at how the political turmoil in washington is impacting markets. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning. while congress is out for the next few weeks, recess during the upcoming jewish holidays, the house investigation into the president continues, including a series of subpoenas. it has been a week of fast-moving developments with likely hearings this fall, pertinently -- potentially a vote could come as early as november. it is sunday morning, september 29. we begin with your comments on what many are calling a political firestorm and the question on impeachment. who do you trust in this investigation? from the democrats, (202)

748-8000. for those who trust the president, (202) 748-8001. undecided, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text message or join us on twitter @cspanwj. the text message is (202) 748-8003. tell us your first name and where you are from. , you canok.com/cspan join the conversation that way as well. a lot to talk about of the next three hours. time magazine out this past week with the cover story -- the president essentially being painted into a corner. what is next to this impeachment agree? -- with this impeachment inquiry? the associated press says the president is blurring the lines between his personal lawyer and attorney general. as washington plunges into impeachment, attorney general william barr finds himself engulfed in the litter coal firestorm, facing questions

about his role in president donald trump's outreach to ukraine and the administration's attempt to keep a whistleblower from congress. general and the president's lawyer could help investigate trump's democratic rival, joe biden, according to a rough transcript of that summertime conversation. officialspartment insisted the attorney general was unaware of the president's comment at the time of the call on july 25. that call a few weeks later. he was surprised and angry to discover he had been lumped in with giuliani. the justice department was first made where the president's call when a cia lawyer mentioned a complaint from the unidentified cia officer. that took place on august 14. watchdogs leader raised concerns that the president may have violated campaign finance laws. the justice department says there was no crime and closed the matter.

that is part of the latest in a series of stories we will share with you over the next hour to keep you up-to-date on what is happening with this impeachment investigation. we are dividing our phone lines -- those who support the president, those who remain undecided, or those who trust the democrats in this investigation. join us on the phone is brett samuels from the hill newspaper. thanks for being with us. let me begin with the president's tweet saying they are trying to stop me because i am fighting for you. on twitter and in video statements, the president is going all out, defending himself. we will hear from rudy giuliani, the president's lawyer, on sunday programs including cbs's face the nation. what do you think we will learn from him? giuliani -- whenever he is on tv, it tends to be an adventure. you never know what to expect.

i think you will see rudy giuliani really defend his role in all this and downplaying any allegations of wrongdoing. ashas tried to paint this the government was aware of what he was doing in ukraine. he tried to show text messages on twitter and fox news to say that the state department was aware of his activities and set him up with officials in ukraine. that has caused the story to spiral out and ensnare other people. the envoy to ukraine resigned at the end of the week. i do nothing we will see rudy giuliani do anything other than defend himself and the president and deny wrongdoing. host: this is the headline from thehill.com, the president

calling this the greatest scam. a slave to our audience why this is so significant. -- explain to our audience why this was so significant. guest: the envoy to ukraine resigned friday. the story was broken by a student newspaper at arizona state. essentially, there were text messages that giuliani produced that showed he had been in touch , who said rudyer giuliani up with a ukraine official so they could further communicate about this story. essentially, kurt volcker's resignation shows that this story has spiraled outward and engulfed additional trump administration officials. kurt volcker was one of those officials who democrats wanted , soear from incoming days it really underscores how far-reaching the scandal is in the trump administration. kurt volcker was the first

big-name to officially say they were going to step down because of this. host: we are talking with brett samuels of the hill newspaper. some reports over the weekend that the acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney, potentially may be out as the president? chief of staff -- at the president's chief of staff. guest: the president has always been hot and cold with his staff members. mick mulvaney has been one of the officials at the center of this. he was particularly tied to the president's request to withhold aid to ukraine before this phone call with president trump in july. there is reporting that the president has been frustrated with how he has handled this will scandal, that there was not a prepared defense or way to push back on this narrative right away. i think the president at the end prefers to get the

word out on these things and we , whereen that on twitter the president is going on the defensive. i think there is frustration with mick mulvaney because this is a scandal that is blooming and engulfing the administration. a lot of people look at the chief and staff and say this falls on them to do damage control and have a plan ready. i am not sure we will see mick mulvaney fired in the imminent future. the white house did push back on that report publicly. i think there is some frustration with him on how this has played out and his role in it, but to be determined whether it results in him losing his job. this to that point, and may be too much of an analogy, that has the train left the station with regard to impeachment? is this a narrative that makes it more difficult for the president to control?

anst: i think it does have air of inevitability, that we are on the track to impeachment regardless of what the white house does or says. democrats want to hear from some trump administration folks like kurt volcker, like mike pompeo. they want to get more information on how this played out. it does feel like the major democrats who had been on the fence before and trying to contain this thing, including ,he speaker and adam schiff those folks who had been on the fence about moving forward with impeachment seemed to be fully on board with this and really focused and narrowed in on this ukraine scandal. it does feel like we are headed for impeachment regardless of what the white house does or says at this point. host: this is what speaker nancy pelosi said yesterday at the

texas tribune festival. she talked about the impeachment investigation. [video clip] itthe president did not see was wrong to do that and the other facts that unfolded as we saw. , very different from impeachment, impeachment is you make a decision whether to impeach. >> this is an effort to determine what the facts are and if the allegations -- >> i think they are quite self-evident. they are. >> you're prepared to pronounce them self-evident without investigating? >> no. i said to the president and i'm saying to you, this comes into my wheelhouse now. i have 45 years of experience in

intelligence. i was a member of the committee, then the top democrat, the dog -- the drop adam schiff had. then, we were not in the majority. i was a member of the gang of four, which sees everything before it was known to need -- to leadership. the difference between 10 days ago and now are the facts that were revealed. which was why i made that announcement even before the public would see what complaint and also -- from house speaker nancy pelosi in texas yesterday. brett samuels, what are you hearing from her is she now driving the narrative on this story? i think we hear from

nancy pelosi that in the last week there has already been so much movement in the last few days when we had this transcript come out of the call between president trump and president zelensky and the whistleblower complaint that further detail how the white house sauce to contain that transcript and keep it from being seen by too many officials because concerns about what was in it. the story has moved so quickly that i think we saw nancy pelosi shift to say she supported the impeachment inquiry and wants to follow the facts. there is sowledging much new information that came out that democrats can use to accuse trump of wrongdoing and thaty he abused his office it really feels like we are headed for impeachment sooner rather than later. brett samuels covering all of this at the hill newspaper. his work is available on

thehill.com. thanks for being with us. , ranch.from south fork who says the democrats are losing it. trump thought he could get away with anything he wanted. he was wrong. inside time magazine, i would like you to do us a favor. the president buttonholes deposit -- president of ukraine and triggers the impeachment inquiry. philadelphia, democrats line. who do you trust in the investigation? peler: i really trust mrs. osi. she is a democrat, but she is the house speaker and she has been pushing away from impeaching trump and that all of a sudden, once she got information, she is going forward. i think she follows everything by law. trustes by the law and i

that leadership. berkeley springs, west virginia. you trust the president? caller: yes, i do. i will tell you what. went onbed a bank and , youd said i robbed a bank folks in the media will probably say carl is a bad guy. with aen went to ukraine billion dollars of taxpayer you dond told them if not stop investigating my son and fire that prosecutor, you are not going to get this billion dollars. host: i want to stop you there because we want to do with the facts. where is the evidence that he said stop investigating my son? by all accounts, that has not been reported anywhere. if it is true, tell me where you are getting that.

caller: i have seen the clip on tv. joe biden got on television and said that -- maybe you have not seen it. talkingknow what you're about, but that is where this is getting murky. the wall street journal, new york times, the washington post, they arenews have said mixing apples and oranges. what their -- what they are saying is the vice president was getting the request from the u.s. and the foreign policy community in europe to fire the prosecutor because he was inapt. there was no investigation at whotime of the gas company the vice president's son was on the board. caller: do not get on there and make excuses for joe biden. host: i am not making excuses. i want to know where you're getting this story from. son on airtook his

force two to china with him and the chinese invested billion dollars into his company. he is a recovering drug. who would invest a billion dollars into a company being run by a recovering drug addict? come on. wake up and smell the coffee. don't make excuses for them. host: i just want to make sure we get the facts on both side. caller: are you disputing my facts about him taking his son to china? host: i am not disputing that at all. you first brought up the issue of ukraine and at the time they were not investigating the gas company at the time. caller: folks always look host: host: the other way when it is a democrat. -- caller: folks always look the other way when it is a democrat. host: i just want to make sure

we are dealing with the facts and not with political spent on either side. caller: it is a fact he went on tv and admitted -- host: we cover that event. i know what you're talking about. karl, thank you for the call. will go to annapolis, maryland. caller: i'm calling on the democratic line. to me, it is not a matter of who to trust. isis about democracy and it the american people that counts. the first caller stole my thunder. the second one i called him a nut job. i think it is about the american people. i think we should keep our eye on the ball because everything is coming from the russians and we better be concerned about our cybersecurity because right now we are dealing with cyber warfare. that is my biggest concern.

andink the investigation inquiry, as long as we get the facts, i am for it. it is the american people that counts. host: fred is joining us from ohio. you are undecided, fred. caller: i undecided. plus, you know what seems -- i wonder what ukrainians think. biden tells him to do something. they do it. drop apparently is telling them to do something and they do it. are they our creature? is there an opinion poll ukraine? i was curious about that. to richard next on the democrats line. to john from washington. things are joining us. caller: thank you. good morning, america. president trump -- i do trust him. my greatest concern is our intelligence community always

leaking out information. i'm concerned about the dossier or statement because it seems very well-crafted and i think chuck schumer said six ways from sunday that the intelligence community -- it seems like america is nothing but -- and always want to go to work and pay our taxes and it seems like there is gridlock in washington and it does not seem like we can trust the intelligence community to be fair. this. what started on second information. i do not think it could hold up in a court of law. it will be like the steel dossier. are we going to end up with another stalemate and wasted time when we have real problems in our country that we have to deal with? .his is america

you're supposed to be innocent before you are proven guilty and thesems to me like one of -- the steele dossier was leads to one of them so they could get another source to run it back. i am concerned for my country. it is not good for our nation. we all of america. i wish -- we all love america. i wish we cannot just be republicans and democrats and independents. we should be americans first and give president trump a chance. host: let me go back to the earlier caller about the vice president's son. it is a front page, in-depth story inside the washington post. the headline -- the ukrainian gas tycoon a device president's -- and the vice president's son. no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the bidens have's surface. still, hunter biden's decision

has raised" -- uncomfortable questions. why didn't the vice president head off a perceived conflict of interest between his effort to crackdown on corruption and his a gas tycoonr investigated for abusing his position as a government official? for some ukrainians, hunter underminedociation his father's call to end corruptions in ukraine and raise concerns the prosecutors would avoid pursuing alleged wrongdoing by ukrainian officials out of fear that the former minister had high-level connections to the u.s., a backer of the ukrainian government at that time. we have that this morning from the washington post. who do you trust in this investigation? you say the president. caller: yes. host: good morning. welcome to the program. go ahead. caller: i trust the president.

