can listen on our free radio app. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators, the host turnover internet history podcast brian murder in the -- brian mcthis cullah talks. >> from the i phone to all the things that have come together over the last 25 years who have made the modern reality where the internet and technology has infiltrated basically every crevice of modern life. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> this morning a preview turnover week ahead in washington with bob cusack. manda slope from the brookings

institution on with what to expect from president trump's visit to the united kingdom. as always we take your calls. washington[captions copyright nl cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: it is the "washington for june 3. president trump has arrived in london to start his three-day state visit. several meetings with the queen and a visit with the outgoing prime minister, theresa may. congress returns from break and mitch mcconnell made news saying if a supreme court nominee came up for consideration, the senate would approve the nominee. critics saying it is a sharp contrast he took with merrick garland in 2016. what do you think about that change of tone in supreme court nominations? you can call and let us know in this first hour. 202-748-8001 for republicans.

202-748-8000 for democrats and independents, 202-748-8002. you can tweet thoughts to us at @cspanwj. you can also post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. the star-ledger out of new jersey chose this topic as their lead editorial for today and it reads in part, mitch mcconnell was asked last week what his position would be in regard to filling a vacant supreme court seat of one of the justices were to "die next year during the roiling boil of the presidential campaign. " it was raised during a chamber of commerce luncheon, which is not where national news often happens and he may have pointed deaths to broadcast your political thinking is not becoming of a statesman. he was asked the question about what would happen if a situation

came up with a supreme court nominee last -- next year and here is his response. [video clip] >> i would do it. [laughter] jokeeason i started with a is it is an -- as important of all these other things we are talking about. to have a long lasting, positive impact on the country. people agonizing over one part of the tax bill being permanent or not. i said the only way the tax bill is permanent depends on the next election. the next election because people have differing views about the actions of the parties. a lifetime appointment to a young man or women who believes in the quaint notion that the job -- the: the editors of

star-ledger continue on this --ic say republican majorities in gerrymandered districts push through unelected judges to projected the hegemony -- with 10 months left in his term, the editors remind people obama nominated an ideological moderate, appellate judge merrick garland. the gop can senate refused to even consider the president's nominee for the high court. this change in attitude is what we are interested in hearing from you. you want to let us know about mitch mcconnell's thoughts when it comes to supreme court justices. it is 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. an independent's, -- independents, 202-748-8002. you can tweet us at @cspanwj and

post your thoughts on facebook. it is facebook.com/cspan. to take you back to 2016, mitch mcconnell on the senate floor talking about president obama's nominee merrick garland and the reason he gave for not bringing him up for consideration. [video clip] >> mr. president, the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the supreme court and have a profound impact on our country so, of course, of course, the american people should have a say in the court's direction. it is a president's constitutional right to nominate a supreme court justice and it is the senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent. as chairman grassley and i declared weeks ago and reiterated personally to president obama, the senate will continue to observe the biden rule so the american people have

a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a president who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different . either way, our view is this, give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. host: lacey starts us off on this discussion from tennessee. good morning. what do you think? -- theywhat i think sure did not let obama get his employee -- appointee and now he tried to turn around and change their position on that and i both he and lindsey graham are the candle burning at both ends just like trump and i think it is the most stupid thing i ever heard.

host: what do you think is driving the change in attitude? want to be elected in 2020, that is what is changing the attitude. from rob is next massachusetts, republican line. hello. caller: good morning. i like it, actually. i have no use for today's current version of the democratic party. i did not have much use for the version when i was born, either. garland being an ideological moderate, i heard that about ruth bader ginsburg years ago and she is kind of to the left of karl marx. whoever wrote that article was in my opinion, clueless. the democratic party today, they are trying to destroy the president, which is fine with me, i am trying to destroy them. if someone like ginsberg kicks

the bucket, i vote mcconnell drives a stake through the heart of these liberal democrats. host: do you think the decision is hypocritical considering what happened with merrick garlic in 2016 -- merrick garland in 2016? caller: i think they should've done to him what the democrats did to kavanaugh. lie about him, smear him, throw falsehoods or innuendo, we will find some floozy like anita hill or the other broad the democrats brought out last year and make up lying charges about the guy. try to destroy him the way the democrats do. it is about time they got a dose of their own medicine. host: let's hear from bernice in georgia, democrats line. .aller: yes --hink mcconnell

in mcconnell,ted that is the answer i have got. host: why are you disappointed? a poor he is just leader. host: starting with specifically what he said, what do you think about what he said and the change in attitude he had in 2016? let's start there. caller: that is just to show you he is a poor leader. how can you say one thing and change his mind? his mind if he wants. i am just disappointed. georgiaat is bernice in . the federalist website, they have a piece taking a look at recent statements by the senate majority leader and they write in part not that it matters much to him, but mcconnell's willingness to confirm another supreme court nominee should trump get a chance to file vacancy does not contradict the

rationale the majority lever gave -- leader gave for his refusal -- there was no modern president for a situation in which a president of one powder -- party would expect them to confirm a nominee in an election year, but alter the balance of the supreme court. democratic leaders like joe --en and chuck schumer had would behave as much as mcconnell did, nor can the same -- seat to have said to be stolen since they have the right to reject any nominee and republicans were never going along with replacing a conservative icon like antonin scalia a with a liberal like merrick garland. from north carolina, independent line. this is larry. go ahead. shocked peoplest in washington are upset about politicians changing their positions.

politicians change their positions all the time for the benefit of their constituents. when it was beneficial for the democrats, they were against having a supreme court justice. when it was a benefit for the republicans, then they are against this. this is nothing. this is washington. this is what we expect. i am amazed we are spending so much time thinking about things things that happens and we know the result. host: you say you are not surprised, but is it an acceptable form of behavior? caller: of course it is an acceptable form of behavior otherwise you are saying you cannot change your mind, you have to live with what you say. that is not true in washington, everybody changes their mind in washington. host: just to clarify, when it

comes to the specific change in position, are you okay with that other than the fact people can change their mind, would you be ok if a supreme court nomination took place in an election year? caller: i don't think it ever has any particular rule. i think if the supreme court nomination takes place, then the party in power is going to try to get there person in. you are dealing with washington and it is a function of power, it is not a function of someone to go and say this is the way we have always done it. host: right, but are you ok with it? caller: am i ok with it? yes, indeed. i believe in life and this is what happens. it is no different than your children or anything else. host: okay. let's hear from carl in florida, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i wanted to speak a little bit about our president.

everybody seems to think russians were involved in this election and they automatic host: before you go too far, back to the topic at hand when it comes to the senate majority leader's comments. what do you think of those? caller: i think they are right. i want to talk about president trump first a little bit. host: why do you think they are right? caller: why do i think they are right? host: why do you think the senate majority leader's comments are right? caller: it does not matter about the -- i want to talk about president trump for a minute. callingr, again, we are on a specific topic and when you call, we expect you to stay on that topic. i will give you 30 seconds for president trump. caller: president trump is the president of the united states because of the christian vote.

dr. raff read got 81% of the people to the polls -- christians to the polls and they overwhelmingly voted for president trump. host: we will leave it there. speaking of the president, visiting britain for a three-day state visit which includes many things. a visit with the queen, luncheon with prince charles, and other events as well. he is also taking his whole family with him today as proceedings start to take place at buckingham palace. several helicopters, including the one the president will travel in starting to land and .ake their appearance we will show you some of that back and forth and those events as they take place today in london. west virginia, democrats line. caller: mitch mcconnell broke the senate. he broke the traditions of the

constitution of the united states. the constitution -- he did what he wanted to do against day black person and that is how he felt about it. host: when you say the constitution is up to this, how did that go into the affairs of merrick garland. caller: merrick garland did not even get a hearing. he broke the constitution that said that president has a right to. he did it because he was president, there is no doubt about it. i think the council on russia should call mr. mcconnell in to testify on some of the things he has done with russia, why he is defending russia. host: when it comes to the senate's ability to advise and consent, don't you think the senate majority leader has that right as well if he has that power as senate majority leader? caller: he did not have the power, the constitution is playing on it. another thing was congress host:

-- we will keep it to the topic at hand. from livingston, new jersey, independent line. this is josephine, hello. caller: good morning. just two weeks ago, not many people, i guess, watch frontline, which is on public television. they did a whole expose on mix mcconnell -- mitch mcconnell over the last 30 years of his career in washington from ronald reagan on. this man has single-handedly destroyed our democracy. you say what is she talking about? very simple. let's do example number one, january 20, 2009, obama comes in as president and this man has a week -- a meeting in washington, d.c. totally documented by the people who were there and swore that they would not pass not one law that would enable the

economy to get better when we were almost into a depression. he gave not one fiddle about worrying about the farmer, the foreperson in virginia, he did not care. host: real quick to the statements on supreme court nominees, what do you think? caller: i am trying to bring up -- and the second example is -- host: i am sorry about that, we have a couple of things going on. quickly about the supreme court nominees, what do you think about that statement? caller: i don't appreciate it because advise and consent, give the person a hearing, up or down . what he is trying to do is what he successfully did, there are five appointments on the court right now. they are all federalist approved. .hat was started by scalia women's rights, forget about it. we are down the toilet. host: that is josephine in new jersey.

we are talking about the statements by the senate majority leader and you can continue to call on that. as we talk about this here in , presidentstates trump meeting with prince charles and camilla to start the three-day state visit that will take place. not only will the president have a luncheon, he will meet with the queen a several times. a wreathlaying plant as well as discussions on economic issues. these will take place over the three days. i believe this is buckingham palace. the washington post highlighting when it comes to this visit that previous u.s. presidents visited the queen during her long rain. president trump is only the third american leader to receive the honor of a state visit following presidents george w. bush and barack obama. he will meet with several senior

royals, but not the duchess of sussex, who gave birth last month. he is scheduled to have a private lunch with the queen, aat with prince charles and his wife. he will join the queen and charles to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the d-day proceedings. oncontinue to your thoughts these comments by the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell , on supreme court nominations. sam, republican line. go ahead. caller: hi. most seniorsay the controlling factor for any american citizen, no matter what party, should be the oat everyh one of the elected officials has taken to support the constitution. as far as i can see, the supreme court is ultimately going to have the power to see to it that the constitution is adhered to. i, frankly -- i hate to say it, but i don't think the democrats,

any longer, are all that concerned about the constitution . so far, president trump has done a very good job. host: in your mind, is it ok for mitch mcconnell to make these comments about if something came up in 2020 when it came to a supreme court nomination, it would be ok to start that process, but he was not okay with it in 2016? caller: it does not surprise you when anyone in washington changes their mind based on what party they belong to. what concerns me is all of them have sworn to uphold the constitution and in order to do that, they need to safeguard adherence to the constitution of the supreme court. so far in my opinion, mr. trump has done an excellent job selecting judges. pass, iwere to come to

the the best nominee for supreme court and, frankly, the way things have been going , i don't have that much confidence that the democrats have that in mind. host: let's hear from keith in kansas city, missouri, democrats line. caller: good morning. my name is keith. real quick. i am going to stay on topic as well, by the way, but i just heard a client from the republican side talking about the constitution. the whole key is the constitution has not been adhered to, that is why you are having this forum and let's get right on it. mitch mcconnell made a statement that he postulated that he would stand on the constitution and it was unfair in an election year to go down the road of picking a

supreme court nominee. what has happened is the republicans are completely personifying hypocritical behavior. all the way from him standing there, that is why you are hearing the laughter in the background. him telling his constituents, now that it is in my favor, i am going to do what we want to do because it is in our favor. you have people trying to let this go. everybody changes their mind all the time in washington, enough of that. a lie is a lie and the truth is the truth. if it is a democrat changing their mind or republican changing their mind, the facts of the issues stand. if you are a hypocrite, you are a hypocrite. let's call some truth. the truth is mitch mcconnell is being a hypocrite because the republican party is shrinking, they are starting to use racist other -- tactics and

bigoted things including what they are doing to women's poor remand ring and all these hypocritical, wicked games are becoming the call of duty. host: let's hear from jesse in indiana, our independent line. caller: yeah, let's talk about hypocrisy. anybody that calls in upset about what mitch mcconnell was saying is a hypocrite regarding what harry reid did when he made the nuclear option available to and nowfederal judges that republicans are in power and they are doing it, it is a horrible thing. that is the height of hypocrisy. i would like to point out you are making a false statement.

