about the president or how the president feels i think we really need to call ato reason and spade a spade when we see it and be open to other ideas and continue to move forward and and continuelves to try to reason through this.

host: diane, our last caller in the segment. we will take a look at developments in u.s. trade policy this year and what to look for in 2019. we will be joined by jenny leonard to walk through that discussion and later our washington journal authors week continues. we will speak with allender --litz best alan are schlitz allender shall -- we will be ri. >> the 116th congress will have over 100 new members of the house and senate. five represent the state of virginia. democrat elaine gloria was elected to virginia's second congressional district which is home to a number of major she is a graduate

and one of the first women to naval nuclear power school. she retired in 2017. she and her husband own a boutique called the mermaid factory which sells mermaid and dalton factories. figurines. he retired from the intelligence community to open a distillery outside charlottesville. he previously had run for virginia governor in 2017 but dropped out of the race prior to the republican primary. the other republican joining virginia's congressional delegation is ben cline. early in his career served as chief of staff to the man he succeeds in virginia's sixth congressional district. bob goodlatte. mr. klein also wants ran a sales and marketing firm. he is also served in the virginia house of delegates

since 2002. democrat abigail spanberger will virginia seventh district. a former postal inspector in cia officer. she later worked for a company now called eab enrollment services which help colleges and universities develop more diverse student bodies. jennifer wexton was elected to virginia's 10th district. she has served as a public prosecutor. she was elected to the virginia senate in 2013. new congress, new leaders. watch it all on c-span. >> washington journal continues. trade reporter jenny leonard joins us for a discussion about the year ahead in trade policy. let's start with our closest neighbors from the north and south and what and when the next steps will take place when it comes to replacing nafta with the so-called usmca.

guest: usmca is the new nafta. it is not yet in front of congress. so the president reached a deal signed it at the g20 and argentina. obviously the fight in congress is going to be a long one and it has not even really started. what is called the implementing bill has not been written by the administration. all the changes in u.s. law that need to be made democrats and republicans both still want to weigh in on. turns out some of the democrats that have been closely involved in the negotiations with the administration are calling for a reopening of the agreement. host: explain that. when this gets to the floor are their chances to amend it if there are parts of it members of congress do not like or is this an up or down vote on what the trump administration is negotiating? guest: on the

negotiate -- on the agreement it is an up or down vote on everything that has been negotiated. if they reopen the agreement or make changes to the actual deal that is still in flux. and the agreement is done what the members of congress will vote on is the so-called memberst a bill where can get their fix is in. the democrats are asking for stronger label -- labor enforcement. that could be done through the implement and bill are some language passed in u.s. law. host: a reminder to viewers, some of the key features of that agreement at its negotiated now increases access to dairy poultry and egg products to be sold in canada members must 40%uced 75 step -- at least of the car must be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour usmca make some changes to nafta's dispute settlement

system. that is a key negotiating point. extends copyrights to life of authors plus 70 years. as we talked about making changes to this, how open is mexico and canada to doing that now? do they see this as a settled agreement? guest: they do. mexico has just undergone a transition and government so they just had a new president come in on december 1. that administration, the incoming and outgoing, were working together on this. for them it was a long process negotiating this. they would like to get this behind them. they would like to see this voted on in the u.s. congress and get this through their legislatures and move on. host: what is the timeframe for that happening in those countries? guest: for mexico, the senate could take it up soon. what the u.s. congress and

democrats want to happen first is mexico passing and labor law, a reform law. that has not happened yet. i think the other countries are pointing to the u.s., where the fight will be a lot more critical in terms of what changes could maybe be asked for. basically pointing the finger to the u.s.. host: you note that canada avoids calling it the usmca. why is that? guest: the usmca calls the u.s. first. they country moves around name to make sure it's maybe not the u.s. first and obviously the president cost trade agenda is america first so everyone sort of calls at its own name but it is the same deal. host: jenny leonard, joining us

for about the next to five minutes this morning, talking about what's on tap for trade in 2019. you can start calling in, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. i cost defined and signals more tension ahead. walk us through the signals that china has given and what you're looking for in the new year. guest: the china trade war has ratcheted up in 20 $.18 may. met theident have second time in november on the sidelines of the g20 where they reached a trade truce. they said let's delay more tariffs for now, for 90 days and

see what we can do. china has pledged to address u.s. concerns and president xi gave an important speech some --the administration may some in congress look to for signals to say what is china willing to do? is it willing to make those structural changes the trump administration is asking for. host: you mention the concerns. what markers has each side laid down when it comes to trying to reach that deal? timeline --rms of host: in terms of what they want to see in a final agreement. , on top ofu.s. wants more purchases of u.s. products, farm products and energy products by china, it also wants to see changes in china's ip and

tech transfer policies. u.s. trade representative's had a long study that took eight that wasd it came out basically the basis for imposing tariffs on chinese products the first time and it happened the second time so now we are at 250 billion. because of china's policies damaging the u.s. and 100% for the u.s. trade representatives a marker has to be china makes substantive changes on those demands, 90 days is very short. issue. a long-standing we will see where they get by march 1. and of course what signals come out of china in the meantime. host: where do the tariffs go

that are collected? what are they used to pay for and how much have we collected from chinese companies at this point? guest: it's not just chinese companies. it's u.s. companies. if you are a u.s. manufacturer and your input is coming from china and your input happens to be on one of the lists of the product lists tariffs are imposed on the importer pays the tariffs. company you as the u.s. bringing in the chinese goods. host: what is the dollar total at this point? do we know? guest: we should know. i should know. if you listen to the president it is billions of dollars. he is confusing sometimes the trade deficit and how we could pay for the wall with that. it is billions of dollars. host: is that my going to the general u.s. treasury account?

where does it go? guest: it doesn't. exporters.the it does not going to the treasury. host: a lot more to talk about about tariffs. want to bring in viewers as well. phone lines as usual as we talked with jenny leonard. eric is in east setauket, new york. democrat. caller: good morning. glad to have this topic. listening very carefully so far. i'm trying to understand and flipped it. understanding as well as i could , how do you explain -- how tariffs hurt american companies and american people, if they are effective in the long run, if trump's strategy is we tariffs

china, in the long run maybe it would be successful if both of androp all of our tariffs we are back at zero in either direction. is that the grand plan? connected to that, how do the tariffs work against china so it hurts them? but howhow it hurts us is china impacted by these tariffs? i keep getting confused. host: thanks for the question. guest: i would say for some in the administration there is a split on president trump trade team between the hawks and doves as they are often referred to. doves,the so-called larry kudlow, often says the grand strategy and end goal is zero tariffs, zero nontariff barriers, going to that if you

ask the other side of the aisle, the hawks, will not address the problems that the u.s. has with china. going to zero tariffs on cars, the u.s. does not ship that many cars to china so that necessarily wall protect what they call the crown jewels, u.s. technology. it is a little unclear at this .oint what the final goal is i think there are a lot of questions. i think the administration, depending on who is talking about this, has a different answer for people. but it's very unclear at this point what the grand plan is. there are people in the administration who are definitely going for zero tariffs as the end goal. host: you mentioned kudlow as a dove, who are the leading hawks?