i also trust nancy pelosi because i like the politics going on right now. it is very interesting to me host: mike is next from orlando, florida. good morning, steve. i am all for the democrats, but i truly trust in the american press. it is part of our first amendment rights. us ifess is going to tell there is wrongdoing in washington. i am always watching the new york times and washington post. how can you trust trump? to me, he is the king a fake news. his whole life has been fake news. if it was not for his dad's -- why does he always support putin, supporting russia? it is good the press is out there finding these things. we should have this

investigation. trump says he is innocent. then produce the transcript, your taxes. if you so wealthy and loves to brag, show them. host: robert is joining us from clinton, maryland. caller: this whole thing is designed to cover up the upcoming indictments that are coming down from the report from attorney general barr. that is why they are trying to this credit him. as these indictments come down, they are going to say this is trump retaliating for this impeachment inquiry. that is what this is all about. they know this is going to go nowhere, dead on arrival. anything you have with this so-called whistleblower, which is not a whistleblower, is inadmissible at any court anywhere the country. andsay is inadmissible thrown out all over the country

except in the building behind you. i heard you earlier say you have heard nothing about joe biden. that is easy to solve. turn on the video. joe biden, in his own words, ask them to fire an attorney who was investigating his son. he was going to withhold $1 billion if he did not do that. he said he was leading -- leaving in six hours. he was fired. quo, butot a quid pro you do not want to look into that. $63 million --g 63 million american votes. do you think that is wise? ok.: we appreciate the calls and passion. just keep it aboveboard and no profanity. we will go to indiana. good morning, kevin. caller: good morning.

is it is aing to say sad day in our country for everyone, democrats and republicans. we have become a nation of freedom, trying to spread it around the world. trump's dad did have a lot of money. it is like certain entities and politicians are using the world as -- to support freedom and theys, human rights, and are getting rich off it. mirrors -- smoke and mirrors, like that frustrated caller, it is a sad day. i do not think the media -- maybe they do. we are not stupid people. we know what is going on. whether trump is president or

not or some other figure that , you through the swamp have facebook now. you have social media now. you have to be careful in your narratives because even if trump , you do notached have to worry about watching news anymore because you will have people like that last caller. we willeally unite and fight our brothers and sisters. host: this is the front page of the washington post, getting a lot of attention over the last 24 hours. up state department stepping email probes of hillary clinton's former aides. here is details. the trump administration is investigating the email records of dozens of current and former senior state department officials who sent messages to then secretary of state hillary ,linton's private email reviving a politically toxic matter that overshadow the 2016 election.

that is this morning's front page of the washington post. who do you trust in this impeachment investigation, the democrats, the president, or do you remain undecided? from an author. to me,rule is, it seems that not every impeachable offense should be grounds for impeachment proceedings. nancy pelosi announced this inquiry 406 days before the presidential election. the cure for a bad presidential election is a better presidential election. there are 47 members of the caucus with the democrat spirit to remove him from office, they would need 20 republican senators to side with them. if mr. trump today were to tweet number,e is a prime

that minneapolis is in idaho, and that the sun revolves around are not threere republican senators who would disagree with him on any of those. the fact is he is going to finish his term. matter,s a prudential makes you wonder what this is about. they can send this to the senate , and it would be terrific fun to watch the republicans squirm when it got there. there is public good to be derived from making them take a stand. i am not saying there are not public goods that would come from impeachment. -- one of theself articles of impeachment is the president's refusal to comply with congressional oversight and subpoenas. this would represent the beginning of the refluxing of congressional muscles that have atrophied over the years. this recalibration of already --

--stitutional liberalism equilibrium would be another benefit of impeachment. if you believe as i do that the primary aim should be to make sure the 45th president is on januaryy the 46th 20, 2020 one, then you have to consider whether or not this helps that. i think it does not. i think it distracts the democrats were talking about what worries americans. host: that from the texas tribune festival. it is available on our website. there is this headline from fox news. r pointst -- ken star to the keyword in the whistleblower complaint, saying it is poor judgment. ken starr telling fox news he was troubled by president trump's alleged use of the word

reciprocity. the use of the word would suggest poor judgment by the president them a that despite the missteps does not at this point constitute a crime. the heart of the democrats' impeachment inquiry is whether the president use the power of his office to pressure a foreign country to investigate joe biden and his son under -- hunter. democrats say that even if the president did not specifically say that aid rests with willingness to probe the bidens, the innuendo was there. that is from fox news. we will go to mouthy from emerson, new jersey. -- to matthew from emerson, new jersey. caller: isn't it a shame that president trump cannot be a perfect human being like you and i? over 2.5 years of russian collusion by the democrats and their mouthpiece, the fake news media, like cnn,

and they are fake, proved to be lies and a disaster for them. now pelosi gives in -- and she did give into the angry, radical aoc and congressman al green is quoted on video as saying we have to impeached trump. otherwise, he will be reelected. the american people are not stupid. they see through this political witchhunt for what it is. by the way, it is hypocrisy. the people that are pointing to mr. biden are correct. saymedia and the democrats just move along. there is nothing to see. there is, especially his son's dealings with china. it is backfiring on them. it is a shame. it is a shame that their hatred and anger is hurting them and

will hurt their party, but that is how it is. host: thanks for the call. next, washington, democrats. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. democrats,ou have president trump, and undecided. why don't you put the republican party instead of president trump? inquiry the democratic and it is pitiful to hear the freedom caucus of the republican party and the republican party keep being mom -- mum or not --n in -- mentioning's mentioning trump's name. trumpody forgets that calls the government down for 35

days. i also noticed that when you were reading the new york times -- the washington post and you are reading it, it said trump, but you replaced it with president. that is a little bit biased, but i'm glad that he washington journal is on. we are going to have a landslide with the democrats and all the that are really un-american are going to be crying again. ask why in referring to trump as president trump that is biased? caller: because it said trump and you said president. the other thing i would like to say is trump lost by three million popular vote and he won in the electoral college, which is an antiquated way of keeping fascism in this

country. host: from washington. the president yesterday on twitter with this announcement in the rose garden. [video clip] >> what is going on now is the single greatest scam in the history of american politics. the democrats want to take away your guns. they want to take away your health care. they want to take away your vote, they want to take away your freedom, they want to take away your judges, they want to take away everything. we can never let this happen. we are fighting to drain the swamp and that is what i am doing. you see why we have to do it. our country is at stake like never before. it is all very simple. they are trying to stop me because i am fighting for you and i will never let that happen. host: that is from the president on twitter and there are a lot of tweets happening as well. let me share -- let's go to a call, jeff from indianapolis.

i thank god for c-span because c-span is truly fair and balanced, like fox news. fox is an acronym for fascist over exaggerating. they do a lot of exaggerating over there. i have faith in the american people. they are fair-minded and goodhearted. trump supporters -- that is a different story. if joe biden was not running for president, we would never have heard about this. the only reason trump brought this up is because he is scared. he made up this bogus -- we heard in trump's own word that he is asking for favors from this president, who is under seizure from his good buddy vladimir putin, withholding weapons that this country needs to protect themselves from bro, his brother. the reality is this.

is -- has been a practicing conman all his life. if he has nothing to hide, why doesn't he show his taxes? -- whyn't you show dealing withow -- vladimir putin, kim jong-un, and the saudi crown prince because -- is he hiding something? he throws all his surrogates under the bus, whether it is mike pence -- now we heard his chief of staff -- his acting chief of staff under the bus. this guy is a coward. all you trump supporters, i do not know how far you got in high school. you guys are definitely no rhodes scholars. host: this from vivian. a former ukrainian prosecutor saying he investigated joe biden and his son and found they had not broken any ukrainian laws.

next,e is joining us georgetown, texas. who do you trust? there are several things that make you want to shake your head. we could live in an antiquated people,here 3 million which is roughly part of new york city, could determine the presidency, over the rest of the united states basically. places it was put in place to protect, where we could not have new york city and san francisco electing our cover the rest of america. that is just crazy. are justrats

completely off the rocker as far as i can see. inhas never been like this our lifetime. it has never been like this. ever since john f. kennedy, we have had presidents that did things that were not the most sane thing in the world. everyone of them has been a little nuts. carter should have been hung. he was wrong. has entered in that office has been human. if we ever get to a point where we do not have humans in office. thank you very much for your show. the cochair of the house progressive caucus is our guest on c-span's newsmakers program at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. it is also available on the c-span radio app. here is part of that conversation. >> how confident are you that it

will reach the point where articles of impeachment are brought to the house floor and that there will be a formal vote on impeachment and that you guys do have 218 votes needed to advance that to the senate? >> if i was in vegas right now and there were odds on this, i would bet there are going to be potential articles of impeachment given that this is a unique situation. we know another government interfered with our election and the president denied any theraction with them, yet mueller report had 10 instances of possible obstruction. because the president did not admit to them, you needed witnesses to have that process. in this case, he has streamlined the process he admitted he made the call. he has given us the notes from the call that said he asked for a personal favor from a foreign government to get dirt on a political opponent's family. he admits that he withheld the funding that congress approved to the country just days prior. in many ways, part of the process as already been resolved

by the president being as brazen as he has been in admitting his guilt. athink you're going to see likely chance that you are going to have articles of impeachment. a democrat from wisconsin, the cochair of the house republican -- house progressive caucus. this is from glenn, who says how is it possible not to support the impeachment? do people understand what donald trump has done? let's go to charles in fort collins, colorado. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. how are you? caller: i am undecided at this point. democratsat what the -- because of this whistleblower , not one guy, a bunch of people. we need to hear from them. we need to hear from pompeo. we need to hear from everybody on this and open up that second server because it looks like

they covered this up by putting open toserver that is the white house. it is locked down. we want to hear from that. that would be logical to me. don't we want to see everything and then we can make a decision on this? -- now they are bringing up hillary again. if they were going to prosecute biden, why didn't they do it 6, 8 months ago? this is all spin. what really troubles me the most is that people believe in donald trump. i had a friend. i said to him that donald trump is indicted in a double class over trump lawsuit university and these are not -- ore who are anti-

democrat. these are normal americans who went out there and believed they were going to get the secrets of donald trump and spent up to $35,000 and it was a bait and switch scheme. my republican friends are like it is ok. then you look at everything else this man has done and said it is really hard to believe that manody would be behind this . look what he has done in new york city. peoplet understand how can believe in this man. he is not a swamp trainer. -- drainer. host: let's go to john from trenton, new jersey. good morning from michigan. all the wrongdoing that the democrats have done, such as

hillary plaza problems and all that, why have they been picking on him since day one? we have so much increase in our taxes. he is working on a nice health plan. i do not see -- he has unemployment at its lowest it has ever been. why pick on somebody that has not done anything to hurt united states? he has done only to help the united states. i am so sick of hearing these democrats down him. that is all i have to say. campaign with this ad released late last week. >> joe biden promised ukraine a billion dollars if they fire the prosecutor investigating his son's company. >> if the prosecutor is not fired, they are not getting the money.

when president trump asks ukraine to best get corruption, the democrats want to impeach him and their media lapdogs fall in line. they lost the election. now they want to steal this one. don't let them. >> i am donald trump and i approve this message. host: that is from the trump campaign. the headline -- yes, trump is guilty, but impeachment is a mistake. he writes the following. he writes president donald trump committed an impeachable offense but that does not mean democrats are right to start and impeachment process. impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. there is no obligation to prosecute. congress is supposed to do what is in the best interest of the country and this process will be bad for america. this will probably achieve nothing. to actually remove trump from office, 20 republican senators would have to convict him. if you think that will happen,

you have not been paying attention to senate republicans over the last 2.5 years. tony is joining us from sugarland, texas. who do you trust? caller: thank you for taking my call. i get a little nervous. there was a first call that john answered and he talked about an article from the hill. john bypassed it and it came up friday. i challenge you this morning to read the article from the hill where it says the u.s. government put out misinformation about joe biden and the prosecutor. it talks about the lawyers that prosecutor and said there was misinformation put out. number two, nobody has talked about joe biden's son given a

waiver coming convicted of drugs, and given a waiver. says you must be 40 years old. he was given a waiver to be 42. to me, it is ethics. number three, there is a great article people need to google that talks about biden incorporated. brother.oe biden's joe biden's brother was in cahoots with a construction company. google it and look it up. he was in cahoots with the construction company and became vice president when joe biden was the lead man in iraq. there was a $1.5 billion contract they were going to get. contract,t get the but the president of the company biden inelps to have a

the company. please read the article today on the show from john solomon. host: the article you're are talking about is from politico. toen's brother touted ties an initiative. this is the former vice president's son. the article is billable at the -- available at thehill.com. eric from california. caller: good morning and thank you. i would like to state one thing. all people are not human. president donald trump is proving that through his behavior. i also would like to refer to that article i read earlier this year or beginning of last year that said i am was watching over the presidency of donald trump in the white house.