when you are saying mitch mcconnell changed his mind, you are making a completely false statement. mitch mcconnell stood on the senate floor and said advise and consent. he said the senate has the right to withhold their consent. that is all he was saying. host: you don't see a change in approach, then? caller: absolutely not and you are lying to the american people. host: i am not lying at all nor mean it. i am asking you if you see a change in approach, defined it. if you don't see a change in approach. absolutely nots a change in approach and you are taking the narrative that mitch mcconnell is a liar and i want to prove that point and i think you are wrong in doing that and you should be a little more middle of on c-span because a lot of people tune into c-span so they do not have to hear this political slant. host: it is no political slant,

he made one set of statement i made a second set of statements. we have shown people video on that. we will leave it at that. barney in maryland, republican line. caller: good morning and thank you very much for taking my call . i have two points. one is macconnell's comment, i have no problem with it at all. i think it is fine. i believe the selections for nominees for the supreme court -- they areas made iod and i think mcconnell, praise him for the republican decision back when obama nominated somebody for that court. mcconnell said at the time let's

wait until after the election and basically if hillary clinton got elected, the implication that mcconnell made was clinton then would have made the nominee and it would have been approved by the senate. at that time, it was expected clinton would win. appreciate his moves. thank you very much. host: that is barney from maryland calling in on this topic of what mitch mcconnell said in 2016 versus what he said last week when it comes to supreme court nominations. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-8001. a ivanka trump, jared kushner, and others at ham palace this

morning as they start a three-day state visit along with president trump and first lady melania trump. that is some of the pictures taking place during the starting up of that visit. we will show you that during the course of the morning. russell berman and senator mcconnell wrote about this saying the senate in the white house will be controlled by the same party and the mcconnell rule will not apply. situations that have been apples to apples comparisons, democrats would've had to recapture the majority and if they had, mcconnell would be in no position to decide whether or not to confirm a supreme court nominee. none of this is an accident. unlike trump, mcconnell does not make off-the-cuff comments. when it comes to that idea of the biden rule, taking it back to 2016 and the reasoning of not letting merrick garland come up for a nomination process, here

is senator mitch mcconnell. [video clip] >> that me remind colleagues what price president -- vice president biden said. here is what he said. it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominee and central to the process. otherwise, it seems to me, chairman biden went on, we will be in deep trouble as an institution. others may fret, he said, that this approach would leave the court for only numeral -- with only 8 members for some time. as i see it, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will quite the justice 4-4 are

minor compared to the cost of a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight no matter how good a person is .ominated by the president part, senatorlast biden said the cost of the nation would be too great no matter who the president nominates. president obama and his allies may now try to agree this -- agreement -- this disagreement is about person. his own vice president made it clear it is not. it reminds us the decision the senate announced weeks ago remains about a principal and ..t a person

host: if you want to see video of what took place in 2016, you can go to our website and go to the video library box and type in merrick garland. you will see that and other events we have taken in when it comes to the nomination process. barney from maryland, go ahead. call earlierook my and i was just listening. host: okay, thank you. memphis, tennessee is next. larry, you are next up. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. theremcconnell has been for ages. after what he had done to merrick garland -- not merrick garland, judge garland, i don't see how he can think he can make a decision on anybody going

before the supreme court and if the election came about again, hopefully he is not going to be in his position. maybe someone else will be andted into his position they will do the selection of supreme court judges by the constitution instead of by mitch mcconnell. host: john is next in new york, independent line. caller: hi. first of all, he quoted the voted joe biden. if you are trying to apply mcconnell changed his mind, just think about in the obama-romney debate when romney brought up

russia as our main enemy and obama laughed and everyone agreed with obama and things ridiculous collusion going on and all of a sudden russia is our adversary. host: let's go back to statements by senator mcconnell. what do you think about the change in approach specifically? caller: i like the change in approach. maybe biden was right about the rule to begin with, but it was biden's rule, biden's law as a democrat. mcconnell just went along and i think tongue-in-cheek, he did it, but he did quote biden and all of his decisions. host: that is john in new york. when it comes to our social media sites, when you can post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan or you can post on our twitter feed at @cspanwj. michael buzzard says off facebook that democrats would do the same exact thing, drying the same claims.

this is patrick gilmore off facebook saying a little hypocritical, not a champion for all the american people. poor, poor democrats. a taste of their own medicine does not go down well and richard rogers off our twitter feed saying biden was wrong, mcconnell was wrong, two wrongs do not make a right. you can give us a call on phone lines for the next half hour or so. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. we will go next to delaware, democrats line. this is mitch. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro pretty good job herding those cats this morning and keeping us on topic. of of your callers kind stole my thunder with the biden rule and the fact that the left is up in arms about mcconnell's

statement should really consider the front runner for the democrat party in the next presidential election, or at least at this time because it ledhe with harry reid that to this entire discussion about whether a nominee should be held over during an election period. there should not be any surprise or outrage over what senator mcconnell said. basically, if you go back to the beginning, the advise and consent for many, many decades. host: apologize to cut you off, i just want to show you and let people at home see a little bit of the opening ceremony of the president visit to britain. [video clip] ♪

["national anthem plays"] the: president trump in

first lady alongside the queen of england to start the three-day state visit. we will show you those pictures as we go along and we will continue with our calls. walter,ler, indiana, you are caller: next up this morning. thank you for taking my call. i think with this whole idea of supreme court justices, when you listen to some of them talk, i was listening to ginsberg, ruth bader ginsburg talk a couple weeks ago and it was hard for her to even have a coherent sentence. it is not because i am a republican against the democrat. some people -- sometimes these people stay on too long and they are losing their faculties. remember when obama won and republicans were complaining about different things on this issue, we won, you lost, you have to take it. this is turning and it is the normal process. if you are in charge and have

the power to the key to the car, it would not surprise me and i think they should replace ginsberg with a more conservative court because it is all checks and balances. we go through ups and downs and when the pendulum swings, sometimes we have to eat rotten aches when people we do not agree with are in charge and that is the beauty of our country. let's get a conservative on the court and eliminate abortion. host: raymond from she can, democrats line. caller: yes. i would like people to be aware democrats canat impeach kavanaugh. aware of who you are electing. also, one thing these people --

republicans call in and say this president does not take a salary , he doesn't take a salary is because he would have to pay taxes to it. host: if you would not mind turning down your television for those of you waiting to get on, if you can turn you -- turn down your tv as well, it cuts down on the interference and helps us get a smooth conversation going. sandra in ohio, democrats line. hello. caller: good morning. i was canvassing for working america for the election of 2016 and i spoke with one attorney. i asked him what his most important issue was and he said confirming merrick garland. mcconnell would be the worst choice of anybody.

lapdog for thea president and i do not to see another 2000 where the supreme court chooses our president will be -- it would just be horrible, horrible, horrible. .ost: that is sandra in ohio the president addressing the guards at buckingham palace. we will show you more of that as we go along. to 20.to take you back senator lindsey graham was asked during a forum at the atlantic what would happen if a supreme court nominee came up in 2020. that committee would be the driving force as far as that nomination process is concerned. here is senator lindsey graham on what he thinks. [video clip] ofi am conservative, proud it.

i want conservative judges on the pick -- on the court when it is their term, i will honor their pick. you want to do 30 seconds on merrick garland? injudge antonin scalia dies 2016, the primary process is ongoing if you look back at 100 years, nobody has been replaced under that circumstance. if you listen to what joe biden said in bush 41, you should hold over to the next election. joe is right a lot. i felt like i was doing the traditional thing when it came to -- this may make you feel better, but i really don't care. if an opening comes in the last year of president trump's term and the primary process has started, we will wait until the next election.

i have a pretty good chance. >> you are on the record. >> >> yeah. >>all right. >> hold the tape. host: that took place in 2018. if you want to see that again, i invite you to go to our website. maryland,rom democrats line. you are next up, hello. waitingi guess they are on the next guy to kick the can. when the ball is in your court, you handle it. no problem with that. . when it comes to the president of the united states again addressing the guard at buckingham palace, he has been going ro by ro talking to folks as he goes on. this is part of a three day state visit along with prince charles. we will show you that and show a

little bit of that. ♪ host: jeffrey toobin writes for the new yorker also a cnn legal analyst talking about recent comments from the senate majority leader adding his thoughts in a piece you can find online saying there is another less obvious reason mcconnell can gain the supreme court nomination process with impunity. the republican party has been more invested in the future of the supreme court andy judiciary generally than the democratic party. a pointman's to the supreme court are a special -- are a pillar of the republican agenda. voters will forgive other

transgressions if they deliver on the court. the list was largely compiled by leonard leo, executive vice president of the federalist society. if you want to read more of his thoughts, it is available online . patrick is next in annapolis, maryland, independent line. caller: hello. good morning. thank you. democrats, republicans have a different way of seeing things. if they are in the majority, they get to rule, but what mcdonald did was wrong. what he did was wrong. there was plenty of time left and obama should have gotten his pick. host: what did you think about the change in attitude to what happened in 2016 to what he said last week? caller: what he did was wrong.

obama judgeve let goforth. host: that is patrick in maryland giving us a call. you have about 15 minutes to address thoughts to the conversation. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. and independents, 202-748-8002. in case you missed it at the top of the show, here is senator mcconnell from last week at that event in kentucky at the chamber of commerce when asked what would happen if a death took place on the court and they had to consider a supreme court nominee. [video clip] >> i would do it. [laughter] the reason i started with a joke. as important as all these other things we are talking about. if you want to have a long lasting, positive impact on the country. everything else changes. i remember during the tax bill, there was people agonizing over

whether one part of the tax bill was permanent or not. i said, the only way the tax permanent depends on the next election because people have different views about taxes and approach it differently when .hey get in power lifetime appointment to a young man or women that believe in the quaint -- host: charlie from trenton, florida. it democrats line. caller: good morning. i wanted to clarify. mcconnell got away with calling this biden's rule and somebody think it is biden's law. biden -- it was like an opinion, something he wrote and said on the floor. any kind of rule would have to be voted on in the senate and that can only be done at the beginning of a senate term.

