education setting on c-span2 at 9:00 a.m. on c-span3 at nine: 30, a forum on china's role in the world. >> the supreme court justices return for the new term next week. the first monday in october, with the court hearing cases based on discrimination based on sexual orientation, the trump administration's winding and state funding for religious education. listen on c-span.org and watch on c-span. morning, the former senior counsel with the house intelligence committee discusses the impeachment inquiry of president and campaign 2020. later, the correspondent for pbs's "frontline" program talks

about his documentary on mohammad bin salman. as always, we will take your calls, and you can join the conversation on facebook" is ne. ♪ tuesday, october 1, 2019, the start of the federal government's 2020 fiscal year is a brief pro forma session this morning. house committees are moving forward with their impeachment inquiry. good morning i welcome to "washington journal." we will start the program looking at the latest developments in the whistleblower investigation, including some updated whole -- poll information. here is how we have broken up phone lines. if you support the impeachment inquiry only, the line to use is 202-748-8000.

if you support impeachment and removal from office, that line is 202-748-8001. --you are opposed to either both the inquiry or the impeachment process, that line, 202-748-8002. you can also send us a text. 202-748-8003 is the number. we are on twitter at @cspanwj and post your comments at facebook.com/cspan. the updated poles, the headline in usa today, americans approve of impeachment probe by slim margin, but are split on removal from office. they are writing about the latest from quinnipiac university, their poll shows americans by a 52% to 44% margin support the impeachment inquiry as opposed to impeachment and removal from office, 47% support 10 points since

september 25. opposing that, 47%. that is from quinnipiac. byare joined on the phone bloomberg news, joining us on an update with the latest on the impeachment inquiry. we know house committees are moving forward with their investigation. is there a strategy developing in the white house for fighting the investigation? guest: thanks for having me. the strategy is mainly a pr strategy. they are trying to undermine the investigations and they are arguing this impeachment inquiry is a political move and not ultimately about the facts. the president insists the call with ukraine was perfect and he did nothing wrong. a piece headlined trump demand to unmask

whistleblower royals. what is the legal basis for trying to identify who the whistleblower might be in the it is at's eyes guest: little unclear. i think this is a battle that has yet to play out over a period of time, but it seems the white house is taking a similar tack as it did during the russia or mueller investigation. host: your recent piece in bloomberg focused on joe biden, subject obviously the of that quote. how is joe biden responding to allegations made by president trump and others about joe biden ukraine? guest: the biden campaign is responding by aggressively dismissing it. they do not want to get sucked into a debate about who it was .nd why this is problematic

they believe this is the president trying to deflect nk perception trumpeted something wrong. like theeople don't arrangement hunter had. politicalmber of observers have pointed out this comes at a difficult time for joe biden with polls in iowa and some polls in new hampshire showing him losing ground to senator elizabeth warren. has the campaign responded in any way? guest: the biden campaign was already slipping in the polls before this happened. there has been a steady rise. elizabeth warren, who has taken a lead in some state colts,

still a remarkable turnaround. there were already concerns on the campaign trail for joe biden in the sense people were getting to know his rivals and support was slipping a little bit in comparison to them. this is a new headache they have to deal with. they say this is not a biden scandal. they are trying to keep the focus on that. kapur, national political reporter for bloomberg. thanks for the update this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: our question for you is your observations on the latest news of the impeachment inquiry. here are the lines to you. 202-748-8000 if you support impeachment only. the748-8001 if you support impeachment process and removal from office and if you oppose both of those, that line is 202-748-8002.