guest: the leading hawks, one that i think has been written a lot about his trade advisor peter navarro. he wrote a book before he came into the administration, death by china. he has -- he is opinionated on china specifically but you often see him on tv defending the president's strategies on tariffs. u.s. trade representative robert -- haszer also has been had views on china for a long time. alsoe doves side, probably treasury secretary mnuchin would go on that side. host: frank is in newport, richie florida. caller: i have a comment to make. what i would see more often is betweentrading goods

china and u.s. and perhaps even with other countries which are interacting with us and china. host: appreciate the comment. we go to patrick. in independent, go ahead. caller: the first time the expression the rust belt was mentioned was in 1978. nothing to do with trade deals because richard nixon took us off the gold standard. inflation exploded. the dollar became strong. u.s. companies could move their manufacturing overseas and pay slave wages, come back and put their profits into 20% government bonds. i don't know how old your guest is but i'm 60 and i can remember all my toys as a kid made in america and within a year or two

they all were made in japan. what do you want them to do? their child to do what they can for their own country. one billion people to try to feed. host: what do you think is the end result of the trade tensions between the u.s. and china? caller: we subsidize our farmers, we subsidize our drug companies to the national institute of health who does all the basic research and hands it over to them. we've all got our problems and i think c-span for whatever reason up.rying to gin this crap trump said i'm going to have a egg youthful drug plan. we would haveed

billions of dollars to spend on the wall. thanks for taking my call. host: that is patrick and lady lake, florida. how long have you been covering trade? guest: coming up on three years. host: as you look ahead, we talked about usmca, china, what other nine usmca, non-china stories are you looking for in the new year? guest: a lot. if you think 2018 has been a big year for trade i think 2019 is where it comes down to the wire. usmca has to pass congress's i think that is something everyone will be looking to. what will it take to pass congress? there's going to be a new chairman of the senate finance committee coming in. senator chuck grassley. .e heard subsidies for farmers i think priorities in negotiating new trade deals will

be ag focused with this chairman or at least some emphasis by the congress cannot put farmers at a disadvantage. host: is that something the white house seems receptive to? guest: you think so. there was a second round last week of farm subsidies because of the trade wars. it seems that the white house is aware of the fact that farmers are being put at a disadvantage. 2019 is also not going to stop other countries from cutting trade deals. this big trade deal, the transpacific partnership, is moving ahead without the u.s. so it's now 11 countries. it has japan in it. a lot of u.s. farmers will be put at a disadvantage because for the other 10 countries those products can go into japan tariff free or at a reduced rate whereas the u.s. is on the outside.

host: remind viewers where that money comes from as congress -- does congress has to prove that money? guest: it is basically coming usda and giveso it out and programs to specific farms a complicated program. it does not at all cover all of the commodities or all of the farmers in need of help. it was $12 billion the first time around. we are now at 250 billion only with china on tariffs china has imposed 160 billion on us. don't forget there's also retaliatory terrorist from mexico and canada for stealing tariffs they imposed. those hit u.s. farmers it's not really proportional if you look at the amounts how far as being hit. 2019 is going to be really

interesting and important for new trade deals to be cut because usmca religious updated nafta. what really needs to happen is happening. something with the eu, something with japan and that is what the administration is working on. .ost: mike is been waiting in independent, good morning. caravani have my own i've been waiting to observe the one of all the american workers that want to go to texas and california and get on their hands and knees and pick strawberries. i want to ask your guest if there is any -- is there any evidence of americans taking the

jobs in agriculture on account of all the undocumented being scared away by the trump administration policies leaving farmers with a lack of workers. altering his campaign saying these people were taking jobs that americans want. i've been looking for this caravan of people flooding to southern california or picking apples in pennsylvania. is there evidence that is occurring? guest: good question. i do not know the answer to that. says interesting i would that the white house is increasingly coming under pressure to answer those questions. what will happen to agriculture? in 2018, very focused on steel, aluminum,

autos, a big focus in the usmca negotiations. what will happen with agriculture? i think they are running out of time, running out of steam to really come up with answers to those questions. host: we seen a lot of changes in president trump's cabinet. the team he surrounds himself with from the trade officials you brought up already, is there any thought to some turnover? anybody president trump has been unhappy with or people you are watching as on the way out? guest: i would say there's a lot of rumors every day. reportedly gets mad at people on a daily basis and it depends on the day and the issue on who was on his bad .ide i don't think we're seeing anyone on the court trade team on his way out. i think there were some rumors

in the past two days about secretary mnuchin and the president came out and said he has full confidence in him. so let's take him at his word that mnuchin is safe. everyone else seems to be. ahead. wilbur ross needs to finalize an autos report. a study on his auto imports hurt national security that could lead to auto tariffs in february , at least that is the deadline for when he has to finalize the report. the trade team is pretty busy. given all the other turnaround it seems like confirming new people in the middle of multiple trade wars and big trade files might not be a good idea. host: a few minutes left with jenny leonard. if you want to follow her on or you could call the

question like mickey did from milwaukee, wisconsin. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to mention about this dollar value of the tariffs collected so far. about $22 billion. overyou have a budget of $4 trillion, 22 billion next dollars is nothing. people keep thinking all these tariffs. the president is misleading people by saying china is paying the tariffs. the u.s. companies are paying those tariffs either passing it on to the consumer for having less profits for the company. in our budget the tariffs that are collected throughout the year is only 1%. when the markets are down it's not because interest rates are going up.

because of uncertainty in the market china is getting less dollars from the sale of products to u.s., buying less treasury bonds. the federal reserve has to increase the interest rates to offset that. this is all connected. the economic downturn we might have this coming year will be the result of the trade world of china and the uncertainty the president creates. host: thanks for the comments. things, there is -- there are a lot of companies in the earnings calls my colleagues have covered in the past couple months tariffs are definitely a concern they taken a little bit of time to catch on because it was first only aluminum tariffs and the china tariffs phase one and phase 2, two separate

phases. u.s. are a lot of iconic companies like harley davidson this is getting to the point where we need to shift some production out of china or we need to get our inputs from somewhere else because it does not seen the administration is willing to back down. the tariffs that are in place, the $250 billion no talk at all of rewinding these tariffs and going back to normal so this might be the new normal. the other thing i would say going into 2019, the uncertainty just mentioned is definitely something you hear from companies. how long is the can going to be kicked down the road with china tariffs.

there are now at 10%. they will go to 25%. they were going to go to 25% january 1, now it's going to take until march 2. is there going to be little room for another extension or not? that's all something companies have to take into account. it is up to the president every time you ask someone in the administration is it a hard deadline you get different answers. followed by the fact that this is all up to the president anyway. you're asking an advisor and they can't really give you an answer. host: time for one or two mark -- one or two more calls. caller: you mentioned about american steel mill. i think we have only nine left in america and most of them are owned by foreign governments like russia, china, mexico. , if we go toous

-- what would happen if we there so many questions i have trump wants mexico to pay for the wall we just have to order from american steel mill owned by the mexican government. host: steel mills owned by foreign governments is what the caller saying true? guest: i'm not a steel expert there have been some letters coming out of congress. i think one was spearheaded by elizabeth warren saying all of the exclusions from the terrors put in place, exclusions given that were all given to foreign companies instead of u.s. companies. so that's an interesting factor. on the national security side i

would say the tariffs put in place its the 25% tariff on steel imports. that was put in place exactly for national security reasons so the trump administration used the law that is not used very often but says we are doing this out of national security and to build up our steel and aluminum base so that was exactly the justification for doing that. host: if you want to see jenny leonard's work, bloomberg.com, she is a trade reporter. we appreciate your time of washington journal. up next, author week continues alan dershowitz. we will be right back. ♪ >> sunday on q and a.