i trust god. he is watching over america and he has been watching over america since donald trump has been president. thank god that we have people in america believe in doing the right thing. i believe, as the caller said, that the whistleblower is more than one person. stand.s of america will the constitution is great. keep doing what they are doing. everybody, just stand back and let god do his job. host: thank you. from california. this from the new york times, the editorial board. the allegations are grave and an election is at risk. the founders were clear. calling impeachment the only option. let me go back to the analysis piece from over the weekend available online. the headline -- the political

brawl will leave trump victorious, writing that theachment will roil democratic primary race. the impeachment wars grow more vitriolic. moderates may be farther marginalized. democrats are running against a man whose approval rating never gets about 45%. they just have to be normal to win. instead, they are rolling the dice in a risky way. they need to remove an unfit man from office, but this process will not produce that outcome. from north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. donald trump is therefore a purpose. .od put him there once they remove him, the united states will fall. i believe it. he needs to be helped out, not

impeached. host: terry, you are next, from milton, washington. haser: president bone spurs been an embarrassment to the country. i cannot believe he has been in office as long as he has. what this investigation and the impeachment shows is how important it is for us to -- the man should have been impeached two years ago. instead of doing the right thing, congress has waited because they are worried about getting reelected. 12 years in the senate, 12 years in the house. go back to what you used to do. doingaybe people start the right thing in congress current lindsey graham has been overseas over 70 times. what is a senator from south carolina doing in the middle east over 70 times? what didn't he learn on the 10th trip that he learned on the 70th?

take care of business here and quit flying around the country. term limits. let's get congressmen and senators that will do the right thing. hillary clinton out with a new book and back on a speaking circuit friday. she was at georgetown university and washington, d.c. >> we all know she has just announced the opening of an impeachment inquiry into the president on the basis of evidence that he betrayed his oath of office to uphold the constitution and protect and defend our country. he has turned american diplomacy into a cheap extortion racket. -- and stabbeded in the back -- the career foreign service officers who serve bravely and selflessly no matter the politics of the administration that they are working under.

in theey are caught crossfire. i was proud to serve with foreign service officers and civil services at the state department and i know that they deserve support and gratitude of all americans. [applause] >> sadly, we have known who donald trump is for some time. we knew he was a corrupt businessman who cheated people. we knew he had his campaign invited foreign adversaries to tamper with our election. now we know that in the course of his duties as president he has endangered us all by putting his personal and political interests ahead of the interests of the american people. about muchimately more than donald trump. it is about us.

it is about who we are as a nation. history is being written and the world and our children are watching. that from hillary clinton friday at georgetown university. a couple headlines from new york times. how ukraine backfired on trump and democrats say their message from 2020 is not impeached therein this from richard -- impeach. this from richard rogers. moscow and putin do not want the chosen one impeached. from st. petersburg, florida. who do you trust? caller: i do not trust anyone. this is ridiculous. i am not a big trumper. let me say this. when he came downstairs in 2015, it was like, ok, whatever. i am not a big trump fan.

he has done stuff that obama never did. s never did.emorat because them demorats they are. i am an independent. i have been an independence is 1991 -- i have been an independent since 1991. i voted for ralph nader. a kook.een some want of they call me a kook because i voted for ralph nader. i voted for trump because trump has done what he said he is going to do. host: thanks for the call. we will go to alabama. caller: something is not being talked about and gotten me up in arms. a frequent guest in your show is come of a washington

law firm. he is considered one of the foremost leading authorities on whistleblower law. great guest. i hope you can have him back. talked -- he talked before this story broke exactly about what we are seeing. that is the bullying of a boss or supervisor of a person or persons who come forward with whistleblower complaints. here's what we have. we have the intelligence community inspector general, who has said this is credible and urgent. then we have the dni, joe maguire, trump's hand-picked boy, seal team boy, who said the man acted in good faith, the whistleblower. what trump has done that people are not talking about -- he has singled this individual out.

they have castigated this guy and says he is a male cia employee assigned to the white house. that narrows it tremendously. trump has intimated and suggested treasonous activity by the individual, that they use to handle this with hanging and murder, accusing him essentially of high treason. this is the tactic of the mafia. this is the tactic of stalinists. i am concerned about this guy. i do not think the witness protection program can protect this guy at this point. homeland security -- i want to address something all your callers have said. homeland security says if you see something, say something. if you have something second and ,hird hand that you overheard or you overheard someone saying i think terry nichols is going to blow up oklahoma city, you have every right in the world to come forward with that as a whistleblower. that is not a crime.

was set up in 1777. the whistleblower act is a good thing. this is wrong, what the president is doing to the whistleblower. host: it was set up in large part because of the concern by the founders not only to find out what is going on but the threat we may face from superpowers at that time, france and great britain. they did not want interference in u.s. elections. this dates back to the founding of the constitution. a guide to trump's false claims about ukraine and the bidens. this is one of those complex stories that consumes washington but frequently confused ordinary americans. the president appears to be counting on that confusion to aser claims make it appear if biden has done something wrong. here's a quick guide to the president's statements and the truth. that is inside the washington post.

we will go to jim from fort lauderdale, florida. who do you trust in this investigation? caller: i trust the facts. i have never heard somebody screw up facts in my life as i have on this program. just my think the democrats cannot get dumber and more embarrassing, they managed to do so. they say that trump was ressuring zielinski -- zelensky. he was notid pressured and was already invested getting hunter biden. donald trump had two phone calls put inreign ministers the press by leaks from the white house. it is perfectly justified that he would put his cell phone calls in a secure device. you know what really is shocking? the press is not interviewing

hunter biden. pressople that think the is so honest -- they could find hunter biden. they could interview hunter biden. it might put to rest a lot of this. do they do it? now. .- no this is their own mission strategy to get at donald trump. this is horrible. and embarrassing. we will go next to james in san francisco. james, are you with us? james comer we will try one more time. try one morewill time. we will go to robert in florida. caller: i am proud of you, what you said earlier, sticking to the facts. what i wanted to say is i am a 79-year-old socialist, card-carrying socialist,

medicare person that thinks to democrats i have this. -- i likerepublicans that you would ask them a question. what has one republican party done for the working class? that will be a nice question to ask these people calling in on the republican line. i am proud of what you said. stick to the facts and keep going. host: thanks for the call. snl has been poking fun at presidents. for baldwin back last night the premier of the 2020 premiere saturday season of night live. [video clip] [applause] get me rudy giuliani on the phone. >> mr. trump, what's new?

>> what you mean what's new? i'm getting impeached. it is the greatest presidential harassment of all time. i would know. i am like the present of harassment. >> don't worry about it. nobody is going to find out about our illegal side dealings with ukraine were how we planned to cover up the side dealings or how we plan to cover up the cover-up. >> where are you right now? >> i'm on cnn. let me put you on speaker. >> get out of there. hang up the phone. who is this? >> it is attorney general barr. >> i'm starting to worry. >> stay calm. i have our top guy on this. >> let's get him on the phone. >> hello. >> dammit, rudy.

you are not still on cnn are you? >> of course not. i'm on the joe rogan podcast. >> hang up the phone and get out of there. you know i'm going to need somebody to take the blame for this. >> yes, but where are you going to find a sacrificial patsy that is going to do anything you will say? >> don't worry, i have the perfect stooge. ringing] >> hello? we are going to take a short break, and when we come back dennis ross is going to be joining us. we will be talking about middle east tensions and his book. --sr, heritage foundation the heritage foundation's john malcolm on democrats and the

house impeachment. ♪ >> tonight at 9:00 eastern on book thes, in his years that matter most, alt. reflects on the challenges and costs of a college education. >> we are still debating about whether a 12th grade of is enough. it is obviously not enough. all the signs from the economy are that it is not enough. , unlike our predecessors who were able to respond to those signs, we are fighting about it and turning it into questions of identity and , whenry and politics

clearly there is just a sign that our young people need our support, need more education, need more credentials to survive in the current economy. >> watch afterwords tonight on booktv on c-span2. >> monday night on the communicators, tennessee senator marsha blackburn, chair of the judiciary committees task force on china's huawei in the u.s., antitrust issues, and regulating big tech. >> some of these social media platforms that are beginning to distribute news and have a news feed, individuals want to see them have a news director. >> monday night on c-span2.

>> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c., and around the country so you can make up your own mind. c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. continues. journal" host: we want to welcome ambassador dennis ross, the co-author of the book "be strong: how israel's most important leaders shaped its destiny." thank you for being with us. guest: my pleasure. host: let's begin with a piece you wrote for the washington post.

white house on the brink of its first foreign-policy crisis, and you write, striking the balance between the threats and offering a radiance a way out is a challenge before the administration now. one possibility might be to propose that the french host a meeting between the parties of their ran nuclear deal with the aim of discussing the iranian nuclear program and dangers. how likely is that? guest: i think right now it is probably not that likely. the iranians feel that there policy of maximum pressure on us in response to maximum pressure we are putting on them is working. they don't feel they are isolated internationally. they are paying a price economically, but they are putting a lot of pressure on america's friends and interests in the region. their expectation is that at some point we will back down. i don't think the administration

is likely to back down now. that creates a dangerous situation. it creates the possibility for miscalculation. the idea that maybe you can bring back all the parties that negotiated to jcpoa who don't , andto see an escalation they could create an environment where the iranians feel we don't want to alienate those that were part of the area in nuclear deal, and the president might want to show he has a way out of what is now a stalemate with the iranians. host: i wonder as you mentioned political miscalculation based on what we have seen so far and what is ahead with regards to impeachment. guest: there is no doubt that creates a climate that everyone sees international. the iranians may conclude this is the time to put more pressure on the president because there is a kind of distraction.