we welcome your comments on text as well. 202-748-8003. a couple of checks on facebook and twitter, here is what jen has to say. i support the inquiry, impeachment, and removal from office. he has clearly shown a pattern of abuse of power. craig supports a full investigation into biden, clinton, obama, and all the cast members. you come up with a bs story of russian collusion and then you try and oust the guy when he digs up dirt about getting to the bottom of where the bs started from in the first place? a lot of criminal activity for democrats to go to such lengths to have him removed. let's hear from walter in connecticut. go ahead. caller: i have been looking at this situation with president said president

obama was not born in america. host: walter, are you still there? caller: i am right here. host: go ahead, you are on the air. caller: i am looking at this situation with president trump. democrat forered years and i voted republican and this president has been disrespectful to the constitution, women, minorities, theanics, mexicans, even when does it stop? president,ing to be president of the united states

of america, 50 states, not president trump. this has to stop. i think it is very disrespectful to our country. our image has been deteriorating since this guy was president and he continues to disrespect. for women,espect minorities, no respect in congress or for the supreme court. i think, with all this whistleblowing thing, now he wants to go after the whistleblower and meet with the whistleblower. that sounds like a mob mentality to me. host: walter in connecticut mentioned australia. trump pressed australian leader muellerbarr investigate inquiry's origins. pushed therump

australian prime minister during a recent telephone call to help attorney general william barr gather information for a justice department inquiry mr. trump hopes will discredit the mueller investigation. jackson in virginia, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am a longtime listener, seldom caller. remember during the iraq war press,en our so-called they were all ganged up and they want to go gung ho to get revenge and everybody went along and i said to everybody, do not open pandora's box because you don't know what you are going to get out of it.

d.c.,r, the geniuses in they decided we know better, we are going to go get them and we are still there. here, he was advising against the war. he wants to show everybody. they don't like him because -- this is the only guy in this time, this era to show the american people they are pulling a veil against your eyes. we can talk at any time, it depends on our motive. if i decide i love my wife -- i

decide i am not going to love my life so i start fully around -- this is only been three months. the press has been on this guy since the first day he won the election. this guy is going to get reelected again just to show the press who is boss. host: jack in virginia, thanks for that. else bill is next, jeffrey who supports the impeachment inquiry. caller: i support impeachment, i don't think he needs to be removed because he made but he is blocking everything oversight needs. all the things they ask for, he blocks. it is like he is covering up things. he needs to be truthful to

people, give up the information people need. he is blocking oversight, everything they asked for. this whistleblower thing, it could be true, it might not be true. have people on that lie all the time like sean hannity. i watched fox news back in the day, they are a conspiracy channel. they have some good ones on there that tell the truth, but people need to wake up and stop falling for this president, what he is doing. he is using and abusing the system and i bet he is laughing hepeople every day because is getting people to believe that stuff. trump is not doing anything to help this country. i don't have anything against the guy, he is who he is. i hope in the long run he changes otherwise he will be out

of office come 2021. host: if you support the impeachment inquiry, that line is 202-748-8000. if you support the inquiry and the impeachment of the president, removal from office, 202-748-8001. if you oppose, 202-748-8002 that line is 202-748-8002. congress is on a break, this is the first retirement we are hearing about during the break. the headline in the dallas morning news, mac thornberry becomes the 6th republican to announce his retirement in the 2020 election. good morning, ernie. caller: good morning. i really think a lot of things in government do take a while, but i think it is two years plus i think everyone is in shock that is the criminality so

blatant and out in the open, i don't think people have resonated with that right away and it at least gives me hope the way our constitution has been written and the way congress has been set up, i have correct hope it will itself and basically congress is doing its job now as far as proceeding with impeachment. i don't know if we can count on the senate doing the right thing because that seems to be locked down in a strange way. step upof the senators and bring country before themselves, impeachment will go through. host: michael in a silver spring opposes the impeachment effort. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? host: doing fine. caller: i definitely impose --

oppose impeachment. i consider myself a democrat. without the possibility of any actual result, the senate being what it is, it is mostly the democrats patting themselves on the back at this point. even if they could go through with it, i think it is too divisive right now in our country. democrats, they don't listen to c-span. i listen to c-span all the time. love the program, by the way. i hear the callers on the other end and it feels like the road leads to a lot more conspiracy theories, you know what i mean? host: trump targets whistleblower as inquiry deepens, attorneys fear for accuser's safety and warn against retaliation. president trump stepped up his