>> we are on the floor of the united states senate. this is unprecedented. no one else is ever gotten an opportunity to do this. it's more production on a documentary. on the floor before they begin. i'm going to ring around the chamber to get shots during the session and afterward coming back down the floor. >> c-span executive producer mark farkas talks about his work on c-span's upcoming original production, the senate: conflict and compromise. >> if mitch mcconnell suggested this how much control did he have over content? >> zero. when we never with him for the first time we had a couple conditions. thewas you got to greece skids with the democrats because we want access to the republicans we got to get access to the democrats. you don't have any editorial control over this and then he said that's fine though we don't

want you to focus on the acrimony. so we sort of said you can ask us to do that because we are not going to concentrate on it but we can't shy away from it. we got to come up with a product we feel people on the journalism side and people who watch the senate can say they did not give a big wet kiss to the senate but you got be able to watch it and say we did not do hatchet job either. >> mark farkas on conflict and compromise sunday night on the eastern on c-span's q and a. >> washington journal continues. host: the author is harvard law school professor allender show nationalirtua shall think your kid -- make your

guest: if hillary couldn't and have been elected -- i would've written a book called the case against impeaching him and clinton. the frame errors of the constitution set out criteria for impeachment. you have to be convicted based on evidence of either bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors and at least at the moment i have not seen sufficient evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to call for the impeachment of the president, who i voted against. i made the same case when bill clinton was impeached. i did not think they had sufficient constitutional basis for impeaching him. i'm a neutral objective nonpartisan civil libertarian who analyzes constitutional and legal issues without regard to whether it helps or hurts republicans or democrats. that is what i will continue to

do. dedication in your book. this book is respectfully dedicated to an endangered species you write, general -- genuine civil libertarians who pass the shoe on the other foot test. guest: simply a variation of the golden rule. what i ask of all my critics is would you be making these arguments if it were hillary clinton who were being impeached for the emails or benghazi or uranium? i know i would be making the same argument matter who the president was. i've always applied the shoe on the other foot test. i came up with that concept when i wrote a book called supreme injustice and which i railed against the five republican justices who turned the election .f 2000 over two george w. bush i argued i think very convincingly in the book that had the shubin on the other foot , had it been bush who were trying to stop the recount i

don't believe these five justices would have voted the same way. i think they failed the test and many of my colleagues who are calling for the impeachment of president trump based on extra constitutional grounds are failing the shoe on the other foot test and i want to see a return to neutral objective principled analysis of constitutional law without host:.to who was hurt article two section four of the constitution. skip to the final two, to find high crimes and misdemeanors? artist and crimes worst from low crimes. i think bill clinton committed a low crime when he lied allegedly .bout his sexual conduct

that was not a high crime. hamilton defined high crime. hamilton wrote the federalist paper that deals with this defining high crime as a crime that deals with the functioning of office. he understood that. when he was secretary of treasury, he was lulled into an affair with a married woman and made to pay and extorted and -- and extorted an amount of money from her husband to keep the affair private. then the husband said we are going to accuse you of stealing the money to pay for this extortion from treasury funds. at that point hamilton wrote an essay embarrassing his family and his wife admitting the affair and the payment but denying and truthfully denying the accusation that the money had come from treasury funds. he understood the difference between a low crime of adultery. paying extortion was a crime. but those were low crimes, not impeachable.

had he used money from the treasury to pay for the extortion that would have been a high crime. that is good evidence of what hamilton -- one of the framers who was responsible for the impeachment provision, had in mind. he had in mind, a double criteria, it had to be a high a crime that to be involves the governance of office i don't think at the moment we have seen any such allegations. they may come out in the report in the southern district investigation i'm not try to make a case for president donald trump. as i said i voted against him. a strong supporter of hillary clinton. i contributed to her. i consider her a friend. i would be doing the same thing if she were elected president and they were trying to impeach her. host: why make this case before the mother report comes out?

before we know more. guest: because so many people on the other side were claiming that he is subject to impeachment. literally the day he got into office. the democrats started to formulate letters of impeachment , calling for his impeachment. i document that in the book. i wish i did not have to write this book. they called for hillary clinton's impeachment before the election. republicans swore that the day she was elected they would move to her impeachment. i would have written the case against the hillary clinton impeachment book. to make the point that i would have written that case, my publisher came up with an alternate cover. the case against impeaching hillary clinton. i would have written essentially the same book. it would've dealt with emails and benghazi and uranium but the legal criteria would have been the same.

i think i passed the shoe on the other foot test and iqs many of my critics, friends and colleagues alike of not passing the test. allowing partisanship to intrude on constitutional analysis. one of my colleagues was firm when it was being impeached that a president could not be indicted while sitting in office and now that the president is front instead of clinton my colleague changed his mind. he saw the truth of reality and now believes a president can be impeached. my views have been consistent over time. if consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds i can be accused of that. but i have been consistent. i've opposed many aspects of the richard nixon impeachment although i hated the man. i introduced into the aclu resolution condemning him being named an unindicted co-conspirator because i thinks that -- i think that violates

civil liberties. he cannot try the case and cannot prove his innocence. i've been consistent since the 1970's and i'm too old to change. book theender sho -- this case against impeaching trump. berkeley springs, west virginia, a republican, go ahead. caller: i watch you a lot on fox and i know you are a liberal but you are a fair-minded liberal, which is rare these days. what i would like to point out is the hypocrisy. this president and presidents of the past. i'm 80 years old. i joined for john kennedy the first time ever voted. in the media if it was up to media they would teach trump today. evenhing i can't deal with

on this program some mornings it's nothing but continuously bashing trump. eventually people out here in the real world are going to start believing all this garbage we see on the news. guest: it is a tragedy that the media have become so divided. today there are trump channels and anti-trump channels. you want the anti-trump you turn to cnbc, the pro trump news, you turn to fox. walter cronkite's are no longer on the major television shows watched. everyone trusted walter cronkite . i'm told walter cronkite did not even vote because he did not want partisanship to intrude on his objectivity. today we have silos. not only on television but in newspapers as well. it's a terrible tragedy.