the whole topic has been distorted and i wish mcconnell would explain to everybody why --did not allow the fbi obama administration to come out and say there was interference done in the last election by the russians. host:'s back to the senator's comments from last week in light of what you said. what do you think about the change in tone? caller: it is typical mcconnell. i cannot really say what i think he is on the air because he is just a hypocrite. i cannot wait until he gets out of there. host: some other callers said republicans have the power and they can decide to do this if they wish. what do you think about that argument? caller: whatever harry reid did before was minuscule compared to how mcconnell has blown up the rules in the senate and by blowing up the rules in the senate, they have burned the bridges to where there is going

to be no working together. isking across the aisle impossible because the lines have been drawn and he is blowing everything up. he burned his bridge because as soon public and czar out, they are out for a long, long time. host: mike, go ahead. caller: good morning. i believe the supreme court is not a prize to be claimed by one party or the other. it is to be respected by all parties at all times. the only time there should be any delay in the selection of a new justice would be if a justice dies shortly after the election takes place and the new president should be inaugurated. otherwise, we need supreme court justices on that court. at least 99.9% of the time because it is, indeed, not a

prize to be won, but an institution that deserves our respect by all parties. we need justices on the court 99.9% of the time. democratscall standing up and applauding that process. some thought it was okay, some thought it was not. according to mitch mcconnell, he would act as if every democrat stood up and applauded biden's comment. host: that is mike in ohio calling. a few comments from social media sites. this off our twitter feed. a viewer says there is no "biden's rule." no more bringing a conscience to a knife fight. patrick gilmore off facebook

saying -- bill king saying it is time for a compromise. mitch mcconnell allowed a vote on a scotus nominee on the condition that the nominee is barack obama. you can make comments and usually people post well after the segment is over, but you can do so at @cspanwj and our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. a couple bits of international news, this one is specifically featuring mike pompeo and recent statements on discussions with iran. he is quoted saying we are prepared to engage in a conversation with iran with no preconditions. we are ready to sit down, but the american effort to fundamentally reverse the activity of the islamic republic is going to continue. that is in the new york times. he turns to comments made on tape and reported on in the post and --he mideast piece

peace plan. it could be rejected and folks may say it is not original. it has two good things and 9 bad things. the big question is can we get enough space so we can have a real conversation about how to build this out. i get why people think this will be a deal only israelis will love. i hope everyone will give the space to listen and let it settle a little bit. ,hen it comes to trade issues the front page of the wall street journal turning to efforts from china and mexico when it comes to trade saying ont was beijing released sunday a government policy paper on trade issues and it said the america first program and the use of tariffs are harming the global economy and china would not shy away from a trade war if need be. the government suggested a willingness to return to negotiations. "we are willing to adopt a cooperative approach to find a

solution pure cover more of that subject and that topic available on the front page of the wall street journal. west virginia, republican line, janet on the recent comments by the senate majority leader on supreme court nominees. go ahead. caller: hello? host: hi, you are on. caller: okay. what difference does it make they are saying mcconnell is for the republicans. what about democrats are for the democrats? i think they republicans need to have their say. when obama was in, he had his say. this is ridiculous the way these democrats are acting. they act like children. host: part of the argument is president obama wanted his say when it came to merrick garland, but that never happened. caller: he did enough damage while he was in there, that is what happened to this country. i just hope and pray trump gets

in. he is trying to do, but people takingover the border is all the time taking care of them and they send those children. host: a little too far from what we are discussing today. thanks for calling. bronx, new york, joe. democrats line. caller: this is joe from the bronx, new york. listen, pedro. i heard what mcconnell keeps on saying in reference to what joe biden said. joe biden is one of the most respectable men we ever had. joe biden did not say not to give whoever the person that was nominated an interview. mcconnell never gave this man even an interview, just met with him.

in concluding what i am about to the united states and the world here's what i say, it seems to me, and i am pretty after i leave will quote what i say. it seems to me, republicans, o'connell included, had a good there washey knew something that was going on with russia in reference to trump because republicans new -- america knew that, too. there is no way a republican in get --untry would host: let's go to oak ridge, tennessee, democrats line. caller: i wonder what is going on here. i fear what the republican party

is doing is repeating what we were doing before that because the russian revolution, the grab of power by the orthodox russian church. host: let me take you back to senator mcconnell's comments on supreme court nominations. what do you think of what he said? caller: he reminds me of what rasputin and -- were doing to the russian empire, pushing them over the edge. the people got so angry, especially the poor people who were disenfranchised. angry and itso gave green light to the revolution. host: how does not apply to the specific comments from the senator? caller: i think the republican party is trying to get all the christians to vote for them and once people vote with god, they have lost their sense of balance of power that we have written into the -- into our

constitution and i think it is really ironic that it is the republicans that seem to want to be kingmakers. calling in.s yana we showed you a bit of the tape from senator mcconnell's kentucky visit when he talked about his effort on supreme court nominees in 2020. we showed you tape from what he said in 2016. you can comment on that in the final couple minutes of this segment. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. and independents, 202-748-8002. gary is on our independent line in new jersey. hi. gary from east brunswick, hello? caller: hello. thanks for taking my call. i really appreciate it. the reason i am calling is really simple. mcconnell has been in power a long time and what a lot of people may never understand is

we are his -- where his political base comes from. he married into a very wealthy family and it was his in-laws who got him into this position. it is sad when you see him speak, he never smiles or shows emotion. host: to the point of mcconnell 's statements on supreme court nominees. specifically, what did you think of that? caller: they did not do it when the democratic appointee is up, so i think it is absolutely wrong. host: why is that? caller: it is wrong because he is playing politics. host: john in oklahoma, city, democrats line. caller: yeah. i think mcconnell did that because he did not have too much respect for barack obama in the first place. host: why so? caller: i think one of the main reasons is he was thinking in

terms -- he wanted barack obama to be a one term president. he really did not have that much respect for him in the first hise, confirming one of nominees would have been --imate as far as he is can is concerned. sayinghere is a story and email arrived in washington before dawn and an official was seeking response from the state department about an ethics question. i am writing because omission china is in the midst of preparing for a visit from elaine chao. the office made a series of unorthodox requests related to her first scheduled visit to china as a trump cabinet member. among them, asking federal officials to ordinate travel arrangements for one family

member and include relatives in meetings with government officials. husband, senator mitch mcconnell, received millions of dollars of gifts from her father who ran the company until last year and mr. mcconnell's reelection campaign received more than $1 million in contributions from her extended family, including her father and her sister, now a chief executive, both subject of an ethics question. it is a long story, much too much to read now. you can find it online. beverly and alabama, republican line. caller: yes. i have a comment about what you were talking about. i think president trump is doing a good job read as far as your question goes, i think he should be allowed to choose who he ints on the supreme court and think he is doing a good job. host: do you think president

obama should have had that privilege when he was president and nominated merrick garland? caller: i don't think so because i think there was rules about if they have a lame-duck president, that they do not get to choose. if i remember right, maybe i am .rong i would like to see more supreme thet judges as far as republican way. that is my opinion. host: one more call. this is kathy in alabama. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. i am glad your previous caller mentioned about obama being a --e-duck because a lame-duck either he cannot run again for president or he chooses not to run for president next term.

2020 asnot the case in of this date. i can see where mitch mcconnell could do this, where he would not go along with merrick garland because after all, obama was a true lame-duck. he was in host: that is kathy in alabama, calling on our republican line. coming up, we will talk about several events i take lace in washington, activities of the house and senate, particularly as larger issues loom in the background. bob cusack joining us next for that conversation, including in part as congress considers robert mueller's comments. later, brookings institution senior fellow and former state department official amanda sloat talks about the president's trip to the united kingdom. ♪

>> tonight at 8:00 eastern, on of themmunicators," host unit history podcast, brian mccullough, talks about his book. >> it is the story of products and companies we would be familiar with. aol, napster, facebook, the iphone -- all of the things that have come together over the last 25 years to have made the modern reality where the net and technology has infiltrated basically every creditors -- crevice of modern life. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2,. three giantwas

networks and a government supported service called pbs. then, in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea pete let viewers decide come all on their own, what was important to them. c-span open the doors to washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, villere street has clearly changed to is no monolithic media. broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. youtube stars are a thing. is morean's big idea relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. its nonpartisan coverage of washington is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider, on television and online. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. so you can make up your own mind. ♪ the house will be in order.

has been years, c-span providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country, so you can make up your own mind. treated by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span -- your unfiltered view of government. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we welcome back to the program the editor in chief of "the hill," bob cusack, here to talk about the week ahead in washington. thanks for joining us. congress was on a break. they are back now. tell us what both sides have to consider. guest: the house will consider disaster aid really. a $19 billion measure up your that was blocked by three separate republicans last week because this was a bill passed out of the senate, and it supported -- it was supported by

the white house and publican leaders on the house i, but three conservatives, including senator massey, blocked it, saying if we are going to pass a $19 billion bill, we will debate it. it was frustrating for supporters of the bill, because they wanted to get it done. states have been waiting, whether it is fire or tornadoes, four months. they finally have a deal. it will finally pass today. on the senate side, they will vote on a budget plan by rand paul. this has been voted on before. it will not pass. the rest of the week looks like it will be nominations, including the social security administration chief and other nominations. there have been democrats and republicans frustrated that the senate is not doing more legislating, but mitch mcconnell is moving a lot of nominations. host: when it comes to the house side, aside from the disaster aid will -- bill, will there be other, bigger issues like impeachment? guest: there is a big vote on a

dreamers bill. i believe it is hr-6. hashis is a bill that attracted some bipartisan support in the past. it will pass because democrats now have control of the house. they may get a smattering of republican support. there are no republican cosponsors of the bill. but we know this will not pass the senate, unless there is some type of big deal, like a wall for dreamers, which has been discussed but rejected by the white house. we will not see this bill go through. but it will pass the house, and it will be something that democrats want to talk about. certainly, modern -- moderate democrats, who feel like the investigations are shadowing their agenda, and certainly the investigations, very important investigations, are getting most of the headlines. host: we know congress typically goes on break in august. aside from what you listed now, what are other big things that

need to be considered and passed by congress before that? guest: there has been talk about a $2 trillion transportation bill. that, in all likelihood, will not happen. priority is getting congress to approve the new nafta, the usmca. however, that looks shaky. there have been some negotiations going on between the white house and speaker pelosi, because that is where the action has to start, the house. if it passes the house, it will probably pass the senate. i talked to some members who safely want to get this deal done, first, democrats say we need to change some labor and environmental provisions on it. the administration has been semi-open on that, but has to pass by the august recess. if it does not, it probably will not pass because of 2020 politics. the other thing that has to pass as a budget deal. otherwise, we are looking at

another shut down september 30 or october 1. to raise social spending. a lot of republicans want to raise military spending. but you could blow a huge hole in the deficit. conservatives are concerned about the potential of adding hundreds of billions and, if you count it a certain way, trillions of dollars to the deficit, if you get rid of sequestration. but the leaders know they have the debt ceiling care that could get wrapped up. that has to be lifted. they have been talking for a while. that is the big one. everything else is kind of it might pass, but it probably will not without the budget passing, you're looking at another shut down. host: bob cusack to talk about what happens this week in washington. he is the editor of "the hill." republican, (202) 748-8001. democrat, (202) 748-8000.

independents, (202) 748-8002. when it comes to the new nafta, how complicated is that when it comes to the tariffs? guest: it complicated, no doubt. the president has obviously been frustrated with what is going on at the border, frustrated he has not been able to get full funding for his wall, so now he has but these tariffs, which may or may not go into effect, but that is a threat, and mexican diplomats are talking to the administration next week. they want to get a deal done. but we have been trying to get a deal with china for months on end, well over a year. it has not been done. the fact that the tariffs have ratifyated the deal to the new nafta. website,you go to the they have a store talking about the house judiciary committee, chaired by jerry nadler, pivotal week when it comes to president,

it says. what does have to be considered? guest: that press conference last week was not really a press conference. it was a statement that robert mueller gave. bill barr was in alaska at the time. congress was out. i think mueller picked that time when congress was out. now the ramification is will the house judiciary committee subpoena robert mueller? they are still talking. there is a good chance that he will testify. but as the chairman has said, he wants to testify privately and possibly with a transcript release. robert mueller in his press conference basically said i do not wanted testify, but his aides and the people around him have left room for negotiation. i think it will happen, one way or the other. but it is unclear how it will happen. i think this is where nancy pelosi and sherman naylor -- decide, nadler have to

if push comes to shove, will be subpoena him? as he said last week, he will not go the on the report. host: he was rather emphatic about that point. guest: very emphatic. a big,ople say this is public report. there are a lot of unanswered questions about bill barr's handling of it, communication between mueller and barr, and he should testify, just like mueller subpoenas people and testifies -- questions people, mueller should be subpoenaed. he knows he can be subpoenaed. i do not think he wants to be subpoenaed. but they have been trying to negotiate a deal for him to testify. it is remarkable he has not testified yet. very nadler that he -- jerry nadler said he threw out a date of may 15. the committee has to decide what will we do now? democrats have to make a decision on impeachment at some point, whether to start an inquiry or not.