attacks on the anonymous government whistleblower who launched an impeachment inquiry against him while democrats and attorneys say they have "serious concerns for his personal safety." we are trying to find out the whistleblower, when you have a whistleblower who reports things that were incorrect, attorneys for the identified federal worker believed to be a cia analyst responded there client .s entitled to anonymity the individual is not to be retaliated against. doing so is a violation of federal law. zaid saidark cite -- the law is paramount and there are no exceptions for anyone. the notoriety has brought about a $50,000 bounty for revealing his name. president trump made comments yesterday in the oval office at

the swearing in of eugene scalia as the new labor secretary. [video clip] >> who the whistleblower is, sir? >> we are trying to find out about a whistleblower. we have a whistleblower who reports things that are incorrect as you know and we probably have figured it out, the statement i made to the man, ant ukraine, a good nice man was perfect. the whistleblower reported a totally different statement like the statement was not even made. i guess statement with the call. the call was perfect. when the reported --when the whistleblower reported it, he made it sound terrible and adam schiff, even worse, made up my words. i have never even seen a thing like that. adam schiff, representative, congressman, made up what i said . he actually took words and made it up.

what he saw on my call to the president of ukraine, it was so good that he could not quote on it because there was nothing done wrong, it was perfect so adam schiff decided i can't let this happen. did you ever hear of a thing like this? adam schiff made up a phony call and read it to congress and the people of the united states and it is a disgrace. this whole thing is a disgrace. there has been tremendous corruption and we are seeking it. it is called drain the swamp. there has been corruption on the other side. the new president of ukraine ran on the basis of no corruption, that is how he got elected and i believe he means it. there was a lot of corruption having to do with the 2016 coeur -- election against us and we want to get to the bottom of it. host: a story from the daily

caller on the president's comments the president made up what he said -- adam schiff made up what he said. how did abc news amplify adam schiff's misinformation? abc news left the key context out of the video showing adam schiff's opening remarks on the whistleblower complaint against president donald trump. words fabricated trump's in a statement he said was "meant to be at least a parody" of trump's conversation. abc news provided no indication of the remarks. watch opening statement on the whistleblower complaint. readsdeo description watch the house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff deliver his opening remarks on a hearing -- at a hearing on the

whistleblower complaint filed against president trump. we hear from tony in district heights, maryland, supporting the inquiry. morning.ood i don't just support the inquiry. donald trump needs to be impeached immediately. racist.rump is a before this even began, he needed to be impeached. he wants to ban muslims. onwants a more -- war people of color. he wants to stop and frisk black people. he has a problem with people of color. donald trump believes the mueller report exonerated him. why in the hell is he trying to investigate anything? he is the most corrupt president we have ever had.

he has a corrupt lawyer that went to ukraine to investigate corruption. it doesn't make sense. donald trump needs to be impeached. host: christie in virginia, opposing impeachment. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: i just want to say that any court system would never convict anyone on hearsay. i could say anything about anybody. it would not make it true. bestdent trump is the president we have ever had. everywhere.bs if anybody wants to get up and get one. it is wrong what they are doing

-- it will come out, anything they did. host: betty supports the impeachment and removal of office. caller: thank you. when president trump was running for office, he said he could stand in the middle of the street and kill someone. that should have disqualified him to run for office. after he became president, his morals -- our children watch him. he is supposed to be an educated man. setting up anything for our children to look forward to. are they supposed to act like this man in public? he is an embarrassment to the united states. i really think he should be ,mpeached and put out of office

that is all i have to say. host: we hear from stephen next. in michigan. go ahead, thank you. caller: i think the guy -- it starts with impeachment. i don't know how he got past the word "i do," when we know he doesn't. cannot show taxes, school records, he is a criminal. he is just a criminal. this guyconstitutional is above the law, i think the constitution needs to be changed. russian spy as far as i am concerned. host: this is the washington post, their headline house panel subpoena giuliani for documents

and ukraine probe. the three house committees issued a subpoena to president trump's personal lawyer demanding he turn over records pertaining to his contacts regarding ukraine. the chairman of three committees, adam schiff of the intelligence committee, eliot engel of foreign affairs, and elijah cummings of oversight cited a growing public record of information in accusing giuliani of appearing to "press to the ukrainian government to pursue two politically motivated investigations." we go to hawaii and hear from linda. good morning. caller: good morning. a.m. in hawaii. and: thanks for staying up enjoying --joining us. caller: we don't sleep well