that could be dangerous because he might feel he does not have a lot to lose. i come back to the fact that take place not because of your side wants them but because there is a miscalculation. i think this is dangerous because of that. host: at the u.n. this past week, here is the president on iran. [video clip] >> implemented severe economic sanctions on the country, hoping to free itself from sanctions, itsregime has escalated violent and unprovoked aggression. in response to iran's recent attack on saudi arabia, we just imposed the highest level of sanctions on iran's central bank and sovereign wealth fund. all nations have a duty to act. no responsible government should .ubsidize iran's bloodlust

menacings iran's behavior continues, sanctions will not be lifted. they will be tightened. have turnedrs will a proud nation into just another cautionary tale of what happens when a ruling class abandons its people and embarks on a crusade for personal power and riches. that was at the u.n. general assembly this past week. guest: what is interesting about it, in response to what was an unprecedented attack, meaning iran launched a direct attack against the most important saudi , we note the cruise missiles and the drones came from iranian territory. the fragments that were

recovered were unmistakably made by iranians. they crossed the threshold of doing something more direct. is clearly going to be more sanctions. one of the things that adds to the danger is iranians are increasingly feeling emboldened. they are less fearful of us. my risk is they will feel they can do more than the reality suggests. at some point they will cross a response.provokes the -- a response. host: do you think saudi arabia today is their ran of the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. hah was a desperate, but he

was allied with the united states. with the human rights issues in saudi arabia, we seem to be turning a blind eye to that because of the role saudi arabia is playing to counterbalance iran. is that the narrative? guest: it is an interesting one. saw himself as a modernizer. clearly the crown prince sees himself as a modernizer. the crown prince building legitimacy on the basis of nationalism and taking steps where he is liberalizing what have been the social restrictions within saudi arabia, he has a lot of public support. a lot of indications for people who have gone there, and the internal polling suggests 70% of the country under the age of 30 feel he is opening the country

for them. he has public support. host: where does the death of jamal khashoggi fit into that? guest: i was there last year. i was out in the gulf a couple of times. a month after the death of -- the murder of jamal khashoggi, i found a lot of saudi's who were very uneasy about this. a month later, i found them reacting to what they thought was unfair pressure from the international community. , somehow thatce has produced a strong sense of nationalism so that when there is pressure from the outside, it creates a backlash against it. ironically at this point, he has probably retained his popularity

domestically, and that is the reality of it you have to take into account. host: also at the u.n. this past week, their rainy and president rouhani -- the iranian president rouhani. you will hear him through a translator. [video clip] >> we negotiated with the incumbent u.s. government on the five plus one negotiating table. --ever, the failed to honor they failed to honor the commitment made by their predecessor. on behalf of my nation and state, i would like to announce that our response to any negotiation under sanctions is negative. the government and people of iran have remained steadfast against the harshest sanctions in the past one and a half years and will never negotiate with an

iran that seeks to make surrender with the weapon of poverty, pressure, and sanctions. if you require a positive answer, and is declared by the leader of the islamic revolution, the only way for talks to begin is to return to andmitments compliance. if you are sensitive to the name of jcpoa, then you can return to by themework and abide united nations security council resolution 2231. host: as you hear from the iranian president, one of the core issues is the economy in that country. what does it look like today? guest: the economic sanctions

have been crippling. there is no question. the value of the currency has declined by two thirds. think of what that means. if you have a savings account, it is worth two thirds less. prices on everything have escalated dramatically. unemployment is going up. fundnternational monetary before sanctions going back to 2018 had projected a 4% growth rate in iran. today they are projecting a 6% decline in the economy. whether you are talking about production, unemployment, , escalating costs of food and medicine, across the board the iranians are paying a severe economic price from the

sanctions. uhani was saying if the administration wants to negotiate, they will have to lift the sanctions. their approach to their maximum pressure campaign is to put enough pressure on our allies, friends, and interests, including the price of oil, to force the administration to withdraw the sanctions. it doesn't seem to have an answer to what the iranians are doing in the region. host: our guest is ambassador dennis ross. he served in the obama administration. he is the co-author of the book "be strong." we will get into the book in just a moment. kathleen is joining us on the democrats line. good morning. pathetic thatit

this is what iran got for signing up under the p5 plus 1. we know that netanyahu spoke in front of congress to try to get them to vote against the iran deal. netanyahu has been essentially conspiring with trump to get him to pull out of the p5 plus 1. this is what iran got, sanctions for signing the deal. iran signed a nonproliferation treaty. and has hadeapons weapons for decades and has refused to sign a nonproliferation treaty. they do not have international inspections. who haso ask dennis, been a lobbyist for israel for

decades and should have to sign under the foreign agents registration act, what do you think about netanyahu's efforts to undermine the iran deal and successfully to have done so with trump? i want c-span to have hillary mann on, who are far more temperate, and i encourage the public to go read what hillary mann wrote. about, what do you think netanyahu's influence? host: thank you. we have featured those authors on c-span2 on booktv. guest: the premise of the question that i am -- that i represent israel is wrong. if you read this book, one of

the things i am emphasizing is that israel has some very make.l choices to if it does not stop building outside of the settlement blocs, it is going to be one state for two people. host: we see israel fast approaching one of those hinge points in history where a decision is needed to preserve the country's character. israel's separation from palestinians may be more about divorce than peace. guest: the key thing to understand is that the reason israel is facing a choice is not because two states is available anytime soon. the palestinians are divided between the west bank and gaza. secession is looming on the with abad 84ide

years old. not have an impulse towards greater accommodation. two states is not available anytime soon. if israel keeps building outside of the settlement blocs. the vast majority of israeli rs live close to the green line. building there is consistent with a two-state outcome. we came up with the concept of the blocs. if you build outside of their, you are building inside of what would be a palestinian state. there are now 184,000 israelis who live outside of the blocs. if you want to preserve two states for when it is possible somewhere down the road, you have to stop building outside of the blocs now.

if you keep building, you are creating a strategic choice. what this book is about, looking historically at leaders who are prepared to make big decisions, say this is a looming decision. it is one that has strategic consequences. it is hard politically because of the weight of the settler movement in israel. leaders courage and a who is prepared to explain the stakes. it takes looking at the past when leaders were not reluctant to take the decisions. where they put the state first and not political interest first. that is what the book is about. let me begin with one of those leaders, the founding father of the state of israel, david ben-gurion. from his goalted of jewish sovereignty.

democratic values were no less indispensable, believing a jewish state must be rooted in universal values worthy of that effort. guest: david ben-gurion understood that the state of israel was ending 2000 years of homelessness and was living in a region where there was basically rejection of israel. it was important for israel to reflect a certain moral standing. from his standpoint, it was a country that had to live up to a with avalues and allied set of nations. and that was important as he sought it. good morning. i have a compound question.

al jazeera reported last night that there was a possible incursion into saudi arabia by the houthi brothers. saudi forces.red i am wondering whether or not you would believe that this of theirwith the help forces and whether this could lead to the tail wagging the dog situation. host: thank you. guest: i guess there are two points that are implicit in your question. place?h an attack take were saudi forces captured? the saudis are not saying anything. out that theyt

didn't breach saudi territory and capture a number of saudi forces. kuts forces have been responsible for funding and training and arming the houthis. we will have to see whether or not this turns out to be true. we have one side of the story so far. we don't have the other side yet. we will have to see. as for the tail wagging the dog, the implication that that could draw the u.s. into greater projection of force. one thing that is clear about president trump, he does not want to get into a war there. there is a certain continuity from that standpoint. said i wasbama

elected to get us out of middle east wars. president trump talks about endless wars in the middle east. it is clear that his desire not war, sucholved in a that we might provide limited defensive capability can but it does not appear that this president is keen on being drawn into a conflict. with the passing of ambassador wilson, how big of a deal do you think history will view george w. bush's decision to invade iraq in 2003? guest: this is one of those cases that will be studied historically. in a lot of ways it was a turning point in the middle east. there was a perception that you could never remove these strongmen. obviously the united states did from the outside, although it also unleashed all sorts of

forces within the middle east. in some ways you can look at awakening,he air of harak,moval of mub these strong authoritarian leaders could be removed. at the same time we see also to forces unleashed threat the region. at,ink iraq will be looked the decision-making process will be evaluated again. the consequences for the region will be looked at. in a lot of ways, it is interesting that there has not been a serious lessons learned study of iraq. i think it is long overdue. in a sense, those who were aainst the war view it as lesson that you should never be involved in a war in the middle east. those who were in favor of it continue to believe that removing saddam hussein is something that was important,

and taking a look in making a deeper judgment about what were the consequences of this? what were the costs? were there any gains? somewhere down the road, we will see a serious study done on iraq. we are still feeling many of those implications. host: the second prime minister you profile, you wrote, temperaments -- temperamentally he was a melodrama inclined former commander of the jewish underground while jimmy carter was a reserved peanut farmer. carter took lewis's advice at the beginning. guest: he did in the beginning.

in, theirr came initial meeting at the white house was a very bad one. the administration at the time did not think about what the impact that might have politically with israel might be. in some ways easier for his rival to get elected. carter was horrified at first when he was elected, but when he met him for the first time, he viewed him as a man of principle and felt maybe you would be possible to do things with him. luisnk the advice from san running up to that first meeting ledin the aftermath of it to let's go more with honey than vinegar. later on there was more of an application of vinegar. in the end you had camp david. there is no question that the hero of camp david is jimmy carter.

shapes thene who approach. he determines that you cannot focus only on the palestinians. you have to get the egyptian israeli peace treaty done at the same time. he sees the potential of working with him. withdraw 100% from the autonomy butsue leave the question of meant that heen was parting company with his own pace, with the people who were closest to him, who had been his comrades in the jewish underground. he was called a traitor by them. knesset a speech to the where he says we will not become rhodesia. ways, they were not

natural partners. and yet you can also take a look he did come it took great courage to take on his own closest comrades. it is not simple for someone like him to be called a betrayer. in his eyes he felt it was essential for the state to make these choices. ambassador dennis ross. nick is joining us on the republican line from north carolina. good morning. irst of all, i have to say think president trump is the best president we have ever had. i think he is getting a lot of bad play by the democrats that seem like they do nothing. they are doing nothing in the

congress. i would like to know why they have got a job there. that you are hearing sentiment from trump supporters. guest: this country is highly polarized right now. space prettymp much believes in whatever he says. now, i'm sure you could have someone from a democratic line who would say this is a president who does not feel limited by the law, and they would view him as a threat. on the one hand you have those who feel that anything president trump says is right, and you have those who feel that whatever he says is wrong. fors a political appointee two republican presidents and

two democratic presidents. there was a time when you could work on the hill across party lines. it would be nice to see something like that take place again. let me turn to the opinion page of the washington post. "the president is destroying the diplomatic corps." guest: i am disappointed that you had our ambassador to the ukraine pulled out. it was a long-standing diplomatic officer. seemingly pulled out because she was not prepared to be responsive to the efforts to get the ukrainians to launch an investigation designed to hurt the bidens. you have people who are put in these positions, and their first responsibility is to serve the country and not to politicize foreign policy. when i talked to minute ago about we had a time when we were

not so polarized, when there was more of a commitment to keeping politics stopping at the water's edge, and to go ahead and politicize the foreign policy for the benefit of the president and to penalize someone who is doing their job, i think that is a source of concern. presidents are entitled to have their investors in place who will implement their policies can but president trump's willingness to disparage her in a conversation with a foreign government should not be underestimated. allowing this to stand would not only have a chilling effect on the entire diplomatic corps, but undermine u.s. diplomatic policy broadly. guest: i agree with that sentiment. i am quite worried that if the foreign policy of the united

states is going to be conducted always through a narrow personal and political lens, in the end it is going to become a foreign policy that is basically destructive. if the people who are in the foreign service or civil service who serve, if they feel they toe to tailor what they do serve the personal political interests of the president, almost by definition, you are going to undercut the ability to carry out foreign policy that is driven by a set of rules, driven by a set of laws and values. in the long term, that is not healthy for the united states. host: we will go to kansas city. greg, your arms ambassador ross. caller: good morning.