host: tell people what this list is. guest: these are the members who say we should start a formal impeachment inquiry. remember, we do not go straight to impeachment. there wasclinton -- an impeachment process in the 1990's. 30 some odd democrats voted to look into impeachment. only a handful voted for impeachment. this one will be more partisan, other than justin amash, all democrats. nancy pelosi has been pushing back, saying that would play into what trump wants, we should not impeach him, we should discontinue our in -- we should just continue our investigations. but it is a good point -- would an impeachment inquiry actually passed the house? we have 50. you need 218.

you will not get much help from the republican side. probably just one vote. you will have most of your caucus on. and the moderates in trump districts do not want to vote on an impeachment inquiry. nancy pelosi has three choices -- you and impeachment inquiry, not do anything and say we will do oversight, or censure. that is something they pushed for with bill clinton. that could be a viable option. but as we were talking before, robert mueller is the first step. they have to get testimony from him first before they make any final determination. they cannot put the cart before the horse. host: we have some calls lined up. first, jeff in nebraska, republican line. caller: i am not sure why the republicans are not putting pressure on nancy pelosi, usmca, 60% of the

farmers are in that deal with canada, the dairy farmers in wisconsin, michigan, ohio, and a lot of the other farmers are in that deal. i am not sure why they are not putting pressure on her to get that done, because the smaller portion of the farmers are in the china deal. so why are they not putting pressure on her to get this done? guest: it is a good question. trade has changed in both parties. we saw that in the 2016 election, whether it be bernie sanders or donald trump. on trade deals, you can count on more republicans voting for it then democrats fear they happen putting a lot of russia because republicans are divided. you cannot want --

count on more republicans voting for then democrats. not beenen -- have putting a lot of pressure because her publicans are divided. this is the only thing major that is elective that could pass before the august recess that is the, sweeping legislation. the china deal does not need to be ratified. the new nafta does have to be, by congress. host: carl next from west virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. now that joe biden is running for president, i was wondering if the media will dig into the dealings of some -- some of the dealings of his son, hunter. the story i heard, joe biden took him to china on air force two, and he came back with a

pledge for $1 billion into the company he was associated with. and also the deal in ukraine, his son was on the board or something of an energy company over there, and the prosecutor was digging into it. and there are recordings of him -- i've seen on tv -- that he went over to ukraine and said if you do not fire this prosecutor digging into my son's business, you will not get any money for your defense. host: thanks. guest: we have written about that on thehill.com. it is an issue with biden's son aving ties and being part of ukrainian company while biden was vice president. the vice president's people said when he said he will not get this loan, he was doing official obama administration business. however, that was also the

position of the entire obama administration. the question is was he doing any favors for his son? the former vice president has that he was not, but that will be something, because government ethics watchdogs have said there was an appearance that if your son is doing business here, and you are doing business in the country, it can look bad, and that is why it attract headlines. we will hear a lot about that story. host: beginning of headlines, another piece from "the hill" about joe biden. and those democrats in congress lining up, or maybe not, to give support to him. guest: it is interesting. president obama is not going to endorse if he was never going to endorse in this race. joe biden ethnically made that story go away by saying i asked him not to endorse. i am sure joe biden would love to get the endorsement of president obama, but obama will let this play out. now the question is senators. do senators who served with joe biden back him?

this is not like hillary clinton in 2016, where 95% of democrats in congress were supporting her and if you were supporting o'malley and certainly bernie sanders got some support. now the question is now that he is a front runner, do you get on his train or do you hold off? most democrats are holding off on their endorsements. i think they want to see how the debates go. it is very early in the process. donald trump did not get into the race until june of 2015. now that is four years later. he was just getting into the race. so these debates are starting earlier than ever. i think a lot of democrats feel like let's see how the process plays. if you get on joe biden's endorsement train and he ends up winning, he will remember that. republicans in congress are excited to line up after or are starting to after

-- guest: it will be different compared to other presidents seeking a second term. on thetrump has a grip republican party. there will be pressure for democrats, for republicans -- susan collins, will she support president trump? some of the more moderates, it will be difficult. the good news for president trump is the economy is doing well, but a lot of the challengers who would take him on in a primary are not challenging him. john kasich basically saying no. larry hogan, governor of maryland, over the weekend saying no. william weld is running against him, however he is such a big underdog that i think you look republicans,f 10 roughly, support the president. that primary could actually help the president. host: from bayside, new york,

frank. you are on with our guest, bob cusack. caller: my question and, is first of all why? why start the impeachment when you know it is going to go dead in the senate? there is no chance. and why should you put the country through this whole process when you know it is not going to go nowhere? it is all politics. it is not right and wrong. it is not whether he did it or did not do it. it is all politics. there is no room for truth anymore in politics. guest: that is what speaker pelosi is thinking. she saw that when bill clinton was helped by impeachment in the 1990's. some democrats say we should not think about politics. history will judge us. according to them, this president should be impeached.

we talked to republicans in the senate -- they said they will bury it right away, if it comes to them. the caller is right. there is no way the republican senate will vote to convict president trump. be senatedlines would acquits trump, just like it was senate acquits clinton. that ended up helping him. i think that is -- if you do a censure, the sensor does not go to the senate. host: remind people what that is. guest: it depends how you draft it, but you can draft a censure resolution saying something like the house is admonishing the z,esident for doing x, y, and as outlined in the mueller report, then vote on that. republicans in the clinton era said that is unconstitutional. said it is not in the constitution so it is not unconstitutional. certainly the left ones impeachment and with think that

is too weak a measure. but with a vote against censure, probably not. but that is a political khaki elation that, if democrats do an impeachment inquiry -- and impeachment is very serious. there have been three presidents censured, but not in the modern era. it would be a big deal but not as big as impeachment. once you start the impeachment inquiry, which starts the formal investigation, it would be very to saylt for democratss we will not impeach him. that is why nancy pelosi does not want to start that process. host: as to the why, the onority whip talked a little where they are in impeachment. [video clip] itwe believe that, if we do efficiently and effectively, it will be one that the public will understand and support. if the public ever feels that we are being political with this, we will have done a tremendous harm to the country, to the

constitution, and to the people that we are sworn to serve. >> but it sounds like you think the president will be impeached, or at least proceedings will begin in the house at some point, just not right now? >> yes, that is exactly what i feel. i that we have already done it. we have all of these committees doing their work. we are having hearings. have already won two court cases. and there are other cases still to be determined. so why should we get out in front of this process? why not we just continue to go along? right now, we are winning this issue, why should we go out and make the steps and -- make missteps and cause us to lose a court decision that will make people saying why didn't you take your time? host: he talked about the public sentiment. that has to be with them if they're going down this road. guest: correct.

it is not with them now. that is why congressman clyburn was saying he does expect impeachment inquiries to start point but also says we have already started by doing investigations. speaker pelosi would not phrase it like congressman clyburn date, but i do think that nancyent is something pelosi watches. she is hearing from her moderate members. they want to talk about problem solving. i have talked to a lot of members in the swing districts on both sides of the aisle saying when i go home, i do not hear about robert mueller or russia, i hear about health care, jobs, real issues, agenda issues. they do not want to vote on something that would impeach or admonish the president. so she is -- those are the majority makers. she is trying to protect them. but there is timing -- as we get

closer to the election, they will say let's just have the election. but we are a long way from the election. i think democrats in congress, at some point, or going to have to move on from a whether it is deciding whether to censure or impeachment. want to talk about the agenda. that is how they won the house. they won 40 seats. that was a big election win. in thecans did well senate, expanding their majority but a couple, but democrats and nancy pelosi know that history is not on their side if they move forward with impeachments. it is incredibly risky. and mr. clyburn also use the word "missteps" as far as how they proceed several times. guest: republicans made a lot of missteps in the 1990's. it basically led to the demise of speaker gingrich back then.

in retrospect, looking at the articles back then, republicans said, after they lost the election, five seats they expected to win during the midterm elections, democrats ended up picking up five seats, they said maybe we should have talked more about the agenda. nancy pelosi was in the house at that time. that is what she was saying, let's talk about the agenda. but the pressure on the left and the pressure from the 2020 presidential candidates, many of whom say it is time to start impeachment, that is a real thing, and it is what nancy pelosi is dealing with every day. host: this is bob cusack of "the hill." tell people what it is about. guest: we are a nonpartisan political website. we started in 1994. i've been with "the hill" since 2003, covering health care. became managing editor a year later. editor in chief now. we are the referee.

much like c-span, we do not take sides. we do not do editorials pay we just want to say who is up and who was down. we do not care who is up and who is down. we do a lot of state allah ticks as well. because state and federal politics are kind of and mashed. whether it is the state level or the federal level, it is all intertwined. of ther a lot presidential candidates. my colleague was covering the 2020 democrats when they were having their conference in california. host: in maryland, immigrants line, rivah. caller: hi, how are -- host: in maryland, democrats line, rivah. caller: hi, how are you? will you also cover conflict of interest with jared kushner and ivanka and voting machines

involved with ivanka overseas, all of that? guest: i am not sure about the issue with the voting machines, but certainly conflict of interest and those type of things, father time. we have written about that. and certainly with candidates ere are for congress, th potential conflict of interest. you mentioned the biting controversy is certainly getting more headlines. i am interested to see will any of the democrats raise that in the debates with biden? i thin kit's 50-50. at the same time, i think they will go after him more on policy stuff. his vote for the iraq war, his long record on trade, which bernie sanders, who has kind of stalled -- he is certainly a front runner, but joe biden has

done better than i expected. i thought it would be a little more tight right now, and right now, he is kind of pulling away. but again, we have not started the debates. joe biden will be taking arrows in the back at the end of this month and later in the fall. host: i know it is early, but even after this first round of debates, do you ask spec a winnowing of the field of 24? guest: you may see a couple drop off, just because the iowa caucus is not until february. you have to have money to have a staff until then. with the exception of bill clinton in 1982, if you do not win iowa or new hampshire, you do not win the nomination. that is what history says. but i do think it will be very difficult. if you do not have a stand out, viral moment, and you are able to raise money off of that, i think you may see, this summer, a couple of them go by the wayside. i think most will try to at

least get to iowa and see how they do. then you will see a big winnowing of the field. host: republican line, michael in san diego. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to make a couple and that a challenge, if i may. everybody knows the senate will never convict him, but congress still has to do their job. if what he does does not deserve impeachment, what does? i do not see how anybody with any common sense could realize he would be vindicated, because they know the senate would convict him. now for the challenge. i challenge him to an iq test. i am retired commercial truck driver. he is a stable genius. call.nny, give me a let's set up the test. thank you very much. guest: this is a historical

decision of whether house democrats decide to impeach. it is a serious process. it will have major ramifications. i've talked to some republicans who say, and all likelihood -- again, sometimes conventional wisdom is wrong -- in 2020, the white house as a jump ball. republicans are favored to retain the senate. even though the math is not as friendly as last time, they do have a slight advantage. but the house is heavily favored to remain democrat. however, republicans we have talked to said if they do impeachment, that is so risky that that could really change the dynamics tremendously. then they say we got a shot to after one term. nancy pelosi, who has said she will stay until the end of this term as a speaker, maybe go another two years -- i would expect another two years if they hold the majority -- she wants

to go out on top. host: listen to the tone of senator kennedy from louisiana about impeachment yesterday. we will show it to you in a -- now. [video clip] mythe next step -- democratic friends have got to make a decision on impeachment. i think impeachment will be a sisyphean task. it will be tough going in the senate. impeachment poles write up there with skim milk among the american people. my advice to my democratic friends is, if you want to do it, go hard or go home. you know, if you want to do it, go to amazon, online, buy spine, and do it. but go hard or go home. if you are not going to do it, let us get back to work. host: almost taunting them to do it. guest: yes. but senator kennedy, certainly