these days worried about our country. i want him removed from office. i was hoping the mueller investigation would do it, but then he got bold and nancy pelosi was right, she said he would hang himself and he is. i would like william barr removed from office. i would like these people that are traitors to our country to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. no one is above the law in our country. this man is sick. he is definitely mentally ill and he needs to be removed before something happens to us. it is serious, it is timely and they need to take the group of them out including pence. they need to be removed quickly and get it done and i am grateful to nancy pelosi for being very good at what she does. host: dave is next in south dakota, opposing impeachment.

caller: yes. ever since the night of the election, the socialist democrats with their visceral hatred for our president have been going after him and everybody lies about him. donald trump has got some warts on him, but look what he has done for the country. one of your previous callers blamed trump for the birther movement with obama. sidney blumenthal and hillary clinton started that in 2008. if socialist democrats get by with this by reversing an election out of pure hatred and having the left-wing media constantly go after this guy and you have joe biden standing there bragging about what he did in the ukraine and everybody gives him a pass and going back

to the ukraine, russia invaded ukraine under the obama administration and all this rotten stuff and all these crooks and all this spying, obama was president. everybody gave him a pass. he could do no wrong because everybody was scared to death of being called a racist. the democrats, like adam schiff, when he read into the record between trump and the ukraine, every single word he said was alive. there was not anything adam schiff said was actually in the phone call and they keep getting by with it. i just bailed out of the stock market two weeks ago because i think the socialist democrats are going to get by with treasonous activities and i think they are going to be able to overflow the election. what do you think?

host: 202-748-8000 that is dave in south carolina -- south dakota. the opinion of jeff flake in the washington post. fellow republicans, there is time to save your souls. if the house decides against filing articles of impeachment, senate republicans will have to decide given what we now know to support his reelection. he says at this point the president's conduct should not surprise us. truly devastating has been our tolerance of that conduct and embrace of it. perhaps the most horrible and lasting effect on a democracy will be at some point we stop being shocked. your careers risk , youvor of your principles know he does not deserve reelection. -- opinion of jeff flake and

for speaking out now and then against president trump, it is pathetic to see him lecturing other republicans. those members of congress were elected. this thing called the constitution gives them the power to subpoena. if the inquiry finds actual crimes done, removal from office is what is required. we hear from stephanie next in new york. good morning. caller: i just wanted to touch on the cool thing about adam schiff. i understand what he did in his opening statement making the parity was not necessary, but i wonder why nobody is talking spreadingblicans misinformation while the whistleblower complaint was found credible. why are we being the ones

accused of spreading misinformation when they are the ones disputing the report? host: karen in north carolina opposing impeachment. good morning, karen. caller: i want to complain about the washington journal having two lines set up today for people who support impeachment and only one for people who oppose. i guess you did not like the last you are getting the few days where two thirds of your calls were opposing the impeachment. number two, what the democrats are doing is no less than regime change. if a foreign country was trying to take down the president of the united states and members of the supreme court, we just had the other caller say they want barr out, this is regime change and i think we are going to have to fight. i know the bikers are planning a rally. i think americans -- i plan on going to support president trump

and by the way, i voted for barack obama and joe biden twice. 80% of my family voted democrat almost all of our lives, voted for barack obama twice and now that slipped. we are all voting for trump. even my 86-year-old mother who has voted democrat her entire life says she is not going to vote at all because she does not want to vote for a party that stands for infantacide. host: this is doug, go ahead. caller: good morning. muted, i amhis sorry. thathe callers calling in, is right, your lines are messed up, i tried three times to get on. i impose impeachment, but every for i called, it was