we need a return to objective, neutral principles of law, reporting. donald trump causes many of these problems. his use of extreme language, his putting down of his opponents. he has helped to divide the country. he's responsible for a lot of that division. i would have thought some of the media would be above that and would at least report more neutrally and objectively. have twond i televisions and we watched the state of the union and then the analysis of the speech afterward . it was as if we and seen two different speeches. you could not find out what was said by the various media already interpreting. the new york times, the lead story was how trump had caused the reduction in the stock market. maybe that is true but that the

lungs of the opinion page and it is now called news analysis. it is simply an excuse for putting an editorial on the front page and the division between the editorial page in lessews pages are becoming sharp should be. host: you mentioned there is pro trump and anti-trump media. is the interest in your commentary from both sides or just one side reaching out to you for your services? guest: more and more i am getting called on only by people who misunderstand and think i'm proud from. -- i will trump -- im pro trump. i am not. hundred for me to get on the antitrust networks, not that i'm craving to be on television -- it has had an impact on which channels seek my services more

often. that's a change. i used to be on cnn more often than on fox. i was a regular, just a person that was on all the time debating. i have not been on cnn since the summer. fox calls me all the time. available toe people who watch all channels. i try to write beds for different newspapers and media. there's no question the point of your question is correct. host: ruby in richmond, virginia, democrat. good morning. caller: i plan to buy your book. i kept telling my friends he can't be impeached. if i read your book i can explain to them. i also watch pbs which i think is pretty fair and c-span. thank you. guest: i agree with that. host: what advice would you get

that caller? of all, my view is not the only one. i colleague who had written excellent books saying the criteria for impeachment has been met. i think the group of eight. we should never consider -- i think it is a great debate. we should never consider impeaching a pr president without great debate. read my book, professor tribe's book. and come to your own conclusion as to who gets the better of the argument. but don't demonize me for having written a book that has helped donald trump when my goal is to make sure impeachment is not used promiscuously against other presidents. today it is trump tomorrow is a who gets impeached. if i had written the case against impeaching hillary , they would have built a

statute to me on martha's vineyard. instead my friends on martha's vineyard need trigger warnings. they don't want to be seen in the same room as me because my book has been the case against impeaching donald trump. there are many reasons i wish hillary clinton had been elected president. i would have kept many more .riends if i written that book i want to emphasize it would have been essentially the same book. host: you mentioned congresswoman maxine waters in your book. he is the case for impeaching trump she made a couple weeks ago. [video clip] >> we cannot continue with a president who lies, caught lying, the president is a criminal. the president worked with michael:, instructed him to pay these women to be quiet, to shut them up. the president is the one who initiated this with his

attorney. this criminal, must be brought up by the congress of the united states for impeachment. and if we don't do it we are derelict in our duty. the constitution gives us the responsibility to do that. cohen has lied. he and manafort have been caught lying. i don't know what else it is they need to do in order to get us to do what we should be doing, protecting our democracy. guest: you know that congresswoman waters also has called for the impeachment of she president pence which believes is there are no criteria for impeachment. that impeachment is whatever the house of representatives says it is an removal is whatever the senate says it is. that ignores the constitution.

you constitution that governs and impeachment is extraordinarily radical remedy. we are not europe. in europe or israel if you don't like the prime minister you vote lack of confidence and you can have an election like their having in israel very soon. americans opted against that system. four your transfer president and no president has ever been impeached and removed. richard nixon would have been had he not resigned. you need to satisfy the criteria and congresswoman waters simply has eliminated criteria. tense asyou impeach well and has set of ugly that there are no criteria, whatever the house says it is, i have a radical suggestion, there is a reason the chief justice presides on the impeachment and trial of only the president because i think the removal of

the president was supposed to involve all the branches of the government, not just the legislative branch so that she - presides.justice it ain't each the president for a non-crime, not a misdemeanor, not treason -- if they impeach the president for a non-crime -- the chief justice to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it failed charge of crime. with the chief justice act on that? these are difficult issues. i'm not sure that the answers are one way or the other. the framers never contemplated that. why does the chief justice preside over the removal trial of a president and no other removal trials? that's how seriously the framers took the removal of a president. host: arlene is waiting in clark county. good morning.

caller: good morning. yours you haveof no idea. constituteshat misdemeanors that the president could be charged with and removed from office? guest: a great question. it is high misdemeanors. the word hide modifies both crime in his demeanors and the constitution does not say high crimes or misdemeanors, it's as high crimes and misdemeanors. common-law ahave a capital misdemeanor? you can be executed for committing a misdemeanor. misdemeanors were a species of crime, a genre of crime. you did not have the same consequences generally. its family did not lose fortune. but misdemeanors were a serious

genre of crime. some say misdemeanors meant noncriminal behavior, but there's a concept in law called lenity. if you have two possible interpretations of the constitutional or statutory provision and their punitive in forre, you always have to the interpretation which is more favorable to the accused or dependent. i think the case for arguing misdemeanor means a serious sort of crime is a compelling one. host: peter is in dallas, texas. a republican. caller: good morning professor. i agree with you that if you put the shoe on the other foot i would not agree with trying to impeach clinton. on the other hand you can't really compare them. clinton is pretty straightforward you can see she did something wrong. and she destroyed them.

with trump there is literally nothing there with the russian thing. the best evidence i've seen is that he said i hope you can find her emails. that was my point. democrats would take the opposite view and they have. they say there's nothing there with clinton but look at trump. let's talk about the election campaign law violations. previous callers suggested it. let me tell you what the law is. presidentdate for went to the bank and took $150,000 out of the bank and cash in small bills walked over to ms. mcdougal, the woman who accused him and said i'm giving you $150,000 in cash because i'm really worried that you're going to ruin my election chances, it obviously intended to help my

election, here it is cash to shut you up, that would not be a crime. candidates are entitled to spend as much as they want on their own campaign. it bloomberg were to run and decides to spend $1 billion on his campaign that would be legal. this would never happen. if he said let's take 10 million of that and pay hush money to people who might otherwise come up with information against me. again, hypothetical. that would not be a crime. we talking and variations on that theme. was the money paid by trump, corporation, the campaign? those are important questions. was he directing michael cohen to pay his own money? was there a failure to report?

i think there's been a lot of misunderstanding about how campaign finance laws operate in the context of paying hush money. host: what he is a democrat from munro, michigan. caller: good morning. i like you to answer questions for me. you brought up uranium one. could you tell the american people how many departments have to sign off on uranium one other than hillary clinton? how many people of her have to sign. guest: i completely agree with you. caller: how much uranium makes his way to russia? guest: i think that's a fake issue. i don't think any of the allegations against hillary clinton are substantial. in my book i really against president trump are calling for investigations -- i rail against

president trump for calling for special investigations. he constantly did that. i think that is wrong and i called him out on it. this is not a campaign book for donald trump. it's a campaign book four of you of the constitution -- for a view of the constitution that should apply not only in the trunk era but for years to come. precedent today is for the future. i think it's wrong to rail against hillary clinton for the emails, benghazi. those might -- an important part of the constitution is due distinguish sins from crimes. the criminal justice system should go after only crimes and i don't believe hillary clinton committed any crimes and although i have an open mind i have not seen evidence at this point of donald trump committing any crimes, high crimes. host: what would happen if after an impeachment -- after a

conviction in the senate, the president said he would not accept that because he believes the impeachment criteria was unconstitutional? where does that go? guest: i think i'm the first one who raised the question. i raise it in my book and i say the president sat i have the same right to interpret the constitution as congress does. supreme court is the ultimate authority but between the legislative and executive branches we have the same authority. you think firing comey is an impeachable offense, i don't and i'm not leaving office. it would then go to the supreme court. the supreme court has never considered an impeachment issue on the merit two of the haveces, souter and white, said in an extreme case that could imagine the supreme court getting involved. nobody thought the supreme court would get involved in an election in bush v gore and the supreme court got involved over

the objection of many liberal democrats. it's possible the supreme court could get involved and i think the president would have to obey the supreme court and the american people would support overwhelmingly the supreme court if they decided the case. this real problem of partisan is him there. chief justice roberts has appropriately complained about the fact that the media calls certain judges democratic justices, republican justices, after bush versus gore that is understandable but it is not good for our judicial system to be divided along partisan lines. host: just over 30 minutes left with harvard professor alan dershowitz. the your calls. yaya is waiting in chicago. caller: good morning. the problem here is the republicans are imploding on their hypocrisy and you guys can't handle it.