one of the better quotes in hallways and on television, he has a point. they have to make a decision at some point. i would have thought that robert mueller would have already testified, and you would have had to make decision after that. that has not happened yet. that has to come first. but before the august recess -- and some democrats are on record saying this -- the decision has to be made. house democrats are going to have to get behind closed doors and decide, ok, what are we going to do? nancy pelosi could say if you have the votes, maybe we can do it. but you do not have the votes. i imagine some democrats will say let's have the boat anyway, and if it fails, it fails. i do not think speaker pelosi will go for that. as kind of a family -- and these groups are families, whether they are republican or democrat decide they will have to

what to do. republicans tend to have a simple answer. to say, listen, no collusion. no obstruction of justice is more controversial, because robert mueller did not exonerate the president. but he concluded no collusion. so as i've been saying, it is time to move on -- as they have been saying, it is time to move on. host: from kentucky, bob. caller: thank you for taking my call. every other word comes out of there mouth, especially from the democrats side, is impeachment. the i do not understand is democrats. i used to be a hardshell democrat at one time. but you would think some of them democrats would have some red, white, and blue blood running through their veins. i consider trump a patriot. why they have not tried them t

traitors, democrats with their sanctuary cities knowing well that they are breaking the law, if that is not treason, i do not know what treason is. i hope some of those democrats will get some backbone. thank you. guest: this is the divide in the democratic party. i am interested to see how joe biden deals with it, how he deals with free college tuition, how he deals with medicare for all, which was not the position of the obama administration, and other wishlists on the left. certainly socialism is something more democrats are talking about. bernie sanders calls himself a democratic-socialist. republicans one to seize on that. republicans are basically rooting for elizabeth warren or bernie sanders to win. then they would go full on with the socialism argument. we have seen some more moderate over theial candidates

weekend saying basically socialism is not the way to go and getting booed by liberal activist -- how does joe biden deal with that when a lot of the left does not like his policies? they say they are too small of an idea. that is where elizabeth warren and bernie sanders are starting to go after the former vice president, saying we need big, incrementalnot steps. that will be the divide in the democratic party going into 2020. host: other progressives getting any type of voice in the democratic leadership in the house? guest: the leaders in the house -- they know the majority was made by moderates, by defeating republicans who held clinton district's. they wiped basically 90% of them out. also going into trumped territory and having moderates win in those districts.

they are trying to protect those majority makers more than ocasio-cortez. speaker pelosi basically said a cup of water could win her district if a cup of water was a democrat. she is more interested in protecting the middle. at the same time, she also has, speaker pelosi, the credentials of being a progressive. gets pushed on climate change, she can say i've been working on that for decades. she is literally said i want to save the planet. but you have to do would a certain way. this year has been one of the biggest tests of speaker pelosi's career. we will see how she handles this rock is caucus of hers, couscially best -- this rau caucus of hers, especially the democrats. host: mark in chicago, go ahead.

caller: this is john. i do not know who mark is. host: well, you are on. go ahead. caller: i want to say anyone still for trump at this stage of the game is either a moron or is just as dirty as he is. he is a rich, spoiled bully who has not accomplished anything in his entire life except losing millions and billions of dollars. said toe what putin him, that we do not know exactly what he said, he said you destroyed america, i will give it to you. that is why he is giving these tariffs that we will have to pay for. it will give our economy too place what we will not -- such a place that we will not be able to survive it. host: what is the campaign banking on as far as a second term? guest: the economy.

without a doubt, that is their strongest card. that is something republicans in congress want the president to talk about a lot. talk about the economy. not so much immigration. but the president likes talking about immigration, thinking one of the big reasons he won was immigration. but they are confident about -- every 40 years, the question for presidential candidates -- every four years, the question for presidential candidates seeking a second term is are you sean where than you were four years ago? and we asked democratic candidates, should trump get any credit for the economy? by and large, they were saying this is president obama's economy. politically, i think that is a tough sell. that is where the economy has to be front and center for the president's reelection. if the economy takes a downturn because of these tariffs or trade deals going by the

wayside, he will certainly become the underdog. but with the economy there -- and of course, it depends on who his opponent is. president trump is a very good campaigner. that is part of the reason why he won in 2016 and got over 300 electoral votes. midterms -- in the usually midterms, that is not that much public interest. there was a lot in 2018 p that is because a president trump. the interest in running 20 will be off the charts. host: from our independent line, ames, iowa is next. heather, hello. caller: hello? host: you are on. i would like to say the economy has nothing to do with the president. i am pretty sure both parties know that. host: why do you make that conclusion? because taking the

benefits of people and the large payout, it will not last in a --iety host: i guess the public perception of the economy will have a lot to do -- democrats, and some said that president obama needed to talk up more about the benefits of the economy. joe biden said that democrats should talk more about how the economy was doing well. but president trump is very good at talking up the economy. there is a decent point to be made, that presidents do not have that much of a role in the economy. a there are a lot of people who say that is wrong part -- that is wrong, but it is like the quarterback on the football team. if you win, you take the credit,

if you lose, you take the blame. that is what happens with presidents and the economy. host: bob cusack, the president now in britain to meet with the queen and other people. as far as the trip itself, what is the goal of the administration? guest: looking at the schedule, there is a lot of pageantry. a state dinner, a lot of photo ops. i do not think it is a lot of business here. it is trying to relationship build here there has certainly been tension between the white house and europe. and certainly with brexit being number one. i think this is more of a relationship builder, where the president is going there -- they will obviously be protests. it is not an especially long trip. but it is not really hashing out policies. it is more relationship building, a relationship that is a bit frayed. host: from mike in new jersey, democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

my question is -- it came to me listening to the people calling. is it possible that the speaker of the house may be putting off the whole impeachment idea until it is closer to the election? making the president maybe twist in the wind a little bit, allow the courts to go through and see how far they get with that and then, near the election, allow it, where it will be in the headlines, and anything that the democrats have in the impeachment proceedings would be brought out during the election cycle? guest: that is an interesting point. i do think that speaker pelosi, wants to move on from impeachment. not necessarily investigations. as far as investigations and oversight of the white house. i think that will continue. congress has that responsibility, to do oversight paid but i do not think they want to be talking about impeachment or investigations. certainly the moderate members

who are in tough reelections, they do not want to be talking about impeachment. they do not want to vote with impeachment. the one to deal with trade, perhaps, immigration deals, if you can get 1 -- those kind of issues people are talking about back home. it is striking how many democrats say that their constituents are not talking about this. there is some fatigue. polling shows there is fatigue with the mueller probe. we all expected to have a clean verdict, is he guilty or not guilty? we really did not get that clean verdict. we got somewhere in between. certainly more favorable to the republicans and the white house. but one fact democrats are still thinking about impeachment -- 49 ,emocrats, plus one republican are saying let's open impeachment proceedings. host: there are still a report from the justice department, taking outlook -- taking a look

at issues before the election. when do we expect to see that report? guest: michael horowitz is the one who came forward with the james comey investigation, finding fault with how he handled the 2016 investigation. we have been hearing that any day now. i think it will come out this month. but certainly there is no deadline. respected. very it is difficult to criticize him, because he has the obamaing administration, investigating republican administrations -- he has dissed it out on both sides. both -- dished it out on sides. host: from illinois, republican line. caller: i am reading an article about how many people wells fargo rip off -- ripped off.

i am surprised they put this in the letter to the editor. wells fargo is still a nightmare to the people that they ripped off. elizabeth warren wrote a bill called the consumers protection act. i may be a little off on that, but that is what opened wells fargo up. warren buffett had $10 million into wells fargo. he had his own audit people in there. the federal reserve was in charge of the audit of wells fargo. and they missed it. the only people that, it was the consumers protection act, written by elizabeth warren. even talk wants to about that. it is not over. host: rfp route -- all right. we will leave it at that. elizabeth warren is

certainly talking about financial institutions like wells fargo. democrats are talking about whether to break up big banks, break up amazon, facebook. wells fargo has certainly had a number of controversies and has been hauled up to capitol hill, as others have been. but wells fargo has gotten a lot of negative press. that is why democrats, like elizabeth warren -- who i think is good at seizing on news. she makes we on a regular basis, whether it is a new bill -- i believe she is the first at the presidential candidates to call for trump's impeachment. she seizes on what is news of the day and as her own wrinkle to it. certainly, she has a lot. she says i have a plan for that -- that is her motto. i think every democrat needs -- just like donald trump had a slogan -- anyone running for president to have a slogan. host: of all of the issues we have talked about, what else should people watch for? guest: it is remarkable that we

are in june of 2019, and we have roughly 15 months to 18 months until november 2020, and both the house and senate are really in the mode of 2020. in june of 2020, i would expect that. that is why i think the next couple months are important for anything to get done, whether it is on trade, on immigration, even if it is a small bill on transportation. the house is expected to move forward with a transportation plan, but that is something i do not expect a be picked up by the senate. minimum wage is something house democrats have struggled to pass. but that will also not pass the senate. all the big agenda items are kind of waiting until after the 2020 election. you have not seen house democrats move forward with trying to repeal resident -- trump's tax cut bill. they are kind of waiting for the

nominee to see what their plan will be. if you see any legislating, it will be now between -- between now and the end of july. host: editor in chief of "the " bob cusack. coming up, dr. amanda sloat from the brookings institution joins us, former state department official, comes up with a conversation on president trump's state visit. ♪ >> the c-span bus recently traveled to indiana and ohio, asking folks what does it mean to be american? posed to me is what does it mean to be american? what it means to be an american is understand all of your freedoms, understand all of the tenants of the constitution, which is what we try to to all of our students, to know your

rights, which you will find in the first part, also understand individual liberties in the bill of rights. it is also important to understand you have a role to play, to be an active participant. that is based on participant by voting and even getting involved with causes and issues and groups and interest groups. >> what does it mean to be an american? by civil liberties granted the constitution makes us an american. it is not about race or sexuality or who you are, it is the fact that you are here and the fact that you can have that life with liberty. fundamental to us. >> i think the question of what

does it mean to be an american, i think it means you are free. you are free to pursue your dreams, your passion, and also free to speak your own mind and free to live your life. but i also think it means responsibility, meaning you are responsible to contribute to our society, the progressive, passionate, creative. with that also comes responsibility, to contribute to america. >> voices from the road, on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. the president in london for a state as it with the queen and other members. here to talk about the trip and its ramifications is william schaumburg, the chief u.k. correspondent for reuters. good morning. >> -- guest: good morning. host: can you remind our viewers

about this being identified as a state visit. what does that entail and what does it mean? guest: a state visit is pronounced the highest form of recognition that a country can grant. it aims at fostering good relations, which will be in the long-term interest of the united kingdom. been quietlys have stressing that nation to nation aspect of it because of so much controversy around the individual of president trump. host: what other items are on the agenda? guest: president trump has already visited the queen at buckingham palace. he was treated to a military brass band on the lawn of buckingham palace and our ago, having lunch with the queen. you will attend a state dinner tonight, visiting westminster abbey before that, and he will

do several other things the next couple of days while in the u.k. there will also be a celebration to celebrate the landing of -- to celebrate the d-day landings. host: the president made immense about london's mayor and other statement as well. how does this affect the tone of the trip? guest: many of the people upset about the most recent comments -- of the visit of president trump in the first place. by think just the very blunt and madet comments that trump just before his plane landed in the u.k. was still surprising for many, calling the london mayor a loser, a stone cold loser. it is a kind of language that, perhaps, the world has grown accustomed to hearing from the president, but it still may shock some people, hearing it

about someone they know well in the u.k. host: according to one tweet, calling the london mayor foolishly nasty, saying he has done a terrible job. have we heard anything from sadiq khan? khan's office has pushed back sharply. basically the message is it is a shame that the united states whold have a president resorts to this kind of language. host: when it comes to the people themselves, what is the mood? what kind of protest are we expecting in light of this visit? guest: the mood in the u.k. about president trump is divided. fear themany people united states, under president trump, is taking an unpredictable and nationalist approach to policy, which is

very different to what the u.k. has been used to. other people say, with brexit coming up, we have to look beyond the personality of the current president and make sure that our long-term interests in the united states remain positive. so that is even more necessary now that we are leaving the european union. the united states is a major partner for the u.k. in trade and investments. that reliance will only grow as we leave the e.u., according to people who support brexit. there will be some kind of new barriers and obstacles to trade, especially trade with the e.u., going forward. feel it is an opportunity to do more business with the united states. whether it really makes a big difference or not remains to be seen. independent budget forecasters have said that they do not think

the opportunity available through free trade agreements, that the country will be able to strike on its own after leaving the e.u., will fully compensate for after that for trade after leaving the e.u. host: william schomberg of reuters, thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: joining us now is dr. amanda sloat with brookings institution, former deputy -- goodt secretary morning. what are the larger ramifications of this trip when it comes to the relationship between these two countries? guest: this trip will be focused on ceremony and less on substance. as you have been discussing, we have an american president very unpopular in the u.k.