impeachment. i want all the callers calling in saying trump should be impeached because of the muslim ban or -- that is not impeachable. if you don't like trump, that is not impeachable. host: doug, are you there? caller: yes. we lost you -- yes. host: we lost you for a second. caller: half the country likes trump and if they can do this to him, they can do this to you. i like trump and i don't like some of the things he says, but i think he is a good president and i will vote for him again. this doesn't work, what they are trying to pull. you cannot just impeach him because you don't like him. host: a couple of views on the role of joe biden, certainly the charges made on the involvement

of the biden family in ukraine. this is a piece from the latest washington examiner magazine executive editor with his piece, radel stations for impeachment. washington is whipped into frenzy, likewise on ukraine. trump predicated aid on ukraine's willingness to investigate joe biden's son, hunter. biden predicated aid on ukraine's willingness to fire a prosecutor charged with probing a company that paid hundred $50,000 a month. it is not wrong to want that looked into. impeachment will drag on toward the election. thers punish republicans in 1998 congressional elections for president clinton's impeachment. spattering trump with dirt and doubt will help them on election day. that is the opinion in the

washington examiner. this is michelle goldberg in the new york times and the headline on her opinion piece is trump's claims about biden are unsupported. the former prosecutor was seen as a single point of failure clogging up of the system and blocking corruption cases. a former official in barack obama administration told me joe biden eventually took the lead. all of this was happening -- as all of this was happening, biden's son hunter sat on the board of a natural gas company. at some points earning $50,000 per month. -- might have thought he could ingratiate himself with the obama association. turning this history on its head, trump accused joe biden of coercing ukraine to jettison --

.o protect hunter make trump possible charges seem more credible. his campaign is reportedly spending $10 million on an ad to amplify the smear. alisa in new york. she opposes impeachment. good morning. caller: i impose impeachment. number one, it will cost a lot of money. to see andwanted listen to republicans and democrats to see all the candidates and listen to them. all of that is shaded. and now trump has everybody else's vote. they lost the opportunity for their voice to be heard because ukraine and impeachment, all of this is going to go on until the election and none of their voices are going to be heard,

that is going to be different to help us decide if trump is the one we want. because of this, guess what? he has everybody's vote again. host: we are asking about the whistleblower complaint against the president. if you support the inquiry, that number is 202-748-8000. if you support the inquiry and impeachment, 202-748-8001. if you oppose impeachment, that line is 202-748-8002. let's hear from charlotte in houston, texas. good morning. caller: yes. i support president trump. this whistleblower, if you are accused of something, if somebody accuses you of something and you have to have a day in court, you want that person present. president trump wanting to know who the whistleblower is i think is only fair. i think you should know who the whistleblower is.

the other thing, democrats are going to be sorry they ever opened this can of worms because everything is going to come out and then you are going to see all the corruption. held backadmitted he money. he admitted it. it is on video for god sakes. let's get real about this. the president is going to be reelected, no question about it. host: sheldon in louisiana, welcome. good morning. caller: good morning. i support the process and wherever the process takes us and the conclusion of the process. president has done things to get reelected and use his office and power to do that. the other thing i wanted to raise is the thing of the other people that have been put in

prison for whistleblowing. i think we should look another look -- take another look at what happened -- to edward snowden, take chelsea manning out of jail and look at what happened to reality winner. these people have information that have shown us what the government and officials have allied to us about what was happening in our society. they were criminalized for doing such things. this guy -- our president, i should say is doing a good job, i think he is more dividing the people in our race, gender,on

and religion. wherever this process takes us, i think we should let it go -- let it happen. thank you. host: barbara is next, aurora, indiana, opposing the inquiry and impeachment. go ahead. caller: i am tired of them not letting president trump do his job. he has done what he set out to do. host: marvin, you still there? caller: i am still here. i think it is a witchhunt. i think democrats are trying to win in 2020. they know they can't win and this thing about talking to the ukraine, he has a right to talk to other leaders, that is his job and joe biden, it is proven he took money from them. where are his criminal charges?