"perception, he listened to what israel wanted. he was never viewed as a trusted world figure." draftped with yourself to aipac speech.008 he is not the only person who youreen critical of impartiality when it comes to issues related to israel and the middle east. also aaron david miller, a former veteran middle east thatmat has also expressed criticism. host: we will get a response. guest: you cannot work on the

israeli-palestinian issue and please everybody. i can tell you when i was our what you are doing as a mediator, and you are not going to be effective unless you recognize and understand the needs of each side. if you are going to take criticism, it is not surprising. it goes with the territory. if you are afraid to take criticism, don't get involved. i am a big believer that if you try to get anything done, you're going to get criticized. criticism is not the measure of whether you are doing what you should be doing. host: you wrote the book because? guest: we are worried that israel is headed on a path where if it continues to build outside of the settlement blocs, it will become one state for two peoples.

that is a prescription for enduring conflict. inevitably the palestinians will say that means one person one vote. in a positionel where it even loses its jewish democratic character or its democratic character. either everybody is treated the in which caselaw, it will be a democratic state, but it will not be a jewish state. if it denies democratic rights, then it loses its character as a democratic state. the whole idea was to say, can we draw from the past examples of guidance and inspiration of israeli leaders who faced up to the hard choices that they were confronting. of that be a source inspiration for israeli leaders today? what could the united states due

to help israeli leaders? host: a lot of questions about the current prime minister. can benjamin netanyahu form a new government, will he remain the prime minister? guest: i think it will be very difficult for him to form a new government. i think there has been already news that he has been given the mandate, but he might give it back to the present. the sticking point for blue white is having been yahoo! remain as prime minister. votedf their voters because they wanted him to no longer be prime minister. you have up to three months to try to form the new government. is that at one minute to midnight, a deal will be forged to avoid a third election. nobody wants a third election in israel.

expectute to midnight, i we will see a deal worked out where there will be a national unity government. whether netanyahu will remain prime minister remains to be seen. he is facing hearings. that will determine whether the attorney general goes ahead. that hearing and its aftermath and the decision the attorney general makes is likely to affect the government formation process. it will likely determine his future. host: our guest is dennis ross. ambiguity,hated which is the stuff of diplomacy. she did little to encourage affection. his integrity and analytical brilliance were awesome, and he was honest to a fault. that is henry kissinger's

description of him. the last part, honest to a fault was me. rabin was not only a person who could not lie, he did not like himself. he was the only leader i ever worked with who was prepared to say when he was wrong that he was wrong, and he would say if we had a debate on something and i have made an argument, later on he would say if he was wrong, you are right. that is not something i have experienced very often with leaders. host: republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. since you and your guest brought up the khashoggi instead it. best incident. we watched the surveillance where to show the and his fiancee were walking down, and he was going to meet her for

lunch, and then he goes into the embassy. all of these 17 men go in with suitcases, and a pathologist. the whole thing was a hollywood production. he never comes out. what happens is i think the prince was set up because the religious leaders in the country did not want him to modernize because he mentioned having women driving, going to the movies, sporting events. that a the news it said driving instructor who was there to help the women was murdered because of that fact. all of this was done to destroy the prince. host: thank you. to look tend not to try at these kinds of events through a conspiratorial lens.

i think this was not done by the religious establishment. it is true that there are those who are resisting the social changes the crown prince is engineering. i think he had a policy of trying to coerce dissidents into coming back. he said he did not give the order. what is interesting -- host: he said it did come under his watch. guest: in this interview, he said it came under his watch, therefore he was responsible. it would be good if he were more explicit in terms of saying, if i did not give the orders, he should've of said my orders were not clear enough. i replaced the people. i changed the policy. i have overhauled this. we have learned a lesson. it would be good to see him come out and say that.

i think it is positive that he said it happened on my watch, and i am responsible. it is difficult i think for the rest of the world to accept that things are really going to change unless they see that assumption of responsibility, unless they see greater transparency with the trials that are taking place. he is a modernizer. he is changing the country. i had a palestinian friend of is they, this emancipation of women in saudi arabia. this is a big story. it gets drowned out because of the khashoggi murder. the narrative of what he is trying to do, it is very important for him to be very explicit in terms of not only assuming the responsibility, but explaining what happened and making it clear the lessons learned and the sobering effect

of that. host: have you ever had interactions with the crown prince? guest: yes i have. what i just said to you, i have said to him. host: as a person? guest: he is very smart and committed to transforming his country. countryves that their needs to be transformed, that for the long-term survival and well-being of the country, they have to diversify their economy and get away from exclusive dependence on oil. they have to become a digitally based society. he understands all of that. he does face resistance. because of resistance within the religious establishment and parts of the family, he sees himself as carrying out a revolution from above. it is largely popular right now in saudi arabia. he will also have to deliver the goods.

they have made some hard decisions internally with regard the socialzing andities of saudi arabia they have imposed austerity measures. the public will expect at some point delivery of the goods. host: i want to follow up because there is a lot of question in terms of the secrecy of the president's relationship with the crown prince. what is behind that? is there any connection between that and what we are learning about his conversations with ukraine? we don't know. when everything is secret, you cannot be sure what is in it. there is obviously a pattern president trump has where he says lots of things. in the case of ukraine, there is no question he has asked the ukrainian president for a favor, and then he gets into giuliani

and the bidens. i don't know what he would have said to the crown prince. leadersue that other won't want what they have said in phone calls to be exposed. , a legitimatecern diplomatic concern, but also at a time when there are basic questions being raised about what the president is saying to other foreign leaders in terms of it falling outside of the bounds of what is acceptable, it is not a surprise that questions are being raised now about the other phone calls and whether the contents of those should be revealed. spies,re these people the people that are on the calls? that is what the president is saying. guest: no. i worked in five different administrations. fors a political appointee ronald reagan and george h.w.

and, president clinton barack obama. i felte was one thing was consistent, even if i disagreed, the intentions that motivated them were positive. they were trying to serve this country. those who were working within the intelligence community, they are doing what they think is best in terms of the interests of the country. you can disagree with them, but their values, motives, intentions. with carl, you're on investor dennis ross. caller: thank you. i have four questions for you. first question, who is the u.s. ambassador to saudi arabia right now? my second question, what is the actual job of jared kushner?

as a concerned citizen, i'm afraid the relationship between tin, aret trump and pu you concerned that he will want weaken nato, giving putin the ammunition he will need? why's it so hard to get anybody involved with president trump to come to congress and testify without the so-called residential privilege? privilege?tial what are we into now? host: i'm going to stop you there because we are short on time. guest: i will try to answer

several of those. i will not get through all of them. let me start with the last one. it is a legitimate question to ask about what falls within the bounds of executive privilege. understand, every administration tries to regard the prerogatives of the executive branch. and the executive branch each have their own responsibilities. typically most american presidents will try to resist the congress from imposing on their prerogative to conduct foreign policy. the president has a responsibility to do that. the question of executive whereege becomes one of are you intruding on the presidents ability to conduct his affairs. the tension is between being able to conduct your affairs on the one hand but also trying to

hide what is inappropriate behavior. onhink the balance has to be at least allowing the congress to do its job without making it impossible for the president to do his. when someone who is not part of coreyministration like lewandowski claims executive privilege, that makes no sense because he was never part of the government. claimiuliani might lawyer-client relations, but he is not a member of the administration. executive privilege would not apply to him. allowing people from within the administration to testify if it is compromising the ability to conduct foreign policy might be one thing, but if it is just designed to prevent disclosure, that is something else. host: the caller also brought up

jared kushner. he seems to have an expansive role in the administration, particularly on the middle east. he seems to be responsible for preparing a peace plan for the region. the economic components of that plan. we were told before the israeli election that that would be unveiled. we'll have to see because it is unclear. say up until now, the administration was speaking with prime minister netanyahu. the fact that you may have a different prime minister or different government has led the administration with jason greenblatt who works with jared kushner to go to israel and , the head benny gantz

of the blue white party who may emerge as prime minister. there is uncertainty on whether that plan will be presented at all. i think that is an open question. clearly been one of the major areas of jared kushner's responsibility. the last prime minister you profiled, ariel sharon. contrast,im a man of incredible personal discipline. he could never discipline his eating habits. he was the driving force behind building israeli settlements who actually dismantled settlements in the sinai. sharon was a complex man who went through an interesting evolution. he was the driving force behind building the settlements. created the grid in 1977 that israel has followed in terms of

developing the settlements. he was not driven by ideology. he was driven by security. talking about the solitude of the leader, what he meant is when you make a decision, it is all on you. you don't try to do for it. you face up to that. you face it alone. he put the state first when he gives his speech to the knesset explaining his decision to withdraw from gaza. is the hardestat thing he had to do, much different from sending soldiers into battle and knowing that some of them would not return. was, henful as that there, but heers had to put the state first. they all look at leadership the same way.

they all saw their responsibility as prime minister the same way. they put the state first and politics second. leaders now urging to follow the example of these predecessors. they were not perfect men, but when push came to shove, they always put the state first. strong and of good courage," the co-author investor dennis ross, thank you for stopping by. we're back with the issue of impeachment. john malcolm of the heritage foundation is joining us. later, npr financial news host robin far as that will talk about how this is -- roben fra zad will talk about how this is

impacting the markets. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> tonight on q&a, as the house launches a formal impeachment inquiry into president trump, hear from the editor of the book residential misconduct and one of the historians worked on a report commissioned by the house judiciary committee in 1974 on the impeachment inquiry into president nicola nixon. >> john doerr thought of the utility of a report like this and turned to his friend woodward and asked him to be the commander in chief of the project of preparing such a report, which was unprecedented

as he said in the injection to the original volume. he asked three people to be his field generals and identified and recruited about 12 1, 2, ors to write ofee sketches presidencies. i was chosen to do one. we had eight weeks to do it. it was done by telephone and by mail. we managed to do it in eight weeks. we submitted it, and that is the last we heard of it. six weeks later, the president resigned. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> the house will be in order. for 40 years, c-span has been providing unfiltered coverage of

congress, the white house, the policy court, and public events from washington, d.c., and around the country so you can make up your own mind. you by yourought to local cable and satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back john malcolm. he served as the deputy assistant attorney general in the george w. bush administration and is currently the director for legal and judicial studies at the heritage foundation. thank you for joining us. the president a short while ago on fox and friends, these are trumped up charges. big.ll win again turning this into a political fight, which it is. guest: it certainly is.

i don't respond to presidential tweets. the game is on, and it really is a game of high-stakes political poker. host: does this constitute a high crime and misdemeanor? guest: it is not a phrase that is defined in the constitution. it has been interpreted over the .ears to include gross abuses impeachment practice -- process is not meant to settle political disputes. that is why we have elections. in other countries, they have no confidence votes. it was proposed during the constitutional invention that maladministration of office be included, but that was not included. it is the house and senate that largely gets to define what constitutes a high crime and

misdemeanor. ony will typically rely blatantly illegal conduct. host: did andrew johnson deserve impeachment? guest: that's a good question. he survived by one vote. he did a couple of things that were bad. impeached for trying to undo reconstruction. that he could have been impeached for. was he was impeached for violating a law called the tenure of office act to that law said if the president wanted to remove executive branch official, congress had to approve it. he said no, i am going to remove them. he did. that radically angered congress. it turns out that history indicated andrew johnson that the supreme court said as a

matter of constitutional law, he was right. host: richard nixon was not impeached, but certainly would have been impeached. did he merit impeachment? guest: probably. that certainly appears to be what history has decided. the house of representatives had passed articles of impeachment, and they were sent to the full house floor. a number of senators probably from both sides of the aisle came to the white house and said the votes are there to impeach you and remove you from office, and he chose discretion and chose to resign. host: what about bill clinton? guest: bill clinton did not resign, and he was impeached, the second president to be impeached. the trial went to the senate. he was charged under the articles of impeachment with obstructing justice and committing perjury.

clearly the country did not want to see president clinton removed. they thought that arguably lying under with monica lewinsky was not sufficiently egregious to warrant a removal, even though it is a crime. the obstruction of justice thirds would take two majority to convict. it was evenly divided, i on the perjury charge, and the republicans took it on the chain of the next election cycle. host: we will get your calls in just a moment, but let's go to the whistleblower complaint involving the president. is interference includes, among other things, mainf the president's domestic political rivals.