and we have theresa may as prime minister, who will step down as leader of the conservative party in the next couple of days, so she is a lame-duck in terms of policy discussions. it is a state visit. a lot of pageantry comes with that. the focus will be looking at the larger fundamentals of the importance of the relationship. host: how would you gauge the nature of the relationship today? guest: you can look at relationships in terms of relations between countries and relations between leaders. between countries, the u.k. has been one of our closest allies. we continue to cooperate with them on defense. there are a number of policy differences. in terms of relations between leaders, it is difficult. we have seen president trump, on a number of occasions, undermine prime minister theresa may. he has made some humiliating comments on her. he has been interfering, somewhat, on british domestic politics. and there are differences in how we see things, like on iran and china. host: how pointed to discussions

get on these type of visits? guest: on discussions with the queen, it will just be niceties. donald trump is very enamored he will enjoy, so the ceremonial element of these discussions. the royal family tends to not get deeply involved in politics. in terms of policy discussions, we have already seen some comments made by president trump as well as by his national security advisor, john bolton, who has been in london the last couple of days. but there are differences of opinion, like iran and britain's decision to use huaw ei 5g technology. host: is there an effort to bring the united kingdom alongside the united states when it comes to this efforts? been: president trump has clear he will articulate the policy interests that he things

are in the american interests. his hope is that allies will come along. it is less of a give and take in more of an articulation of what the u.s. view is. visit thestate escutcheon up until 9:30. if you want to call in, republican, (202) 748-8001. democrat, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. what do you spec discussions as far as the nature of brexit and the current condition of it, at least from the president's side? guest: i would not expect a lot of discussion with the queen on it. but president trump has been clear on what his view of brexit is. trump has been a cheerleader of brexit. he views the e.u. as an economic foe. as he said to a british newspaper over the weekend, he

things theresa may has made mistakes and how she has negotiated. he thinks she should go for a hard brexit, she is not able to get what she wantss from the european union. he would be supportive of the u.k. leaving the e.u. without a deal. he has been interested in pursuing a free-trade agreement between the u.s. and the u.k. after their brexit. host: has a president suggested who should take over as prime minister? guest: president trump has been enamored, the last couple of years, with boris johnson, one of the contenders for prime minister. johnsonngth -- boris used to be mayor of london. for ifforeign secretary years ago -- a few years ago. there is some speculation about whether or not trump will try to meet with boris johnson. host: do they share the same

type of style philosophy? how do they relate to each other? guest: when trump was campaigning for president, boris johnson was interviewed and was not saying things particular the positive about president trump. but in the intervening period, boris johnson has been quite flattering of president trump, and president trump quite welcome his hard-line position on getting britain out of the e.u. host: again, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats.000 for (202) 748-8002 for independents. this piece saying that president that is --demagogue threatens peace and democracy. he is --

the more serious threat of the host nation isthe most serious t his presence will boost antidemocratic and right-wing list elements -- populist elements." will you speak to that? guest: there has been opposition in the u.k. from the left. we have seen jeremy corbyn refusing to attend the state dinner. we have seen a lot of concern by opposition politicians within the u.k. that the prime minister should not have extended this visit to donald trump. it has been a lot of opposition to his policies on things like climate change and iran, and dating back to his early days in office with the muslim ban. genesis oft of the his hostility to the mayor in london, who had strong comments on that.

there are many who oppose the idea of the president coming, and they will make clear their opposition to his policies. host: will those protests the sharp in nature do you think? guest: we will seek large-scale public protests. there are plans to fly the same balloon of trump in a diaper we saw last summer. it looks like they are moving him around in a helicopter, which is less disruptive to traffic. host: in the u.s., their people asking why should they care about this visit and the nature of relations, how you speak to those concerns? guest: the underlying trend is the importance of the relations between the u.s. and the u.k. it is important to take the individual personalities out of politics and focus on the countries. the u.k. is one of our oldest and strongest allies they have

thought along our side in a number of wars. the purpose is to commemorate the 75th anniversary of d-day he will participate in a number of those ceremonies in london. apart from the personalities, politics, and protests, it is an important opportunity to remember the strong ties between our countries. host: our first call comes from , republicanrlie line. caller: how are you doing? i am calling to weigh in on trump. i read the scripture. trump is chosen to save america. if you read the lines of the scriptures, he is not a pagan god. he doesn't claim to be a god. host: i will stop you there. how does this relate to the president's trip overseas? caller: he is trying to make

peace in the middle east like there has never been before. host: any response? guest: i think there are a lot of important issues the u.s. and the u.k. should be working on. president trump will be meeting with prime minister theresa may. her conservative party will remain in power. there are a number of things our countries should be cooperating on. there are a number of challenges in the middle east from the ongoing war in syria to efforts to address the israeli and palestinian peace process. i think the u.s. is more effective at addressing these challenges when we work with our european partners. the: there was a piece from london school of economics that speaks to the trip, maybe the worst strategic mistake theresa may made was to refuse trump's invitation right after his

operation to get in on an anglo-american free-trade agreement. guest: there will be continuing discussions about a free trade agreement between the two sides. as long as the u.k. is a member of the european union, it is not able to conclude free-trade agreements with other countries paid that is part of the nature of the economic commitment it signed up to. the u.k. leaves the european union, it will be interested in negotiating free-trade agreements. heart of the impetus for brexit was to get the u.k. the ability to make its own economic decisions. president trump has expressed an interest in having a free-trade agreement with the u.k. i would disagree somewhat with the analysis in that these because prime minister -- piece because prime minister theresa may has been very interested in a free trade agreement. the problem is they first need to conclude reps negotiations. they are going to face some

difficulties in terms of these negotiations with the u.s. because president trump takes a very hard line in his to asktion and is likely the u.k. to sign up to a number of compromises that are going to be difficult for them in terms andccepting gmo's adjustments to the pharmaceutical pricing at the nhs. this has been in the interest of both countries. i think it will remain complicated. host: when it comes to brexit, why did it happen? guest: we can spend an entire show talking about that. theresa may and the european union negotiated and reached an agreement on a deal. theresa may has not been able to get that deal through parliament. we have seen it come up for about three times and failed all three times. she has had to go to the european union and ask for an extension twice. the current deadline is october 31.

the next three months are being spent in this leadership contest now that theresa may has offered to resign as a result of her failure to deliver on brexit. of thatt three months extension will be spent replacing her. we are seeing a lot of the leaders seeking to replace her suggesting they are going to negotiate a better agreement. the challenge people have been objecting to has to do with the backstop in northern ireland. the u.k. is currently part of the eu trading relationship. once it leaves the eu, it can have the opportunity to put in place its own economic regulation. the problem is northern ireland, which is part of the u.k., shares a border with the republic of ireland. that is going to become the external economic trading border u.k.en the eu and the there are going to need to be checked on the goods that are

transiting that border in the way there are not currently. the issue and what people have not been able to resolve is the more you stay aligned with the eu regulations, the easier it is to have a frictionless border. you need less checks if your rules are aligned on safety standards and the products transiting the board appeared the more aligned you are -- border. the more aligned you are, the harder it is to negotiate with other countries like the u.s. that is what is preventing brexit from moving forward. host: is there a potential to let brexit happen without a deal? what are the benefits of that choice? guest: i think the preferred option for many in the u.k. and european union is to have a negotiated deal. that addresses a raft of issues.

if you think about a divorce, there is a lot to finalize in terms of who has custody of the kids, who pays the bills. having a deal is beneficial. the deal comes with a transition period during which they can define what their future relationship will look like. the second possibility is the u.k. leaves with no deal. if that happens, they crash out. there is no existing deal on how to handle things. there is no transition period. there would be scrambling to address these problems. you have a lot of bricks who are living in europe, people who are retired living on the coast of spain, students, and a lot of europeans living in the u.k. you need to find a way to deal with that. the u.k. owes money to the european union. you have a situation on the border in northern ireland. the final option is to could have no brexit. the u.k. has the legal right to go to the european union and say

we changed our mind. that is going to be quite unlikely because you did have this referendum supporting brexit, but that is the third possibility. host: this is beverly from florida, independent line. caller: it is good to speak with you. i think what people forget about president trump is he has been involved in politics since the late 1970's. i feel he has an absolute right to give his opinion to the u.k. about, i believe, it is the highlight, the 5g program for and what they take on for all of their messaging

because of the fact that we rely on their intel. they help us with terrorist activities. we help them with terrorist activities. i think that is important. i was a regional director for the committee to save american free enterprise in the late 1970's. mr. trump was very vocal about threats to our intellectual property with china and how and howt it is today important it is to use clean intel and pull china out of muddying the waters. host: thank you. guest: beverly is right to raise the issue of china and huawei. i think this is going to be on eetingenda of trump's m with prime minister theresa may. we have seen a lot of european

countries want to use huawei as part of their effort to incorporate 5g technology. this is a decision the u.s. decided not to use huawei because of the intelligence concerns beverly cited. the president and john bolton have been critical of the decision by theresa may's to buildo allow huawei some of the non-core aspects of 5g. resignation of the defense secretary. this is something that is going to be on the president's agenda for his meetings in london. host: from richard in pennsylvania, republican line, go ahead. caller: nice to have your guest on. ofppreciate the description