complaining about democrats calling to impeach obama. republicans -- democrats calling to impeach trump, but republicans ran on impeach obama in 2010. all the town halls, that was the rallying cry. guest: terrible. i would condemn. caller: and you're complaining about the new york times when fox news and jerome corsi are still on tv saying that obama was never born in hawaii. .uest: it's outrageous don't give me you guys. i'm not one of those guys. i voted for obama. i supported obama and campaign for obama. i oppose the notion of an teaching obama over the craziness that he was not born in this country. it did not matter, he could've been born on the moon as long as his mother was a citizen, he's a natural born citizen and could run for president of the united

states. .'m on the other side i'm a liberal democrat who supported obama. i've never voted anything but democrats is the first time i kennedyr john hann -- john . i'm not one of those guys. to the democrats as the republicans doing it. i'm trying to be neutral. very difficult in our age of divisiveness to be neutral. -- where ire i lives live in them trying to remain. host: republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 alan dershowitz with us until the bottom of the hour. conrad, a republican in philadelphia. good morning. caller: a couple of questions. i hear him talk about our founding fathers with the constitution.

the constitution was written in 17th-century limited not have electric, gas come email, has brought up bringing up the constitution with modern times? know nothing. -- no nothing. guest: that is a marvelous question and the constitution has been enduring. some parts are living in some parts are dead and the debate between a living and dead constitution is foolish, the 35ts that say you have to be to be president is dead, you cannot do anything about it. 34-year-old ran for president he could not serve. year old run for president, he can.

that is a dead part of the constitution while the living part of due process, equal protection, cruel and unusual punishment, those are subject to interpretation and even conservative justices, justice scalia wrote the opinion on the fourth amendment and whether it covers gps on the bottom of a car. take concepts like reasonable expectation of privacy and words in the constitution and interpret them according to modern needs. some provisions you cannot interpret. the impeachment provisions are relatively dead. it does not mean being a bad president. , the mostt mean extreme example in my book, let's assume a president decides by takingde a mistake

alaska from russia for so little money and he will give it back to russia. aat is the worst possible measure nothing but it would not be treason. butson is a metaphor treason has a specific definition in the constitution. that may give the definition come article three, section three, treason against united states shall exist in levying war against them or adhering to the enemy and giving them aid and comfort, no person should be convicted of treason testimony of two witnesses to the same act or on confession in open court. guest: the second part, giving aid, has been interpreted as during wartime. there is controversy about that because when the rosenbergs were executed for giving russia allegedly the atomic secrets,

there was a debate about whether it could be treason because we were not at war with the soviet union at the time, a cold war but not a hot war. these issues are debatable. host: what does something dead mean? guest: it cannot be changed or interpreted. you cannot get -- interpret 35 years old or every state gets two senators. when the 13 colonies were --ablished, they had roughly you did not have this disparity you have now between california, the eighth largest economy in the world, and wyoming. but you cannot change that. dead, two senators from each state. other parts of the constitution are living.

host: philip, democrat, oklahoma. you said something about age of the president when they can be elected. i do not think it is age but should be in the mentality of a president. this man has no mentality to be the president. you go to mcdonald's and fill out an application and they want you to have experience. experience and there has been nothing but turmoil ever since day one he has been president. you have made a good argument for voting against him and why nobody should've voted for him but those are political arguments. there is nothing in the constitution that requires you have experience. a small townln was lawyer who ran for office a couple of times and lost and became probably the greatest

president in the history of the united states. herbert hoover had enormous experience, saving europe from starvation after the first world war and was not a great president, maybe for circumstances beyond his control. constitution sets up minimum criteria and if you do not like him, amend the constitution. itis difficult but they made deliberately difficult, that is why there are so few amendments to the constitution but it has endured longer than any written constitution in the world. john marshall, the fourth chief justice, was largely responsible as he understood what judicial review was and the limitations on the judiciary and he was the framer of the role of the supreme court, particularly in using the constitution and making it a document for the ages. host: jack, independent, salt

lake city, utah. caller: i have loved following you and love your position on the constitution. something has bothered me for so many years going back to the o.j. simpson trial. you were on "crossfire" and said it was reasonable for the defense to live in a tribe -- lie in a trial because the prosecution lies. guest: i would never say that. that is never proper for a defense attorney to lie. what i said was, i think some defense attorneys do live because they see -- lie because they see prosecutors lie and think that is the way to level the playing field. i disagree.

the ase, we did not -- case, we only put on scientist where the other side put on witnesses with .uestionable p under no circumstances can a criminal defense attorney ever lie in court and i believe they should not lie out of court. you can refuse to answer questions and say it is privilege but a defense attorney should never lie. host: what do you expect from the robert mueller report? guest: i have said and was attacked for saying that it will be devastating politically. it will put together circumstantial evidence that the president has surrounded himself with people who have lied and

committed perjury. people who have committed other crimes and there is a improperntial case for context with russia -- contacts with russia. it will not be criminal liability. one virtue james comey has had is that there has been few links from his office, that is difficult as prosecutors leak all the time. i do not think we know what will be in the report. what i think is essential is that, before the mueller report is released to the public, the donald trump defense team should have an opportunity to review it and rebut it. the report should come out simultaneously. the mueller report and the trump report so the republic can decide.

the robert mueller report should not be made public until the trump side camera but. but.s see -- can re host: how long will the process take? before the 2020 election? i think it should come out in the first half of this coming year. the robert mueller report is presented to the attorney general, hopefully a confirmed attorney general, he should turn the report over to the trump team and give them a short time to come up with their rebuttal. i am sure they are working on it right now. and simultaneously release the reports. that is what basic fairness requires. opinion of william

burr? guest: i have had a good opinion, a distinguished former attorney general. i have seen his work in the private sector. he is very distinguished. wrote that hashe been controversial reflects my views completely. i think he is correct. he did it discreetly and turned it over to the deputy attorney general and did not make it public. it was leaked by somebody else. he is qualified to be attorney general of the united states and we should have a permanent attorney general. i do not like that we have an acting attorney general who was not confirmed and if that continues for a long time, it raises constitutional questions. time becausert when somebody leaves office, you have to have an interim

appointee and generally they are subordinate to the same department. nothing in the constitution that requires that. host: a book, the case against impeaching trump. bob from houston, texas, a republican. i wanted to thank you for having integrity and standing up for what is true regardless of your political position. cruz was running, you came to his defense and talked about what a good student he was when they were trying to label him a racist. he --mber you saying that they debated and he had a jamaican roommate that would debate all day and you came to his defense.

i have been a big fan of yours ever since for just having integrity. people say, how can you say that, you are a democrat? but you say it because it is the truth. thank you for what you are trying to do for trump because it is the truth. guest: i am not trying to do anything for trump. ted cruz was an able student in my class. the first day of criminal law he had his right hand up and did not put it down all semester. that is an exaggeration but he was a great student, he disagreed with virtually everything i was saying and what other members of the class were saying. but to call him a racist was absurd. his close friend and roommate was a brilliant jamaican student who ultimately went on to do great things. i disagree with many of ted

cruz's conclusions but we should tell the truth about him. he was one of my best students. racism.saw a hint of just because you disagree on issues, does not allow you to name call. i have come to the defense of anybody who is improperly accused. i was born to be a defense attorney. maybe the reason i am defending some of trump's writes is because i havets been doing this for 60 years, defending people accused and always coming down on the side of the accused, whether i agree with them or not. that is a policy i have followed for many years. host: democrat, montana, paul. caller: i have a comment and a question. surprised that newsmax tv,

using your device and counsel -- advisingd counsel in people about their constitutional rights, that blows my mind. do you really think that the democrats are pursuing the correct course by even lifting one finger to try to impeach donald trump? i think it is a waste of time and that the democrats can have ultimate revenge against donald trump and the republicans if they establish their own unity, get themselves together and start legislating. doing legislation for infrastructure, border security, and many other needs of this nation.