attorneyiani and general barr appears to be involved as well." this from the whistleblower report. guest: the whistleblower says, shee frankly, that he or has no firsthand knowledge of what happened, and at least one significant respect, it is not an exact transcript come up the memorandum of the telephone call between president trump and nsky does note back up the telephone call. there was no explicit or to withholdeat those funds, but we will see where this all goes. this president, frankly, should leave the investigation of corruption charges to the department of justice. he should leave the campaign to the business of opposition research. of we are now down this path these men, and it only takes the majority of the house of

representatives to and teach the president, and the democrats certainly control the majority of the house. in the3% of voters survey saying the president asking ukraine to probe biden is, quote, "a serious problem." guest: it is a serious misjudgment, and it may cause a problem for him, clearly, there is an investigation. i think sex committees are going to focus on this issue, and i think the only people happy about this are white-collar criminal defense attorneys and washington, d.c. host: there's a lot of questions about joe biden and what he may have done or may not have done. some are saying it is optics. some say he stop it --secutor from investigators from investigating and welcomed me, though many say they were not even investigating it at the time. aret: there are things that

not clear, which was an energy company, i believe it still burisma holdings, and at some point, the president was connected to the president of ukraine, and at some point, the company was investigated. there is no question that hunter biden, i believe, in 2014, was asked to serve on the board of directors, and he had no experience in the energy field, and he was being paid $50,000 per month to serve on the board. there was also loan guarantees to the ukrainian government that joe biden leant to kiev. he said in a videotape, "i am leaving in about six hours, and in the next six hours, you do not fire the lead prosecutor,

you will not get the $1 billion," and they did. other than that, there is a lot of unknown. joe biden says he has never talks to hunter biden about his himness affairs, and both and his successor have given various statements. at one point, they said yes, we were investigating burisma holdings, and joe biden attempted to interfere with that, but in another case, he said no, we were not investigating, and the bidens did nothing wrong. we will find out in the next coming days, i suspect, what was going on with that. is from dayton, ohio on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. bothers me the most is republicans are not worried about the fact that our president has extended over to

another country, it seems like once again, to bring them into our election. what everybody needs to realize his democrat, republican, independent, we are all americans in this, and i am a service-connected veteran, a senior veteran, and i believe fivethe, the, um, those senators that finally came over to understand that this is about our elections and our national security and forget trying to cover for the president;'s dirt. his time is up. i was reluctant at first, but after this situation evolved, i had to say we need to look into this farther, and impeachment is warranted. guest: i am not sure what the reference to the five senators is, but, you know, thank you for your public service and for serving your country. host: next up is bob on the republican line, good morning. joining us from hobart,

wisconsin. gentlemen.d morning, veteran, and very proud of this president. the rest not listening. it is nothing to do with the president trying to get a foreign president to interfere with our election. so i wish the democrats would stop that. ukrainethe president of came on tv saying he is not being pressured. why do the democrats put words and call the ukrainian president a liar? i wish the democrats would wake up and stop the hate campaign and put america first. not illegals. i do not serve my country to take over by foreigners. thank you. host: thank you. guest: first of all, thank you, bob, for your service to our country as well. certainly we should not be encouraging interference with our elections.

the russians certainly intended to interfere with our elections in 2016, and probably for many years before then. doing assistance to opposition research i do nothing constitutes interference. i am not forgiving it. it may constitute another form of violation, but it is not interfering with our elections. and you're right, that president has said thatsky he does not feel pressured by the president to do anything in particular, and we will have to see how this all plays out. host: and he said that while he was seated right next to the president. guest: that is right. host: this is from the president yesterday, oh "it is disgraceful that the democrats are doing the impeachment scam, but it is also disgraceful that they are not doing prescription drug repricing, gun safety, infrastructure, and much more." istic's would say that it

senate republican leader mitch mcconnell who is holding up any bills coming from the senate. guest: [laughs] both of those things are right here to the extent in which the house is going to be using its time conducting an impeachment inquiry, they are not going to be spending their time doing the people's business by legislating, thinking of the usmca, gun control, all of the other measures that were there. but it is also equally true that while the democrats controlled the house, there are 53 republican senators in the senate, and they to not always like everything that comes over from the house. so, look, passing legislation is a difficult thing to do. i personally think that is a good thing, you know, it takes both houses of congress and the president to cooperate on a law that impacts all americans, and we have divided government. the house is not quite to live with the senate sends overcome and vice versa. host: our guest is john malcolm. linda is joyous on the

republican line from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i have to say about president trump, he is the best president we have had in a long time. he is trying to make america great. he is doing well. the democrats are so far left, it is a shame. they are not working with the president, and they are just going downhill. president trump is trying to make america great. i feel this impeachment that they are doing is so far left. it is really sad. american, which i am very proud to be, why can't they work together to work on health care, to work on prescriptions for seniors and for other people? it is sad. so set. host: brenda, thank you. thathile you are making comment, this is a comment from lindsay that says "if the president loses in 2020, we will impeach you ever beats him, so

they had better get ready for four years of hell." to both of those points. thank you, brenda and i certainly like a number of things he is doing as well, but democracy is messy, and it has certainly been a somewhat tumultuous time. in terms of payback, if the president is either convicted or ites the election, you know, is probably a reality that that sort of thing goes on. i personally would prefer that people focus on the issues, and whoever the president is, he or she is our president, and i, you know, i wish them success. if there are policies i like, i will speak out in favor of them. if there are policies i don't like, i will speak out against them. host: james in south bend, indiana, democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning. it is sunday. it always seems on the campaign trail that christian values and

whether a president or candidate is, you know, the religious aspect always comes up in it. and there's two passages -- it is sunday, if you will allow, 19:24, "a rich man," which donald trump is great wealthy, and so are his supporters come in many cases, "a rich man with have the least chances into the kingdom of heaven, like a camel going through the eye of a needle." timothy 6:10, "for the love of money is the root of all this evil." i think trump and his supporters have a lot more to worry about sense,eternal that impeachment. host: james, thank you. guest: [laughs] james.ou, i have no idea what donald trump, his supporters, or what will happen to me when we go in eventually meet our maker, if we

will be making a trip up or down. , wisha christian myself for his well-being. the president has hardly led a perfect life in terms of his personal relations with peopl, but i would note that in terms of being a strong proponent and supporter of religious liberty in this country, he has done a pretty good job. host: on the republican line from california, pamela. good morning. you are on with john malcolm from the heritage foundation. caller: if i understood the guest correctly, john said that the ukraine government members the energyat, uh, company was being investigated by the prosecutor that biden fired, and at other times they said that, that the energy company was not being, um, investigated by the prosecutor that was fired by biden.

and at the beginning of the show, you can mount, steve, and said, just to get the facts straight, that the prosecutor that was fired was not investigating the energy company that biden's son was connected with. host: that is what he claimed. clearly, there's a lot of misinformation out there. that is what he had claimed. caller: you presented it as -- straight.these facts and now that we have john on -- and i was taking you at your word. i thought -- it did not really matter to me, because the bottom line for me is, well, first of all, i think you should make it clear to the audience that it is .ot a fact evidently, it is something that is being sent out by the democratic party, that the prosecutor that was fired have nothing to do with biden's son, and that is not clear at all. host: stay on the line.

we will follow-up in a second, but to the first point. there is a lot of confusion in terms of -- guest: there is a lot of confusion, and a lot of the confusion is coming, frankly, from the prosecutors who were involved. if joe biden was sitting here, he would say, i was in charge of dealing with a country that had a reputation for corruption during upheaval, and the reason i haven't fired as he had a reputation for being a corrupt prosecutor, and there are even shokin wasid that slow walking an investigation against burisma holdings. viktor shokin himself has said, yes, i was investigating burisma holdings, and joe biden got me fired for investigating it. he has also said he was not

investigatin burisma holdings. zelensky has similarly said at some point, yes, i think ukrainians attempted to interfere in the u.s. election on behalf of hillary clinton, and i was investigating burisma holdings, and i was stopped from doing that, and what a terrible thing it was, and i believe most recently, he has said no, i was investigating burisma holdings, and as far as i know, the bidens have not done anything wrong. so there is a tremendous amount of misinformation, mostly because the two prosecutors involved have issued to conflicting statements. caller: why went biden's son be paid $50,000 a month by the company in ukraine? why would china give him $1.5 billion to start a hedge fund, and lets his name was biden, and he was somewhat felt -- it is extremely corrupt.

it seems like that -- not that, that she might host: you are right, that is also a fact that is hurting the narrative. guest: those are very good points. i mean, it is unfortunate reality, but it is a reality, that the relatives of powerful people often cash in. and, you know, look, i do not know hunter biden, but by all accounts, he had no expertise in the energy field. $50,000 a month to be on the board of an energy company is an awful lot of money. and you mentioned that he come of this company, has profited quite well. i have heard to the tune of $1.5 billion, but i have no independent verification of that, in connections in china. other than the fact that he may be a smart guy and he is the former vice president's son, i do not know what his credentials t thosee to warran

sorts of lucrative contracts. host: we will go to bill, joining us from delaware on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, bill. caller: i would like to know -- when are they going to investigate joe biden? him and his whole family is corrupt. his son is an animal. he was chasing his brother's , he, after his brother died moved in with her. he used her. joe biden used to run around -- ifhe secret service you don't like it, quit. i am not sure but that last fact, but -- guest: it is certainly true that hunter biden, i believe, married, you know, his deceased eau's, former wife -- host: they dated.

they never married. guest: thank you for the correction. i knew there was a relationship between the two of them. they have been working and will continue to work, so long as joe biden amazing viable candidate -- remains a viable candidate, there is a book that details a lot of this information, so it there, and whether these investigations against joe biden and his family going to continue. i suspect they will, but i have no inside knowledge on that at all. host: from the associated press, "the president blurring the line between personal lawyer in attorney general," and john in terms ofsk this your experience at the justice department, the ap writes the following -- "as washington plunges into attorney general

bill barr finds himself involved in the political firestorm, facing questions about his role in president donald trump's outreach to ukraine and the administration's attends to keep -- repeatedlyr told ukraine's president and a telephone call that barr and trump personal attorney rudy giuliani could help investigate trump's democratic rival, joe biden." guest: yeah, so those are somewhat separate matters. the first is whether or not bill witness in some

way. there is no question of the president mentioned him during this call, that bill barr just said, and you just said, that the president did not talk to him about the ukraine, has not talked to him about ukraine. i personally believe bill barr is a man of tremendous integrity, and i see no wor reason to doubt his word at all. with respect to the whistleblower complaint, that is a different issue. that in the inspector general, the acting, security, i guess, director of national intelligence, loved them i think as is proper, to the office of legal counsel within the department of justice and said "i got this whistleblower to complaint? if there statue to turn this over to congress?" he then went to a whip smart guy who wrote, what is, in my opinion, a correct legal opinion, and said look, this is not a matter within the intelligence community. it does not deal with covert operations, it does not deal funds out of the

intelligence community, and oh, by the way, the director of the national intelligence reports to the president, and not vice versa, so it did not fit in this statutory category that required the issue to be turned over to congress. their opinion goes on to say that does not mean you deep-six this opinion. if you think criminality occurred, the appropriate thing to do is make a referral to the department of justice, which was done. the department of justice does not announce what it is doing in terms of its investigations and is conducting. they either bring charges or they do not bring charges. the allegations here was thin, not in terms of any kind of potential abuse of office, but that this was soliciting a campaign contribution from a foreign government because it would be a thing of value. that is a pretty technical charge. the department of justice decided that did not warrant a criminal prosecution, and they did what they typically do when they close an investigation, which is that they don't announce anything, and they don't tarnish somebody to a

non-charge. host: we go to monrovia, michigan, woody on the democrats line. good morning. good morning, john. i was wondering, do you think there is anything wrong with the president of the united states going to the president of a foreign country and asking him to look up dirt, to look up anything about his leading top democratic nominations to be president? do you think there is anything wrong with that? don't that violate the constitution? you know, we had the russians interfere with our last elections, now he is asking ukraine interfere with this election, and you don't see anything wrong with that? guest: no, i did not say that. i do not like that the president did it. i began by saying that i think that corruption and criminality