-- the comments as to why the british people got into brexit in the first place. would you say that the two primary drivers for the referendum had to do with the contributions that great britain and all eu nations are required to pay and also the free movement of people? is you mentionnt how the people in the u.k. on the left perceived donald trump, but you never mentioned the people on the right as well as the political parties on the right in other european countries. could you offer any comment on that? guest: thank you. i think both of those are excellent questions. on your second one, my comment on the left was specifically in response to the guardian article, which is a left-leaning

paper. particular concerns have been expressed by the opposition parties in the u.k. i think there is concern by abouton the right as well some of the presence policies. theresa may is a conservative prime minister, and she disagrees with the president on many things. a lot of the opposition to the president's visit has come from the political opposition within the u.k., but in in terms of policy differences, there are concerns that are shared on those on the right side in the u.k. as well. as far as the drivers for brexit, you are right. there have been a couple of factors that have been identified as motivating people to vote for brexit. one of those is the financial one you mentioned. it certainly came up in the campaign, this idea that the u.k. was providing large financial contributions to the

european union. there were some false claims that a lot of this money could be returned and reinvested in the national health service. one thing people do not always understand or appreciate was that the u.k. was getting a lot of money back from the european union, particularly in more rural and deprived areas of the u.k. to develop local infrastructure. there was a lot of peace funding in northern ireland. the second identifier was this free movement of people. one of the provisions of the single market is the european citizens are able to live and work in any european union member state they want. some people within the u.k. were unhappy that citizens of other eu countries were coming to live and work in their country. one that is often cited is the polish plumber. the final factor was a much broader sovereignty argument,

this idea that the u.k. did not necessarily want to be part of a collective decision-making process. they wanted the right to make some of their own economic and regulatory decisions, such as being able to negotiate free-trade agreements with the u.s. if they wanted. the difficulty of the u.k. will face is simply the geographic and practical reality that the european union is a very large entity to their east. it is their largest trading partner. whatever form of brexit they end up taking, they will have to find a way to manage their political, economic, and security relations. york,immigrant from new trudy. -- democrat from new york, trudy. caller: i would like to comment. i do support the mayor in london. i am originally from germany. in germany, how can an uneducated man coming from

building buildings become president? he doesn't have the qualification. in the german legislature, you find people with phd's. they have education. the people in this country are not so educated, isolated, vote for this man. he would never be able to go to germany for a visit. host: thank you. broaderhere is a question i guess about why the american people chose to elect donald trump. certainly she points out that donald trump's visit has inflamed political tensions in london. we are seeing comments from those in the opposition, and certainly president trump has had a difficult relationship with the london mayor. the president has been critical of his handling of terrorist

attacks that have happened in london. the london mayor has been critical of his muslim ban. we are seeing that play out on twitter now, which is unfortunate leading up to the state dinner in london. it does reflect a lot of the political opposition in the u.k. host: we saw initial public support for brexit. what happened to that support and where is it now? guest: the support was very narrow. it was a very narrow margin. i have lost the figures. i think it was around 51% to 49%. it was only about two percentage points difference. you have a very polarized country. it is similar to how polarized politics are in the u.s. there has been criticism about the way the brexit referendum campaign was won. there were promises made during

the campaign that a lot of funding was going to come back from the european union and be invested in the national health service. it was revealed that that was not the case. you are seeing increasing opposition to brexit, in part because people are seeing how complicated political divorce is and because people are getting a better sense of what the actual political cost of brexit will be. there was nearly half of the country that supports brexit and is frustrated by the fact that it is three years since the referendum, and it still has not happened. host: from alabama, republican line, bill. i would like to ask your guest since she was part of the obama administration, for the obama failures that are so vast notraq, syria, ukraine, working to stop the hacking on our elections, the catastrophic

invasion of europe from africa, where those intentional acts, or was that incompetence on part of the people in that administration? as one who served in the administration and served president obama, i think all of us made the best political decisions that we could at the time. i think the president was committed to keeping the american people safe, partnering with our friends and allies, particularly in europe, and responding to global challenges as they emerged. host: from missouri, democrats line, richard. owns propertyump in england, doesn't he? if he guest: i'm not sure owns property in england, but he owns a golf course in scotland, which he has stated in on

previous trips, and he owns a golf course in ireland. after he leaves london, he will be visiting france and participating in some of the normandy commemorations. it appears the president has chosen not to spend the night in france, but he will be spending some time at his golf course in ireland. maryland, democrats line, william. caller: good morning. thank you to c-span. thatt to make a comment even as much as i am opposed to donald trump, the british government is pretty much obligated to host the president of the united states. they are one of their closest allies. that is my comment. i think that is a fair point. there are certainly people who are making that comment in london as well. the u.k. has long been one of our closest allies.

i think it is important amid all of this politics and the political churn to remain focused on the important and strong relationship between our countries. host: this is the third state visit in modern times of a president, including george w. bush and president obama. what significance does that hold? guest: has one of your previous guests said, it is the highest honor that a country can bestow on the leader of a foreign country. it typically comes with all of the formal pomp and circumstance. the queen is the head of state. the prime minister is the head of government. it is meant to be a celebration of the relationship between the two countries. it is important to her member that things were slightly different when this visit was first extended. prime minister theresa may visit president donald trump in late january of 2017, about a week

after he was inaugurated. european allies were scrambling to understand with this new american leader was, wanting to develop a good working relationship with him. theresa may was facing brexit and wanting to project this image of a global britain, wanting to do free trade agreements with the u.s. and other partners. it was in that context she extended him the honor of a state visit. certainly, the relationship has become complicated. there have been discussion of the state visit last year. that was turned into a working visit. nearly two many people in britain signed a petition saying they did not want donald trump to come. some of the policies and rhetoric we have seen from president trump has made relationship much more probably get it. the idea of the state visit and the hope of the british government is going to be focusing on the broader importance of the relationship

rather than these political differences. host: when it comes to theresa may, what does her future hold? what happens to a prime minister when they leave office? guest: she has said she will stay on as a conservative member of parliament for now. i would expect she will not run for reelection. as will fade into the aether many prime ministers have done. we have seen former prime minister tony blair is a very passionate opponent of brexit and weighing in. we have seen her predecessors william hague and david cameron expressing some of their opinions. she will probably pursue a range of other opportunities. host: potential people who could replace her, boris johnson, and who are the other large competitors? guest: some have compared the conservative leadership contest with the democratic limerick

contest in the u.s. with an ever-growing field of people seeking to replace her. we are around 13 or 15. boris johnson is certainly the best known here. we have dominic rob, the former minister responsible for negotiating brexit. hn, jeremychael go hunt, the current foreign secretary. a lot of the campaign they are engaging in is focusing on this idea of whether they can negotiate a better brexit deal. the process for how this works is that people who are running need to members of parliament to nominate them, which is quite easy to have. members of parliament within the conservative party will narrow the list down to two people. members of the conservative party, which is only around 120,000 in the u.k., will vote between the final two

candidates. it is similar to people in iowa standing in the corner of school gyms, a fairly narrow segment of the population that is making the final decision on the leader, but a lot of the campaigning for this job is going to focus on who can take a hard stance on brexit and who can seek to convince people that they can negotiate a better deal. host: from florida, you're on the line with our guest amanda sloat. we are i'm not surprised sitting here listening to a senior fellow. i'm sorry, but i just don't see that she has a great deal of knowledge. anybody can get on the internet and read what she has been spewing. the sad part is, you talk about experience. trump has been an experienced negotiator around the world for 40 to 50 years. the fact that he recognizes our

greatest partner, the united kingdom, makes me wonder why we don't support our president. the first thing out of your mouth that i heard when i started watching was his muslim ban. if you pay attention in the world, there is no and never has been a muslim ban. that was a little word used by the democrats to hurt mr. trump. we should be supporting our president. host: since you called and asked the question, and we invite our guests to give their experience and opinion, we will let our guest respond. guest: my reference on the muslim ban was characterizing with the mayor of london was responding to. in newe will go to lee york, democrats line. caller: i want to thank amanda sloat for making a lot of the

publications of brexit clear. why does she think the british people are so unprepared for understanding what the ramifications of brexit would mean? turmoil in britain mean for the u.s. in terms of trade? guest: both of those are excellent questions. in terms of what the implications are for the u.s., i think the fact that brexit has been dragging on as long as it has has created uncertainty for american businesses, american companies that are operating in the u.k., companies that are invested in the london stock exchange, and for tourists who are traveling to the u.k. and are uncertain about the degree of disruption. politically for the u.s., one of the most damaging parts of the brexit debate has been that it is consuming all of the political bandwidth within

london. the british government is a most exclusively focused on the brexit debate, which makes it much more difficult for them to engage in policy discussions with the u.s. on a large number of global challenges that we want to focus on together. in terms of your first question about why people did not , brexit has been enormously complicated. the eu is complicated as a political institution. i think falcon be put on political leaders for not having sufficiently explained the way the european union has operated, the same way people tend to blame washington for lots of things, people tend to blame brussels for lots of things despite the fact that britain engaged in a lot of the decisions that were made by the european union, and there was false information that was put toward in the political campaign. what we have seen over the last three years is people have

gotten a much better appreciation for all of the things that the european union does, the benefits that the european union has had, and for those that either were opposed to brexit or may not have voted cap i think they are now seeing all they stand to lose. i have also heard from other people that were opposed to brexit that if it was not that invasive in their lives, then it should not be taking so long for that to actually happen. i think all of this information is solidifying opinions on both sides of the debate. as you are talking, we have video of the queen of england. guest: i think we will see a lot of things that are quite common on state visits. president trump is always been impressed with the queen. i think he will be personally honored to meet the queen, and this will be the aspect of the

visit he is most excited about and will enjoy the most. vox has amore thing, piece quoting the president as telling the prime minister they should walk away altogether. i think that really has been the president's view, the problem with that is the u.k. is still going to need to deal with the european union, and even if they leave without a deal, they are going to need to have some sort of economic arrangement in place to manage their trade. the eu has been clear that there are preconditions for those discussions. the u.k. to pay its bills and to protect the rights of european citizens living in the u.k., and they will want to manage the border in northern ireland. this is not like a business relationship where you can simply walk away. aese are countries that have sustained economic, political and security interest, and they

are going to have to reach some sort of deal or accommodation were way of working, whether or not there is an agreement on the actual brexit deal. host: our guest served as the former deputy secretary for eastern europe in the obama administration. amanda sloat, thank you for your time. for the final half-hour of this program, are today in washington segment. you can talk about the president's trip to the u.k. story today about secretary pompeo, saying the u.s. is ready to talk with iran without preconditions. congress returns this week. the debate on impeachment continues. you can give us a call. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002.

we will take those calls when we come back. p.m.night at 8:00 eastern, brian mcculloch talks about his book, how the internet happened. >> it is the story of products and companies we would all be familiar with from aol to napster to facebook to the iphone, all the things that have come together over the last 25 years that have made the modern reality where the internet has infiltrated every crevice of modern life. >> tonight on c-span two. >> once tv was simply three giant networks and a government supported service called pbs. in 1979, a small network rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide all on their

own what was important. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. the landscape is clearly changed. there is no monolithic media. broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. youtube stars are a thing. c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. it's nonpartisan coverage is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. you can make up your own mind. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from

washington, d.c., and around the country so you can make up your own mind. bypan is brought to you u-local cable or satellite provider. -- your local cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. the president and first lady being escorted by the queen of england into the royal gift collection. this is part of a three-day state visit. he will talk with the outgoing british prime minister theresa may and some other things on the agenda. we will show you those events as they go on. you can talk about the president's trip as far as what you might think it publishes or does.- he accomplishes or secretary mike pompeo when it comes to discussions of iran,

the new york times picking up on the story, saying in a second major softening of american policy towards iran, the secretary of state said the administration was ready to negotiate with the country's clerical leaders with no preconditions. this follows a comment last week that the president was ready to talk to iranian leaders and was not seeking regime change, overruling a long time goal of his national security advisor. the u.s. would not lift sanctions on iran unless it complied with sweeping demands, suggesting those demands could be part of negotiations instead of preconditions. week.ss returns this business in the house and the senate and also discussions on the impeachment issue.

if you want to give us your comments, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. sundayburn was on the shows on this topic of impeachment and where democrats are currently. . what he had to say. [video clip] itwe believe if we do efficiently and publicly, it will be one the public understands and supports. if the public ever feels we have been political, we will have done tremendous harm to this country, the constitution, and the people we are sworn to serve. >> it sounds like you think the president will be impeached, or proceedings will begin in the house at some point, just not right now. >> yes, that's exactly what i feel. i think we have already begun. we have all these committees doing their work. we are having hearings. won two court cases, and

there are other cases that are still to be determined. we are right now winning this issue. why should we go out and make missteps that cause us to lose a court decision that will have people saying why didn't you take your time? host: the new york times highlighting and a story you can find online, democrats saying they have entertained other options short of impeachment, such as summoning former federal prosecutors to hearings to evaluate the strength of the evidence in mr. miller's report and to debate impeachable offenses. relevant house committees met over the resource to map out efforts to constrain mr. trump -- trump's abuses.