host: david supports the inquiry in flint, michigan. caller: good morning. i support the inquiry and i am glad you got the lines like it it is, trump supporters call and say they all used to be democrats, you don't say anyone calling in saying they used to be democrats. everyone calls on our democratic line saying they used to be a democrat. i support the inquiry. i think trump is a corrupt president. i am going to do everything i can for the 2020 elections to talk to as many people as i can in my hometown and get people all over to vote against trump and get a good president that can bring love back to the country. i feel like there is so much hate and division since he came in and i feel like he is riding on obama's work. obama is the one that got our

economy going good when it faltered and all he did is give tax breaks to the super rich and now he is claiming the credit for the economy. i believe he has done -- he said in his own words what the inquiry is about. he said he asked the ukrainian president that. all republicans are calling in trying to act like schiff changed his word. it is a bunch of hypocritical stuff going on in this country and i support it 100%, that inquiry and his impeachment. host: here is part of the way the administration is reporting. trump campaign's has turned impeachment into an organizing tool for supporters trying to back a president they see as under siege. campaign aides expected trump would try to -- democrats would try to impeach the president and needed a way to exploit it.

2020 officials spliced news clips of democrats discussing impeachment into a deal montage punctuated by the president toloyee -- imploring voters help him stop the nonsense. impeachment push that brought 50,000 plus new donors and $8.5 million in two days, the ha aign's biggest digital ul. robert, go ahead. caller: good morning, sir. -- a war veteran, vietnam veteran. is onlyearned from war in war do you know the real meaning of peace. what i am seeing with president trump and what most americans are not aware of is that every

single thing president trump does when you compare it to the rise of adolf hitler's germany is exactly the same thing. if you go back into your computer and look back during the 1930's and check hitler out, i can give you 10 things right now that are comparable. when trump came to power, people all over planet earth protested coming to power. hitler converted germany's government from a democratic government to a socialist authoritarian government in 3.5 years, just like trump is doing. all the 8 different government agencies in germany, he replaced the agencies with yes people and

got rid of the normal procedure of putting people in office. what is trump doing? replacing all of our different departments with 12 government agencies with yes people. if you go and check it out, you will see he is following hitler way of doing things to the letter. next,let's hear from stan ridge port, connecticut. caller: thanks for c-span. i want to make a comment on the three guiding influences on trump's decisions. trump, he wase his protege. roger ayres, his last project was dt. finally, the infamous gut feelings, random emotional impulses considered more important than outside info.

in the old days, these were called spirits. host: this is a headline in the washington post about the potential next step after the house. mcconnell says if the house and peaches, senate rules require a trial. amid speculation he could ignore the specter of putting trump on file. senior republican aides worked to tamp down that notion. "i would have no choice to take it up. how long you are on it is a whole different matter. i would have no choice to take it up based on a senate rule from impeachment." pamela from maryland who supports the inquiry as a removal from office. morning.ood i just wanted to say i hope speaker pelosi continues her

consensus to build throughout the nation with thinkation and fact and i it is very important, critical for the democratic party to take on the mantle of educator, to remind the electorate that if you don't know your history, you are doomed to repeat it. the president who sided the history of the rise of nazism is so on point. we have our own history as well. .ook at watergate look at the level of corruption discovered as a result. nation basedad our on democratic principles. the constitution only lives as long as the electorate believes it and supports it. i support nancy pelosi and her

initiative. i admire the fact she took her time and waited for something to emerge that would allow her to move forward in this manner. republicans, independents, democrats, young, old, black, white, and take on the mantle of patriotism and say this is not how we lead this nation. we are the shining beacon on the hill. host: we will go to robert next in north carolina. welcome. caller: thank you. i feel like donald trump is definitely material to impeach. he has lied right from the beginning and he has corrupted the white house. he continues to do things and

say things any other president would have been long gone. he is bad for the country, we need to do what is right, find out the truth, deal with it. president trump is always saying he is locked and loaded. he is not locked and loaded, he is half cocked and loaded. -- bloated. host: biden tries to defend electability. joe biden has framed his campaign around the pitch he is the strongest democrat to take on donald trump and now facing his toughest test to prove it. biden enters a critical and unpredictable phase. he must look for a way to stop elizabeth warren's surge even as trump and other republicans paint him as corrupt based on discredited claims about his involvement in stopping a probe .nto his son's work in ukraine