should be investigated by the department of justice, and that opposition research should be left to media firms that are hard to support a campaign. that thely think president acted in an unseemly mixing the conversation with his personal lawyer, rudy giuliani. i did not hear anything, though, about not only pressure but in a quid pro quo, which is what the allegation is, that the president was somehow saying, "if you don't do this, then we are not going to give you the $391 million in aid," that had congress.ved by there is no mention of that aid explicitly or implicitly. host: let me stop you to that point. there may not be mention of that enough", but if there is evidence that the at administration withheld the money, and that is part of what we are trying to find out with regard to what the state department had with other conversations with ukrainian leaders, if that is true, does that constitute unimpeachable

events? guest: that is a big "if." he did with hold the funds for a period of time -- host: but if they can prove that is why he withheld the funds. guest: an impeachable offense ofld be a gross abuse office, and i think that would be a serious matter and i certainly think it was established that there was a quid pro quo, and that ukrainian president was told, "you do this, you get the funds. if you don't do this, you don't get the funds," i think it would be inevitable that you would be impeached by the house. i still have a hard time, particularly in an election-year, seeing 67 senators voting to put the president out of office, but that was certainly be troublesome. host: right now, you see there will be an impeachment, but at this point, not a conviction in the senate. guest: there will certainly be an impeachment proceeding. the democrats are proceeding very aggressively. they are noticing dispositions

of all sorts of people. ino not think they are there terms of having a majority to actually return articles of impeachment now. i think, for instance, that is one of the reasons why nancy pelosi has not called for the whole house to begin an appeasement inquiry, which is typically how this is done. i do not think she is sure she has the votes, and i do not think she wants her members being on record, but that is speculation on my part. but they have clearly boar the impeachment traind and started down the track. was answered in a positive, that there was this quid pro quo, if you will, that i think it would go to impeachment, go to trial in the senate, and that is a big if. host: and has been waiting in north carolina, republican line. good morning. caller: hello. i am a ukrainian immigrant from

ukraine, and i am surprised that nobody is asking people of ukraine what is their opinion of what is going on. and i remember during previous administrations, i was reading the sources, in ukrainian language, and they were talking about that corruption all the time. as an added fact, they, the electedn people, is lord america's zelinski -- they -- eed lord mayor zelinski to fight thaty crime, and they support the tople who elected zelensky fight the corruption on the previous administration, and ukrainian people are wondering,

why is that, he is getting impeached for that? host: thank you, anne. guest: thank you very much, anne, for that, and there is no question that ukraine had corruption. hopefully volodymyr zelensky is addressing it. is why president trump talked about withholding the funds. he did not want to turn over minor would end up in the pocket of progress and not in the pocket of ukraine. look, if joe biden were not running for the democratic nomination, it would be a nonissue, and i am not even saying there is anything improper about investigating joe biden for things that he might have done that were corrupt, that is also if, when he was vice president, but that is also the kind of investigation that takes place by the department of justice, and the president, as a political matter, what have been

well it devised to leave that as general law and let him do that wantedthing, and if he to supplement by the work of his personal lawyer, and the president should not have been involved with having that conversation, in my opinion,, over a telephone call. host: from connecticut, william, democrat's line. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i had a couple of things, but i just want to say a couple of statements here. one, i think your guess being very disingenuous about the situation in ukraine. and ukraine, there was the moreean community that is than the united states, once that particular prosecutor was removed from office, and i think you guys are being very disingenuous about that. i do not know what the motive is, but we just spent 22 million

on the muellerrs investigation -- host: let me stop you on that point. you are breaking up a little bit. their pressure from other allies to force this ukrainian prosecutor out? guest: i do not think there was anything as forceful as what vice president biden did. but there was no question that viktor shokin had, at best, shall we say, a mixed reputation, and joe biden said look, this guy has a reputation for being a corrupt prosecutor in for slow walking investigations, and i do not think he is the only one who had that view. whether it is true or not, i don't know. host: this is a hypothetical, the house votes to impeach president trump, it goes to the senate heard how quickly does the senate republican leader need to bring it to the senate floor. i because of vision, it says

"shall." can he slow walk this? guest: the president cannot slow walk it. the house and the senate -- host: i am talking about the senate. guest: yes, the house can slow walk this -- which, if it is going to be slow walked, i think it is more likely to be in the house, but the answer is it is unclear if the senate actually has to hold a trial. there are various procedures if they decide to hold a trial. should it be referred to the senate for a trial? matter, ifcal returned to the articles of impeachment, the senate would hold a trial. what that would look like and how anybody would do that is anybody's guess, but there is no time line for that. host: john malcolm with the heritage foundation my guess is we will be checking in with you in the months and weeks ahead. guest: [laughs] host: thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. my pleasure. host: we are discussing the

markets and your 401(k) and your portfolio. us asfarzad of npr joins "washington journal" continues. we are back in a moment. ♪ this weekend on american history tv come up today at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the psychological impact of flying on world war i pilots. and at 7:00, women in the apollo program and the challenges they face. >> there were cameras all over the place, but they were supposed to be in the hull. this camera, i had no idea it had been on me. i did not say anything about it turned we do not even know the term "sexual harassment," and there are two ways to think of that. one, it is a little voyeuristic on the part of the dudes that ae watching you, and it is

little harassing, but let them all know, let everybody who is thatn this damn room know there is a woman here, i am here, get used to it. [cheers & applause] onexplore our nation's past american history tv, every weekend on c-span3. pelosi: the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and events from washington, d.c. and around the country, so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back rob is ours at -- roben farzad,

host of npr's "one full disclosure." to your let's talk about a markets and how the president is helping with all of this and more than 100 tweets involving impeachment investigations, and he wrote the following, "if they actually do this," regarding impeachment, "the markets would crash. do you think it is luck that got us to the best stock market economy our history? it wasn't." luck, but also not be president. i am sorry to say, so many things outside of the executive branch that charge this kind of record bull market and economic expansion-. the market is a strange thing with presidents. the oath ofa took office and the markets for tanking. he was not exactly in a position to run victory laps around it going into the 2012 election. you do not want to be seen as an elitist or a tool of wall street

, but when the markets do well, like they did under clinton, you do kind of want to take credit. it produces jobs. trump embraces it whole hog. i think if you talk to people on wall street, if you talk to investors, it is really not about the president. host: i remember from one college class, the professor said "the markets hate isertainty," and yet there uncertainty over the usmca, the china trade deal, and now the possibility of impeachment, and yet the markets continue to go up. guest: the markets are, once again, i feel like a brokered record, they are near record high. you can throw 5000 metaphors at it. a lot of things are at work right now. a low unemployment rate, very easy access to capital. the united states being a lead in an uncertain world, or even if we wanted interest rates to

climb of higher to an unnaturally low level, people keep piling on the dollar and u.s. treasuries. it is a great problem to have, thei would clip back that majority of it is due to the person in the oval office. host: the current fed chair, jerome powell, speaking to reporters earlier this month about the markets, interest rates, and economic road ahead. [video clip] chair powell: trade policy tensions have waxed and waned, and elevated uncertainty is weighing on u.s. investment and exports. our business context around the country have been telling us that uncertainty about trade policy has discouraged them from investing in their businesses. business text investment posted a modest in the second quarter, and toent indicators point --esting in our businesses .2 continued softness.

appointment of janet yellen, he wanted his own hand-picked person. i do not recall any resident being satisfied with interest low enough. people can refinance their mortgages, did mortgages, refinance their credit card debt, i think it is a stretch, and people are amazed that you have an easing fed this far in the bull market, where works wasreal estate, obviously ground zero some years ago, banks or recapitalize, paying dividends again. you would be hard-pressed to point at true economic stressors that would justify the fed taking interest rates to 0, which is what president trump has endorsed fear tweet took interest rates to 0 when we have the worst financial collapse since the great depression. now you have record of limit, a aoc unemployment,

poignant stock market. it is a tough case to make your that said, we have seen big drop-offs and uncertainties from manufacturers answers certain inventories, demand going up six to nine months, but only at certain amount of that can be ameliorated by interest-rate cuts. for: (202) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and if you are at an independent, (202) 748-8002. jerome powell has been a target of the president o's ire, which is a different from previous presidents, who have been has off when it comes to the fed. why? guest: this president likes to worry about his lead. likedent carter did not paul volker out there choking inflation by taking rates up to levels. teens and awful

you have the greenspan come of the bush 43 presidency, keeping rates low for unnatural period. no one can ever be truly happy with what is going on here you are fighting a recession that thethink is far worse, white house perspective, or inflation, which is a is overrated. and this is why we have an independent fed. you are not supposed to be touting these things for an election, you are supposed to be nonpartisan, really cold eyed in your analysis, keeping inflation orcontrol -- in control spiraling toward full employment. this president really shatter that. should wall street be concerned if elizabeth warren is the nominee? guest: in many interviews, people threatened to hold our noses and vote for trump. it is a very strange relationship in lower manhattan in midtown manhattan with this

child of the real estate market. they do not love him in new york, but wall street is also terrified of this kind of creeping expropriation, class warfare coming back. host: we will go to gary, joining us from indiana. good morning. yeah, i am the voice of the common man. i am here to take a stand. let's talk perspective for a minute, gentlemen. from a certain viewpoint, the economy is doing well, yeah, joe blow rich guy is making tons of money, yeah. that also look at the fact prices and wages are so out of balance, they are still out of whack. you call this a great economy? explain this to me, people. and mr. trump, i just want to say one thing here, i think you have got this thing all wrong as

far as your own perspective about the economy. you.revolution against say something. i will see you. host: there you have it. guest: i think this is what you see elizabeth warren and bernie sanders and the democratic party, alexandria ocasio-cortez, she is kind of the -- she is the speaker of the house from the twitter perspective and the generational perspective. things that are taboo for older democrats in terms of class onfare, in terms of taxes outsized capital gains, private equity taxes, the public option -- you remember when that was taboo, but now medicare for all, free college. you have elizabeth warren, who is arguably tied for the lead right now, in terms of democratic nomination come out right embracing these things. in fact, there is a famous hers, when cnbc ran a

story about people on wall street who are ready to back or sit it -- trump out, defaulting, she said "i am iizabeth warren, and endorse this message," kind of condoning it. wages, even with unemployment year, 60-year low wages, wages have not kept up with capital gains, so there are really amenable to the siren all,of medicare for redistribution, canceling out college debt, especially when you talk to twentysomethings, and people who came of age professionally in the financial crisis, millennials. it is interesting to see -- and by extension, their lack of support for jill biden. host: on twitter, i have seen some people describe your show as "the c-span of npr." guest: oh my gosh, the c-span of

npr. i have been called the iranian george clooney by my mother. i have never heard "the c-span of npr." you can follow me. the show was about to increase in frequency from once weekly to three times a week. i do bar mitzvahs, i do weddings, whatever you like. [laughs] host: what is your program like? guest: i like to bring on guests antes on a story from where you may not expected, how a restaurant store hustles, or how a comedian kind of found his voice and found a business model, and maybe five or 10 minutes into the show, you realize you are actually entertained, but you are learning something. so yes, i come from a finance background, but i like to find business in all sorts of places. host: we will go to james. you are on with roben farzad of npr. good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to say, it is great to be with you. i just had one question. guest,shington journal"

do you believe in the u.s. constitution and backing it without a personal point of view, without a pen? do you support the united states? host: james, give me a sense of where you are going with this, so we can get an answer? caller: i'm sorry? host: i am confused in terms of where you are going with this. caller: well, i just want to know, does journalism support our constitution and bill of rights and civil rights? host: do you want to respond? guest: i was sworn as a naturalized citizen in downtown miami 20 years ago. it was my proudest day as an american. i felt so great about it. sitting here at the c-span video, looking at the capitol rotunda, you cannot help but be inspired and feel like you are