don't you believe they are wasting their time trying to impeach donald trump? 100%. i agree with you i think nancy pelosi agrees with you and i think chuck schumer agrees with you, and the leaders of the democratic party do not want to see their majority in the house frittered away by an impeachment that will fail. but there are radical elements within the democratic party that are pushing the leaders. nancy pelosi is running for speaker of the house. at this point, she does not want to alienate members of the democratic caucus. i suspect, once elected, she will, strongly against using their power to impeach rather than to the good things you have suggested that they should do. host: the closest vote for impeachment in american history in the 1800s, president johnson

is removed by the senate with one vote short of the two thirds required for conviction. did that impeachment satisfy the criteria for impeachment? guest: absolutely not. the supreme court agreed with me. he was impeached for firing the secretary of i think war. stanton, i think. in violation of the tenure of office act which congress passed saying if they can from somebody, they have to unconfirmed them. he was impeached for filing that law -- for violating that law and then the supreme court said johnson was right, you cannot have a law that prevents the president from firing somebody, even if he has been confirmed by the senate. but wasas resigned fired early and we accept that

as good constitutional law. the johnson impeachment was absolutely wrong. the clinton impeachment was wrong. the only impeachment that was correct never came to fruition, het is nixon, because engaged in destruction of evidence, paying hush money to .itnesses, a woman and telling his subordinates to lie to the fbi, independent crimes and not within the president's authority under article 2. that was the only appropriate case for impeachment and he would have been impeached had he not resigned. host: is there a concise definition for absorption of justice -- obstruction of justice? guest: no. it is an open-ended statute that

can be expanded, a dangerous statute and i would never approve on an object -- statute,on of justice i want them to say what constitutes a crime, namely destroying evidence, etc. there is no definite definition. i go back to the principle i talked about earlier, when you interpret a criminal statute, you have to interpret it as ambiguity in a way that favors the defendant and not expansion of the statute. one thing not covered by instruction of justice is presidents exercising their constitutional authority under article 2. there can be no circumstance where firing a member of the executive branch, within the authority of the president, by itself can be a fraction of justice any more than pardoning can be the obstruction of justice. george h.w. bush, a great man,

pardon casper weinberger and five other people on the eve of their trial for the purpose of preventing them for testifying against him. that is not me talking, that is the special prosecutor accusing bush of ms. using the pardon power but nobody talked about obstruction of justice because that is within the authority of the president, just like firing. you cannot be convicted of obstruction of justice for doing what the constitution allows regardless of content. it does not call for psychoanalyzing the mental state for a president if he or she acted properly under article two. i think that is the better view from a civil liberties point of view. host: 10 minutes left with alan dershowitz. jason in montgomery, alabama, independent.

caller: good morning. -- i understand he feels his position is truthful and honest and neutral but i wonder how he feels about outlets like fox news using his 7500ion to suggest that lies president trump has told our hysteria by democrats when the truth is that, as an attorney, specifically a person on a jury, you are told if a person lies about one thing, you can dismiss their entire testimony because they are being deceptive. usedo you feel about being as the reason to cover up bad behavior on the part of the president? you can put an impeachment to

decide but in general of the bad behavior we know the president and people around him engage in. guest: it is a great question. i try my best not to let fox do that to me when i am on the show as i have railed against many of their commentators. i made news because i shook my finger at tucker carlson for what he said about immigrants. i criticized to his face sean hannity. i criticized laura ingraham. i will continue to do that if fox has me on when i disagree with something on a show i am on, i will let them know. i can't help what they do when i am off. same thing when i am on any channel, they can misuse what i say for their purposes but i've never tried to defend president trump's policies or misstatements.

i shook my finger at him when he , iarated families, on fox said you cannot do that, unconstitutional, that is wrong. i stick to my own positions. i would like to be as many channels as possible so people cannot misuse my statements. i cannot be responsible for how my statements are misused except that i will corrected them on indications. host: you said what the president did was unconstitutional but you do not think it is impeachable? guest: unconstitutional acts are not crimes. every president has been found by the court to engage in unconstitutional conduct. even if it is found the president violated the emoluments clause, not a crime. if it were, it would be impeachable. the framers were careful about what criteria employed for

impeachable offenses. we have to take the constitution language seriously. that is not a conservative or liberal view, just the constitutional's point of view. you have to it by by the concert -- you have to abide by the constitution. host: ohio, republican, go ahead. guest: i appreciate your -- caller: i appreciate your observations and opinions, professor. i am 88 years old and have seen a lot. i served as a medic during the korean war. one of my activation -- --ervations is we need donald trump has been a catalyst in waking up the american people , more people are involved and aware. even though we are a country of laws, our country of laws were

made by people, by men, we are a country of people as well as bylaws. -- by laws. we have been freed from this idea and restrictions of human behavior in our country. party,rmer democratic which used to be very very conservative in many ways, the antagonism towards this ansident, there will be uprising among the american people that will not tolerate this. the american people are coming together and seemed there is a value to america first and pride in america and the constitution and bill of rights. it is worth fighting for and always has been. god willing, there will be peace in our congress coming up but if not, i am fearful. we have to be aware and god bless america. guest: thank you for your service to america during the korean war.

when you talked about an uprising, we are a nation of laws written by human beings. of course they are. but we have to abide by the laws and uprisings can be used as a metaphor but i would not favor any uprising that could involve physical force, whether from the left or right. we see people on the hard left saying violence is except double in situations that are so bad -- violence is except double if the situation is so bad. president trump talked about the second amendment people preventing the supreme court from being a liberal institution, that at least could be misinterpreted to be a reference to guns. we should all agree to disarmament. not allowing our politics to become in any way violent, either on the left or right. let's decide everything at the

ballot box and have decisions by the supreme court whether we win or lose, that is the nature of democracy, you follow the law and the election returns. host: roz in beverly hills, california, a democrat. you, alanllo, thank dershowitz, i am a liberal democrat and have admired you for years. i am going to a seniors class in santa monica, california where i strongly agree with you on the high level of evidence needed for impeachment. here comes my however, my however is -- two things, one of the things is, i think that there is a possibly thin line between barbary and blackmail -- bribery and blackmail.