for getting impeachment proceedings even among democrats does not top 50%, but there is bym to shift views stressing obstruction, witness tampering, and lying to the public. maryland, democrats line. go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: it is thomas. on the impeachment strategy, it is funny that the republicans the democratsgoad into it. it is going to take its own natural course if it occurs. on the immigration problem at we can talk about

president trump's negotiation skills. he has not negotiated anything. mexico did not contribute towards the wall. they have not contributed toward stopping immigration. we have floods in the middle of the country, and you see republicans stopping legislation for infrastructure. back to impeachment for a second, what kind of strategy do you think democrats should pursue? caller: i think the last speaker, clyburn, that is the right message. you gather evidence, and then you proceed forward. it doesn't matter even if he is reelected, it can happen then. it seems that is the proper strategy. host: let's hear from charlotte in north carolina. republican line. caller: i have a couple of

comments. clyburn, it sounded like he had already made up his mind. i think the republicans do want impeachment. the democrats have no message. they are not going to do anything for the economy. the economy will go down if you vote a democrat in office. we want them so preoccupied with a bunch of junk that there was no conspiracy or collusion. mr. clyburn is saying let the resist movement, anything we can throw against donald trump, we are going to do it. i think it is great. i think democrats should pursue impeachment. host: are you saying that because the senate will not take it up? caller: the senate will not take it up. it shows the american public that the democrats have no message to improve anybody's life. the economy is the best in my lifetime. we want the democrats to show that they have no message. go after impeachment. that will be great.

on the supreme court, you cannot compare the first term -- donald trump has been in office for three years. veryck garland was at the and of the second term of obama. obama could not run for reelection. that was the reason why mitch mcconnell said we cannot quit merrick garland in a lame-duck, obama's pick, and we are going to have a new president. donald trump after he gets reelected will have four more years, so this is a legacy of donald trump. we should be able to put something should happen to ruth bader ginsburg or another supreme court justice. donald trump should be allowed this time because it is his first term. the caller referring to the question we took at the top of the show for the first hour, clyde in texas, independent line. say that just want to ever since donald trump got

elected, all the democrats do is i want to get donald trump. they want to make something up to try to get him. years,mueller spent two $40 million, and could not find anything on donald trump. he says i cannot exonerate chargewell, you did not him with anything. you'd not see any crimes or collusion, how could he have struck justice if there was no collusion?? this is a made up which. i hope attorney general william barr goes after these democrats that used the fbi to try to bring down donald trump. that was the extreme abuse of power. host: ok. let's hear from north carolina, democrats line. caller: are you talking to me? host: i am. thank you. caller: good morning. i have a question and the comment. my question is, if the house impeaches president trump, is the senate required to hold a

?rial congress'sis the responsibility to educate and inform the public, so i would like to see public hearings so and witnesses can come in testify under oath about what is going on so that the american public knows what is happening. i think we are terribly uninformed, and i am trying to .ead the mueller report it is somewhat difficult. i don't think a lot of people will read it. therefore they will stay in the dark. host: how far into it are you? caller: i have been skipping around.

a fourth through. host: do you think robert mueller should testify? caller: i do. i know it is a little extreme, but i really think the people who are defying court ordered subpoenas should be fined or put in jail. that is what we happen to me if i refused to honor a subpoena. host: back to robert mueller, when he said the report basically will be his testimony, do you think there is still value bringing him before capitol hill? , i think we are a visual society, and seeing things on television has a great impact on public opinion. that if thenk

outstigations bring muellerion or if robert thinks the country is in more trouble than we are in that he .ill certainly testify he may color outside the lines. host: let's hear from louise in davenport, florida. caller: hi. i am calling on the republican line. i am a republican, but i am also an american. i am very disturbed with everything that is going on. the lady that you spoke, i did agree with a lot of what she had to say. i think robert mueller should testify. don't believe he would not show up to a subpoena. i don't think he would let it go that far. he did say the report would be his testimony, and he would

probably reiterate it. barr iney spoke to mr. alaska and got his report and made it clear that he should have made a determination even though he could not charge him while he was sitting in office, he said that it was up to us to make the determination. in view of the report that he said, i believe that robert mueller should say if mr. barr believes i need to make a determination, i will do it now. i think the report does speak for itself. there was conspiracy. that one of mr. ides when he was in london, they were getting

information from russia, and the us trillion government was concerned enough to notify the fbi, and that is what started the investigation into the mueller report. louise in florida. we will hear next from steve, illinois, independent line. caller: good morning. i think they should wait it out and let these records get exposed from new york state. pastieve donald trump's legacy of stealing from contractors and ripping them off for money through his lawyers, and does anybody care -- host: how does that relate to current impeachment discussions on capitol hill? caller: it all adds up. impeachment, if you have a pile of crimes like let's take for --t that his university

these guys elected a president who started a fraudulent university, was fined $27 million, and if you think that is presidential quality people, it is not. this guy has more crime underneath his belt. he has never done anything without a lawyer stiffing someone out of it. what i want to see for impeachment is everything dragged up. bring it all up. even impeach him, but if the democrats don't bring up impeachment, they are not doing their constitutional job. steve.hat is for their part, the senate has to respond to anything that comes out of the house as far as an impeachment proceeding is concerned. if it gets to the senate, several people have mentioned the senate would not do anything. one of those people senator john kennedy of louisiana who talked

about this issue yesterday. [video clip] >> my democratic friends have got to make a decision on impeachment. i think impeachment will be a sisyphean task. it will be tough going in the senate. impeachment polls up there with skim milk among the american people. my advice to my democratic friends is if you want to do it, go hard or go home. if you want to do it, go to amazon online, buy a spine, and do it. go hard or go home. if you are not going to do it, let us get back to work. host: discussion on capitol hill regarding impeachment. the secretary of state on iran. for republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats.

independents (202) 748-8002. brandy, ohio. caller: hello, good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i think i am similar to a lot of democrats in the united states today. we know there is a lot going on that should not be going on, but we are so afraid of this president that we don't want to give him any ammunition. i think personally i am. towards the last few weeks that they need to go ahead and start being cori because setting a a presidenton what can get away with by stonewalling, this is unprecedented. people are saying let it take its course, but not when it is an unprecedented situation. host: do you think if proceedings took place your

concern about whether it backfires or ultimately the presence supporters become more emboldened, is that your concern? caller: my concern is that when it was red on another channel, the mueller report, i listened, and now i understand more of it, but most people did not. i think if they started, the are going tolicans double down because they have to. i think the american public is going to speak very loudly. the democrats are already 75% towards impeachment, and the voting is coming out like crazy. we are not going to do 40% again this election. host: do you think the democratic leadership is as heavily inclined towards impeachment as those rank-and-file members, particularly progressives? caller: i think yes. she is trying to go along.

she has a couple more weeks to decide how long she is going to wait for these people to answer these subpoenas, and then she cannot wait any longer. or it is going to be worse. she has the stigma on her now from impeachment. this is going to be even worse because sometimes in action is worse than action. host: you are talking about speaker pelosi. caller: yes. host: we will go to wayne from new york, republican line. when people say investigate this or investigate that, we note the dossier was hillary clinton's thing. the democrats wanted to investigate. it backfired because they had people that were working in the justice department that were investigating two separate incidents that happened with the two candidates that were running for president. democrats put the

all these different investigations on donald trump. if they cannot prove anything, i don't see how they can prove anything anyway because they have not proved anything. the president has done a great job, and nobody says anything. you don't hear the media or anybody say anything good about what the president has done, only if you watch certain channels. as far as the attorney general when he says he is going to look into those activities, is that the next thing you are waiting for? caller: yes. i think they are going to find out a lot of things the democrats don't want us to know about. host: do you think it changes anything in the long run once it comes out? caller: i think it does because i think there are people that if the country is that divided, there are people saying how come all these people that were in the mueller investigation were all people that knew hillary clinton and these things? how is it fair?

how can one person in the fbi be chosen by another person to investigate one thing and another thing at the same time. marry, san go to diego, republican line. i am listening to the conversation, and i find it offensive. i find there are a lot of people that don't want to know the facts or listen to the facts. when they came up with nothing because they did not have anything to charge him with the if they had something to charge him with, he would have been charged, but to say he has to prove he wasn't not guilty -- it is ridiculous. americans need to stand up and listen to what is going on. if they can do this to the duly elected president because of a handful of people that don't like him -- if you don't like him, fine. vote him out. if he committed the crime, it should have been easy. $40 million, you should have found something. people said i did not like him

before when he was in the president, that is fine. he is the president now. you are trying to judge him on something you did not like because you had a bias, and you did not vote for him. the previouse for president, and i did not try to crucify him, and these people are just so unfair. the law not to represent them -- they want to use politics in the law. the law is supposed to be blind. lady liberty is supposed to be blindfolded. she is not supposed to judge you a son who you are or how you got there. she is supposed to judge you on merit. host: ok. that is mary in san diego. from philadelphia, democrats line. caller: hello? host: you are on. caller: how are you doing? i am calling because speaking about donald trump and impeachment, i feel as though a lot of people are saying they

want this man out of office. they want him to not be in office or things of that sort, but people have to understand that the american people choose their president. i feel as though a lot of people don't have a voice, and i feel as though donald trump is being that voice for people. not to say i agree with a lot of the decisions, but i really feel as though people are worrying about the wrong things at this point in moment. they are worried about him a lot ofings presidents did a lot of wrong things, so for people to continue to try to crucify him because of the things he is doing, i really feel as though a lot of the decisions he is making are according to the bible. if people want to crucify someone, they first need to

learn to crucify themselves. host: you are calling on our line for democrats. are you saying impeachment proceedings should not take place by the democrats? caller: i don't think so. i don't think he needs to be impeached. i feel as though people need to understand and look at the bigger picture rather than worry about him getting -- host: what is the bigger picture in that case? caller: the bigger picture is that america is going through a lot of changes. not according just to him but due to a lot of presidents making a lot of wrong decisions. tj is next in illinois, independent line. good morning. i want to make one simple point, there is nothing in the history of donald trump that anybody can point out that he did to help

anybody in this country. every president we have had has either been through the service, served in communities, have done civil work. i work for the v.a. myself. i can tell you for a fact that a lot of these guys that are sitting there suffering with limbs cut off or been through service in the war, some of them support donald trump, however most of them don't know anything about donald trump. that is good or positive. the only thing they can say is they have not read the mueller report. i have been reading through it. i have not gotten past -- i would not say i have gotten a fourth of it. host: how much of it have you read? caller: i am on the second part. there is nothing donald trump has ever done that would make him somebody you want to vote for. everybody thought he was a good businessman. if you look at all of his

business, there is nothing positive in it. louisiana, republican line, james, go ahead. you are on. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. talking about the trump paycheck thing going on and all that stuff with the fbi and the doj and the media is getting so hard on donald trump. i am curious how come the fbi and the doj in the media was not hard on the democrats when they was ignoring the obstruction of justice that hillary did when she destroyed all the phones and all of her electronics, the hard drives, and obama and her was using an illegal server. how come the fbi and the doj ignored all of that? the american people see that and you see it.

and i see it. and guess what, everybody will get it. host: ok, don is in sacramento, democrats line. caller: yeah. i want to know how in the world black people calling in here talking about the love trump? trump do not care anything about you black folk. one brexit, that is what brexit is about, that is what he is trying to bring to america. brexit don't include black people. i hope that no minority they are trying to get rid of all of us,, ok? host: that was done from sacramento. last call. moments from now, at brookings institution, a discussion on foreign policy, particularly when it comes to topics of russia and china. that is it for our program today. another one comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow. but for now, we take you to the

brookings institution panel, which is set to start in just a few moments. [chatter]

>> good morning, everyone. welcome to brookings. i am michael o'hanlon with the foreign policy program here inviting you to a discussion about possible wartime scenarios with russia and china. this panel has a lot of expertise on the subject. i will briefly introduce folks in a minute then hand the baton to my good friend and colleague yunk pak. she will