part of something bigger. i am amazed at the many headlines right now in the country, and also kind of how divided it is. it is a great time, i think, to be a journalist, but i also think about this country and the institutions and what my children will inherit, so i am -- don't just look at me as a journalist, look at me as an american, look at me as a patriot, and many things in the event diagram. host: our guest is a graduate of harvard university and prince and has written for the "boston globe" and the "wall street journal." good morning. caller: good morning. i think the guest somewhat downplayed trump's effect on the stock market here i think changing the corporate tax rate and a rollback of numerous business regulations really spurred the economy on, so i think he did have a role in the increase in the stock market and

the consumer confidence, and i will take your response off air. thank you. guest: no doubt. i did not mean to diminish that or anything. by i think that is tempered this trade war with china and the headline back and forth and the newfound volatility that we have seen. you talk about reading the tea leaves, depending on a tweet or what you see out there, optimism for a meeting or no meeting, you look at how much volatility this has added to the situation, and even in the fed's comments, it is more than headlines. it makes manufacturing difficult, it makes exports very nervous, companies like apple, that overwhelmingly depend on the chinese supply chain looking at other markets. it is not possible to not make a in six tot turn nine months. host: you can follow us on twitter, by the way, @cspanwj. democracy isur

more important than worrying about the economy going down or the stock market crashing." john in virginia, good morning. caller: i have a question. did you ever consider doing -- i know you do a lot of educational shows, every time a liberal calls in, you hear that hillary won th majority vote, and the electoral college is outdated. can you maybe do a show of how the electoral college and to be? is themes that is not taught in schools anymore. wet: we actually have, and on do more, you can view american history tv on c-span today. you can go to our website, and the search engine on c-span.org, you can type in "electoral

and everything we have covered on the topic will be there. , in thisems like program as well, will focus on the history of the electoral college, and the president to have won the popular vote but not the electoral college vote. i am fascinated by the electoral college, and i read about it all the time, the relative value of a vote in california versus, say, wyoming. you do want to have this idea of one man, one vote. the popular vote is problematic. you wonder if the candidates would overwhelmingly go to the major cities in the coastal environments, where they are getting most leverage, you know, for appearances, but there is something strange when a person wins, what, 3 million more in an election. you saw it happen without war my think of at the turn-of-the-century, it was a half a million more votes, but the party that played certain states that are, who did some

arbitrage -- you look at trump, and trump is in michigan, kind of running the table on that, and in pennsylvania. and these have long-lasting implications, saying the majority of the population can control the supreme court appointment for the next four to eight years. if you look at the number of lifetime supreme court appointment to have been put in office by president twho won the electoral college but not the popular vote, just since 2000, it is a pretty striking number. it stands out. host: we are also taking a text messages, and this is from stephanie, joining us from michigan, and her text message, going back to an earlier conversation, "republican caller s need to stop blaming the democrats. this was a republican expect her general who said it was a -- inspector general who said it was a matter of national security." let me ask what you think and where this is all heading. tost: oh, gosh, it is hard

ignore the vortex, like like the bermuda triangle, it is this enormous sucking sound that is sucking everything in. we want to focus on the economy or trade wars, but everything keeps reverting back to this impeachment conversation. lastg said that, the time we dealt with us, say in 1998, 1990 89, you have the house moving for impeachment, and the senate did not move on after you have the global financial crisis, russia was falling apart, then you see clinton and his post- impeachment, lame-duck mess in 1999, and it was a rip roaring year for the stock markets. there is such little correlation here yes, impeachment is a potential. it is not likely. but he is not point to be removed. you are not going to have enough republicans in the senate to remove him, and even if he were to be removed, would a mike pence take such a vastly different strategy? i think when you do speak to some people on wall street, and

this is what worries me, the could potentially find markets, find the country, and find the democracy and 2020. you have both sides truly digging in their heels and not subscribing to the role of the election and the typical norms of the election. you did see markets fell off enormously when there was not a decision that came out of florida. but having said that, the market is not really price of that in right now, and certainly the economy is not. host: amanda has this -- "can you please inform the audience that it is the electoral college, not the electorai al college? this is about the fifth caller that has mispronounced it." amanda, you are right, it is electoral college. kathy, you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. can you hear me? host: we sure can. go ahead, kathy.

caller: i am sitting here, regarding the stock market, it is in flux, up-and-down continually. there seems like there is no continuity at all, because it is implicated by tweets. i also have a false security by the president that has, i believe, six bankruptcies in his history. i feel like our national debt is a major primary concern, and it foiable, this national debt that we have, it is affecting the global markets. can you please talk about that come our national debt, and the implications on the markets? host: thank you, kathy. guest: thinking about "hamilton," where people line around the block to get tickets.

himselfr hamilton subscribed to the idea that a country needs a debt, and you should not just subscribed to a creditor in a gutter, and this case there diameter may set the extent of which we have kind of gone off the rails in terms of fiscal responsibility and inflated the debt and have not been able to kind of eke down the debt or pay off the debt at this time of economic expansion. host: $72 trillion and growing. guest: yeah, but look where our interest rates are. why are we not being punished by investors? why are we remaining the number one destination for international fixed income, and, you know, currency investors? if that were the case, if we were bypassing to some sort of insolvency, we would not be good for the money could united states would not be able to issue 10-year debt is less than 10%, so there is definitely a disconnect, it is space to american exceptionalism.

us,e is something about yes, we can print money, we can take on inflation, but we have gotten out of dicey situations before, and the money, again, we will get out of this situation. you can keep growing out of this, even though the economic expansion is really long and betsy thomas and at some point, you will have to make decisions, that the debt becomes so overwhelming you have to look at increasing revenues, somehow, to tax hikes or slashing government expenditures. host: we welcome our c-span listeners, including those listening on potus channel 124. our guest is roben farzad, and you are joining us this morning. good morning. caller: good morning. a simpleike to ask question. according to classical economics, what effect does a generic president have on the economy?

and you can express it as a percentage, but i would like to know, uh, how much credit does any president get for the performance of an economy? not a stock market, an economy. thank you. host: thank you. guest: it is so hard to quantify. remember from econ 101, if you break down the definition of gdp or gnp, there are imports s, that iss, recede you could have fiscal stimulus, certainly, that is led by the president, but it is hard to calculate that. i know they want to take credit for expenses under their watch and want to deflect blame, be it or inflation, but i think this is really kind of a pr question. how do you kind of parlay great news in your favor and blame the

opposition for gridlock or whatever it is? we certainly have no shortage of bear markets. that is kind of the price of admission to being an investor in the market. and our markets, they do not necessarily correlate. to theback, again, clinton administration and the bull market, that was really for foragenus regions -- exhausted reasons. internet explosion and gains from emailer the lichen kind of a reckoning for that in the year 2000 and 2001, and you have george w. bush, certainly pursued expansionist fiscal policy, but the internet bubble collapsed. we had a financial crisis at the end of his second term. correlation and causation is difficult here. host: it is impossible to predict the market, but it has for thea strong role last 10 years.

what would you look at the say this cannot continue? guest: i have been looking at a minsky moment, that little bit involvesthing that everybody stepping back and saying, ok, we need to look at this." the terrible news coming out of weworkd which is one of the most innovative companies, which has kind of changed the definition of working, you make long-term leases and rents out subdivided office spaces to people, wall street was toting it at essentially $47 billion, and it was going to be a blockbuster i feel. and within a few days, the ceo was gone. you had the "wall street journal " and others reporting on terrible self-dealing, kind of back, and i" name think it was a bigger black eye for wall street and silicon valley that you were about to sell this to a public that really looked at it as such and

ipo, and people step back and said, well, what we think about uber, lyft, by companies so heavily subsidized by venture capital larges? would we be able to buy a tesla, thel 3's are $42,000, if company did not have a financial backstop? it is burning through tens of billions of dollars. host: what worries you the most, though? guest: i think that. i think when people realize that speculation is part of the normal right now, they step back. they are kind of aghast and say, holding ash, am i portfolio that has a lot of bubbles underneath it?" if found like a dessert ingredient in a dairy queen or something, but you do wonder, i needa panic, but maybe to start taking money off the

table and expect more of a bear market, or at the very least, for money and the things that have not worked as well over the past 10 years, such as international and emerging markets and value. i know we are getting to inside baseball, but everything since 2009 has been the go, go, hot company, buy facebook, apple, google, amazon, this, this, at the expense of the old tired of dividend-paying companies, and we saw that before 2009, where there was a huge bear market in tech, and i'm wondering when that reckoning will have been. host: roben farzad can be heard on npr and social media. how can they follow you? guest: you can follow me at my frarzad.@robenbar host: we appreciate you being on the show. they are back, "snl," in case you missed it, here is the opening skit. [video clip] [cheers & applause]

alec, as trump: give me rudy giuliani on the phone. >> oh, hey, mr. trump, what is new? alec, as trump: what do you mean, "what is new?" i am the greatest president of all time. i am the president of harassment. >> we have nothing to worry about. nobody is going to find out about our illegal side dealings with ukraine. alec, as trump: good. >> or how we covered up those side dealings. alec, as trump: great. >> or how we plan to cover up the cover-up. alec, as trump: rudy, where are you right now? >> i am on cnn right now. let me put you on speaker. alec, as trump: whatever you do, get out of there, and stay off the phone. i have got another call. who is this? >> it is attorney general barr.

alec, as trump: i am really starting to worry. >> stay calm, mr. president. i know things are bad now, but we have a tough guy on this. alec, as trump: ok, good, let's get him on the phone, too. >> o i'm on the "joe rogan" podcast. >> hang up the phone and get out of there. bill, you know i'm going to need somebody to take the blame for this. >> yes, but where are you going to find a sacrificial paci that will do anything that you say. >> don't worry. i've got the perfect stooge. [laughter] >> hello? >> that's from last night on "saturday night live," courtesy of nbc. reminder, we're back tomorrow morning with c-span's "washington journal." among our guests will be jenny besidemartin to talk about the impeachment and we'll be joined by reverend jim wallace to talk about campaign 2020.

a reminder to check out c-span2's book tv and c-span3's american history tv. thanks for joining us on this sunday and enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a get a week ahead. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] ♪ >> next, representative mark pocan, co-chair of the progressive caucus is on guest as "newsmakers." some of conversations will be the impeach president trump. and follow the brief briefing by house speaker nancy pelosi announce the impeachment inquiry and reaction by kevin mccarthy.

and we'll show you president trump's meeting with the ukrainian president at the united nations and later, joseph mcguire -- maguire testifies about the handling of a whistleblower complaint against president trump. and the conversation the president had with the president f ukraine. >> tonight at 9:00 eastern on "afterwords," in his book "the years that matter most," paul tough reports on the conversation and introduced by rah and of hope center for college, community and justice. >> and we are still debating about whether a 12th grade education is enough. it's obviously not enough and all of the signs from the economy and the labor market are that it's not enough but unlike our predecessors who were able to respond to that basic economic signs by saying ok,

let's educate our young people, we are fighting about it and turning it into questions of identity and snobbery and politics and partisanship when clearly, there's just a sign that we are young people need our support, need our help, need more education, need more credential, need more skills in order to survive in the current economy. >> watch "afterwords" tonight on book tv, on c-span2. >> on "newsmakers" this week, our guest is mark pocan. cochair of the progressive congressional caucus. and in studio to help with your questions, scott hill for "the you have theer and first question. >> it is great to see you. i would like to start off with the news of the week. as we look forward to this