it disturbs me when i see the president in his relationship with saudi arabia, turkey, russia, and china. the robert mueller investigation will find this all out. if there was not impeachment, i would not concentrate on high crimes and misdemeanors and what they are, i think the dangers could possibly be in the bribery and blackmail area of the constitution. that, then to you is line between bribery and blackmail. what i washing is, concerned about -- i was concerned about your timing of writing your book because i think you knew ahead of time, as everyone would, that this process would take a long time to be resolved. i am wondering if you think that

you are going to have the time, if and when it is meant -- impeachment comes out, and you are convinced there is evidence for possible impeachment and conviction, would you have the time to write a second book on the case for if easement of president trump -- impeachment of president trump? guest: there are new publishers, mine was published by a publisher who got the book out in six weeks from the time i finished it and it was on the stands. today you can publish quickly and i will follow the evidence. you have my word. for any president. and state what i believe is a truthful analysis. i was opposed to the appointment of a special counsel, i thought the better approach would be to

pick a nonpartisan commission, high-level commission like the 9/11 commission. comprised of brilliant people toh experience, nonpartisan, look into the relationship between russia and the election. i am convinced russia tried to influence the election and a nonpartisan commission would have been better able to obtain evidence in real time because it would have been open. the discussions would have been open. mueller, everything is in secret. it has been years and we will not learn anything. it will be run cited report -- it will be a one-sided report whereas an independent commission would have allowed the american people could have decided, more consistent with democracy than having behind closed doors grand jury's investigate in a one-sided way. i want to make sure both sides

are presented when he mueller report is presented to the public. ado not think we needed special counsel, it could've been investigated in virginia and sdny. special counsel's have a target on the back of an individual and let -- and unless they have evidence against their target, they fail. critic ofn a longtime special investigations, i was with clinton and i think what is going on now confirms my point that we would have been better off with a nonpartisan commission of inquiry. host: last call in new hampshire, independent, ron. misdemeanor, at the time the constitution was written, met ill behavior, short of a crime. if congress wanted to, they could say the president lied to

the american people and that is our article of impeachment. if the senate convicted him, he is out. guest: i do not agree with that and let me tell you why. there was a specific proposal to make ill behavior an impeachable rejected byh was the constitutional convention. , andad, misdemeanor between crimes and misdemeanors. looking at the intention of the longer makes for much argument that misdemeanor was intended to be a genre crime rather than what they rejected, namely maladministration of office. host: the book is the case against impeaching trump and the author is alan dershowitz. always appreciate your time on "washington journal." guest: thank you.

host: next, we will talk about the government shutdown, day five, we want to hear your thoughts. phone numbers are on your screen. you can start calling in and we will be right back. ♪ >> the c-span bus travel to tennessee asking folks what does it mean to be american. ,> what it means to be american studying the history or the past and sometimes, looking at the specifics and questioning things that go on now to push the idea of democratic citizenship and seeing what you can do and how to impact your community on the local level. >> to me, to be an american means to be free, to think, to

think, to express my thoughts. i am free to relate to other people no matter who they are. i am free to have the oxygen around me and express everything that i want to be an free to be everything i want to be here in it is so important to appreciate being an american. >> what does a mean to be an american? in america, you are a part of the greatest experiment in self-government in the history of the world. part of being an american is understanding that we believe at our core that each individual is created equally and they have the same god-given rights as every other individual. >> to be an american means being an active citizen, involved in your city, state, local government so you can learn about problem solving.

and see how you can use your voice, your background, to improve and make it better. you are aware of your local community and in the nation and looking for ways to improve and make it better for the next generation. >> a great pleasure to be here and to talk about what it is to be an american. a multifaceted question. what can you do to better your community? and that trickles up to national. but everything is local and what are you doing to make the community better? helping the younger generation. ,elping the older generation which we respect and need to help as they finish out their years. end andom beginning to

how you can make your community and a place. >> voices -- a better place. >> voices from the road on c-span. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and stood a we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your c-span -- cable or satellite provider. journal"ngton continues. host: program stops at 10:00 and until then we turn the phone lines to you to talk about day five of the government shutdown. for those who support the shutdown, 202-748-8000. for those who oppose, 202-748-8001.

the special line for federal workers is 202-748-8002. houseesident at the white , congress not in session today and not expected back until tomorrow. the house and senate expected to be in at 4:00 tomorrow. the president has not tweeted this morning. phone lines are yours to talk about the shutdown. michael from north carolina, go ahead. caller: i believe we should support the government shutdown so that we can get the funding to build the wall so that there will be legal citizenship in america, not illegal, that is a crime. we will have less crime and until the democrats get on board and start going by the constitution and the law, this country is in trouble.

ahead.leveland, ohio, go caller: i oppose the government shutdown. it is basically a temper tantrum by the president of the united states who is holding our citizens hostage by the shutdown. it is a ridiculous method. people should be able to come to this country but be given a legal path to citizenship. mentioned the president who is at the white house. he spoke to reporters yesterday and answer some questions about -- the headlines from the washington times, it is a partial government shutdown with aspects of the government-funded through fiscal 2019.

25% of discretionary spending by the government is currently not funded. the agencies include the justice department, commerce department, interior, homeland security, and others. that is why it is official a partial government shutdown, veterans affairs has been funded , the military has been funded, and the legislative branch among others have been funded. scott in new york, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i have an easy solution but i am -- jesus isf it coming back. the solution to having 202-748-800 donald trump can go after every business in america that got a tax break, if they have ties to

sister companies who have hired illegal immigrants, we take that tax break back, the tax payer -- tax money we are -- we take it wall across have a the mexican and canadian border. for when jesus comes back and takes real people to have an and we have a mess on earth. host: bill in erie, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: happy new year. this country takes and one million illegal immigrants every year. you cannot find me another country in the wall to let one million immigrants come in and become citizens except america. democrat, i am a

did not vote for donald trump but i will again because this man is doing things out of the box and showing americans exactly what the establishment on the right and the establishment on the left have been doing for the last 50 years, screwing americans. if they want to do bipartisanship, let's do bipartisanship, the president wants $5 billion, democrats should give $2.5 billion, $3 billion. that is all i hear from the democrats, not the same democratic party i have belonged to for 40 years they have gotten so far left. let's compromise but we let in one million illegal immigrants every year. that's have more praise for this president. host: the shutdown is a funding fight between the legislative branch and the executive branch. news from the judicial branch

considering ruth bader ginsburg who was discharged from the hospital yesterday and is recovering at home according to the supreme court spokeswoman. ruth bader ginsburg underwent surgery last week at a cancer center to remove malignant growths in her left lung. dr. say there is no -- doctors say there is no evidence of remaining disease. gayle in illinois talking about the shutdown come a day five, go ahead. caller: politicians who have been in office for 20 and 30 years have been sitting there and now trying to blame trump for straightening things out, i think that is sick. from people who have called in and what they believe, they are correct. they need bipartisanship. as far as charles schumer, he

says everybody wants open borders which is bull. host: brenda in washington, a federal worker. are you for load? caller: i am the spouse of a federal worker, essential, department of defense. they worked their butts off. up to 12 hours a day. period. and in the private sector see waste and laziness in the private sector so stop it with bashing the federal workers. sayve not heard anybody that basically everybody that supports the shutdown is saying that any president who cannot get his campaign promise funded through congress thinks they have the right to shut government down, ridiculous.

i lost my train of thought but stop bashing federal workers. to all the people -- the last lady about the blame game, nobody does more blaming than the guy in office. host: richard in massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. ploynk the shutdown is a by this president to take away from all of the panic that happened in the white house last week, which was unprecedented with the stock market. defense, it was one thing after the other, probably the worst week i can recall, i am 75 is old and have been following politics for a long time. it is amazing what his base has been following.

they cannot tell the truth. it is staggering. somebody, i do not want to begin with the term, begins with a letter 'd." it is amazing they are still with him. reacting, doing is like he is punishing the country for going after him. he has had a criminal enterprise for the last 40 years, he and the family, the trump organization. i want to wish everybody a happy new year. host: speaking of the president and the government shutdown. the house and senate not in session until 4:00 p.m. tomorrow. our capitol hill producer points out they could reopen the

government if a bipartisan agreement is reached between the white house and top congressional leaders on the border security funding. the president at the white house today. a smaller staff than usual surrounding him, 62% of the white house executive office is currently on furlough. a government executive pointing out the president is much more alone than normal. he has not tweeted today. in the last 15 minutes, phone lines are yours to talk about the government shutdown, day five. if you support the shutdown, 202-748-8000. it, 202-748-8001. a special line for federal workers, 202-748-8002. alexis in idaho. good morning. go ahead. caller: my cat is attacking me,

sorry. go. host: do you need another minute? sitting.o, he is why is everyone confused? why not just shut it down? host: you think it should be shutdown? caller: yes. host: dorothy in california, good morning. caller: i think it should be shutdown. however, i think government workers should be paid but not congress, they should not be paid with the government shutdown. one of the reasons why i think isshould get the wall because something i have not heard brought up, the disease we are getting. i live in a community where i am a minority. tuberculosis,have

children in the schools have to be tested. other areas also. coming ine illegals are working in the food departments. that creates a problem for the home community. -- the whole community. the other problem is gangs. sun communities do not have gangs -- some communities do not have gangs but we do and they are the second generation of the illegals. we do need workers, however. work which is what we need, a place to identify the people to come in and they should be returned after they do the work. they can come back to the next season. because the people in this country will not do that work, unfortunately.

mp isfore, i think that tru in the right way. i originally was not for trump, i was for dr. ben carson. but then i realized that dr. ben carson was way too nice to shakeup washington, d.c. and i congratulate trump for doing that. he has been harassed the entire time in office and we are lucky he has managed to do what he has done so far. host: speaking of people coming to the united states, a story getting a lot of attention on the front page of the houston chronicle and several other newspapers. an eight-year-old boy from guatemala died in u.s. custody early christmas day, the second death at the southwest border from a child in custody raising questions about federal agents running the border facilities that care for those who fall ill .

hasnumber of families swelled in the last year and migrants are usually transported to facilities designed for adults after being arrested by federal authorities while attempting to enter the country illegally. died just after midnight on tuesday at a hospital in new mexico where he and his father had been taken after a border patrol agent saw what he thought were signs of sickness. the death following that of a seven year old girl from the same country in custody of the border patrol. joe in alabama. good morning. children die in this country every day. american children. waiting for the wall. we needed. go to the gofundme site.

host: i think we lost joe. michael in walnut creek, california. caller: good morning, good to talk to again and thanks c-span for letting people to express opinions. i go back to after the election when charles schumer said that the democrats had defeated the republicans, their rich friends. that is not exactly true as the democrats have more rich friends than the republicans when you look at people like bill gates, mark zuckerberg, tim cook, and you could go on and on with the list. as far as the wall, the $5 billion is serious money but chump change compared to the cost. look at the money with schooling, hospital, and dependent families, it is far

more than the amount of money he is asking for for a wall. i support the president. i do not always agree with him. i do not always agree with him but this is one of the issues i believe is very important. , agree with the last caller where migrants can come into work and return home. those are not a problem. the problem is the democrats simply do not want to give donald trump any victory because he won the election. host: can you hang on so i can ask you about the story out of california because you are from california. california has moved up the party primary to march 3 to get in on the early primary action because it allows early voting third -- 30 days in advance.

willpeople in california cast live ballots before the iowa caucus. more people could be casting absentee ballots in california, a major boost to big-budget candidates who do not want to compete in big-budget politics in new hampshire and iowa. they would be able to battle over the airways for a bigger prize a week later. what are your thoughts on that? caller: i have mixed emotions. it does the state a lot of good financially because the candidate will have to campaign. but how many people voting really pay attention at that early time? not many. i am in the middle. if it goes that way, that is fine. host: do you think i what and new hampshire have too much say in the presidential elections? caller: porting smaller states,

yes that's for being smaller state, yes, that is why i agree with the electoral college, smaller states should have a say. i think that is purely a financial matter. host: appreciate the call. baltimore, maryland, james. go ahead. caller: i am strongly opposed to the shutdown. i think it is a typical political stunt by trump. i agree with an earlier caller who said he is trying to distract voters from the mess in the oval office. policies.ilure of his physical wall is one of the least effective ways to keep the people out of the country. fordifficult would it be the drug cartels to fly over the

nes orith crohn's -- dro bring it in on commercial air flights? ridiculous to shut the government down. trump wants a new limousine, would he shut the government down if congress refused to grant him a new limousine? to shut the government down for to me isnor item absurd. host: rob in new mexico. good morning. caller: appreciate c-span and what you do for the country. you are informing the masses of what the country thanks. shutting down the government, i

am for it because it is a mess. it is a big-time mess. why are they fighting all the time, democrats and republicans. up in schools, they would sit us and between each other and we should do that and make them do their job. their job is not to fight. that is my statement. about the is a story state next door in arizona. inking to redistricting 2022, arizona will likely gain a congressional seat by the time 2023 rolls around. analysis concludes the shifting population from the northeast to the southwest pretty much guarantees that arizona is going to pick up a tent seat in the u.s. house after the census.

in will bega somebody's lost because redistricting is a zero sum game. it limits the house to 435 seats. f arizona gets a seat, it has to come from someone else. rhode island would be a state to lose a congressional seat. anna in union, new jersey. good morning and thank you for waiting. caller: i oppose the wall. read time is that i magazine. i listen to the experts. -- there willl always be ways to drugs to get in as long as there is demand. there should be money

users,iated for drug clinics, to fight d.o.b. or crisis. -- to fight the opioid crisis. i also believe that the most effective way to fight this problem, which reminds me of nazi germany, trying to get rid to usejews, would be technology. technology is the future. there are so many ways to fight. the real enemy i believe are the russians, north korea, iran, iraq, isis. host: craig in holly ridge, north carolina. go ahead. caller: i totally support trump

and i did vote for him because i definitely want a change. i am an accountant and practice in southern california. i am 100 miles away from that border. i do not understand how come we attorneysessman with at the border collecting information from aliens that want to come in illegally, throwing rocks and tried to convince them they have reason to sue the united states because we will not let them in. i do not understand that. but justren have died like the caller said earlier that was cut off, children die across northern america. that is another thing i want to straighten out come there is north america and north american

, north america is the greatest country in the world. host: that is craig in north carolina. he was our last caller today but we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and 4:00 a.m. pacific. day five today of the government shutdown and follow the story live on c-span, c-span2, c-span.org and the free c-span radio app. have a great wednesday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> today is day five of a partial government shutdown. the house and senate return

tomorrow at 4:00 p.m. eastern and negotiations continue on a spending bill to reopen the federal government. as the debate continues, you can watch live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. takesn the new congress office in january, it will have the youngest, most diverse freshman class in recent history. new congress -- new leaders. watch it live on c-span, starting january 3. statemer secretary of condoleezza rice and george schulz were part of a discussion last month on the evolution of communication in recent decades and its effect on democracy. from stanford university's hoover institution, this is 90 minutes. [applause]