former vice president biden responding with this video over the weekend. [video clip] >> the president is admitting he sought election help from of government. >> the american president asked of the president of the ukraine to do him a favor. thee are talking about abuse of government power to shape or steal an election. >> we hate to do this, but the president isn't telling the truth. >> the only agenda he had for that phone call was to get information to defeat joe biden. >> pursuing the leader of another nation to investigate a political opponent to help win the election is not the conduct of an american president. we know who donald trump is, it is time to let the world know who we are. tweets this morning from

president trump, he tweets this about china, congratulations to president xi and the chinese people on the 70th anniversary of the people's republic of china and back to the issue at hand, the congratulatory phone call with the ukrainian president was perfect unless you heard little adam schiff's fraudulent version of the call. detroit, good morning. caller: good morning. everyone needs to calm down and relax. we don't need a dictator, authoritarian in the united states. we are a democracy and everybody needs to not understand we know the truth, not all the lies trump has been telling 2.5 years, almost three years he has been in office.

wake up, america. and thank you. , goodflorida, eddie morning, supporting the inquiry. welcome. caller: i support the inquiry and outstanding call, checks and balances. these investigations, i want to make a comment because it doesn't seem to be corrected all the time. the representatives, to do their job, this was forwarded to them. they cannot just overlook it. correct me if i was wrong, wasn't that initially turned over, john mccain had it and turned it over to the fbi. none of this originated from democrats. yes, democrats are doing an investigation, it is an impeachment inquiry to determine if the man, which he obviously , has lied and done things

that are unconstitutional. that is part of the government, that is checks and balances. republicans are getting all up in arms that people for doing their jobs, that is what i don't understand. host: in the business and finance section of the washington times, facebook dials back fact checks. facebook inc. plans to exact opinion pieces from the fact checking program. the social media giant grapples ofh how to stop the threat falsehoods. facebook will allow publishers of information found to be false by outside fact checkers to appeal to the company said people familiar with the changes . facebook deems to be either opinion or satire won't be labeled false, even if they contain information fact

checkers determine was inaccurate. the rules follow facebook's acknowledgment it will continue exempting politicians from fact checks on the grounds that such comments are newsworthy as well as a recent controversy arising from a third party fact n anker's determinatio a antiabortion group's video was false. caller: good morning, everybody. i am opposed to the inquiry as well as the impeachment. i understand the united states has a treaty with the ukraine to exchange information on corruption. schiff and the democrats accusing president trump of a crime? one other point, too. i have been trying to communicate that fact on twitter

and they are censoring me, they won't let that tweet go through. they say it failed or it is in the process of sending and then it disappears. host: what tweet are you trying to send through? trying yesterday i was to treat information about the treaty, exchanging information on corruption between the two nations and the typing screen will disappear or else what i am and mygoes black account, i go out of twitter into my master app page. me many timesored recently. specific i ask on this one, where is the information you are trying to post from? are you trying to post a link from a news site or aggregated

news site? caller: just a tweet. host: your own writing? caller: yeah. i am just individual, i am not with any company or anything. host: you are not trying to link to another piece reporting on this. i am trying to figure out why you say they are blocking you. caller: you can check my account. mahoney 3.is it is horrible what they are doing. host: about five more minutes on your phone calls. we will continue the discussion the next hour, this piece in the wall street journal, getting specifically about joe biden, theord over ukraine -- underlying assertion is mr. biden pushed for the removal of ukrainian corruption investigator lest he delve into

a controversial ukrainian energy .ompany -- grounds he wasn't aggressive enough and ukrainian officials have said there is no evidence of wrongdoing by either the senior or junior biden. the hunter biden arrangement certainly looks like an unsavory alignment in which he was taking advantage of his father's prominence in a country badly in need of love from america. the government is hopelessly corrupt and incapable of managing its own affairs effectively. linda in staten island, new york. go ahead. caller: thank you for allowing me to speak on the broadcast. it is not that i approve of an inquiry that will happen anyway.

the reason i am calling in is i am shocked at these allegations being thrown out. i don't believe he is guilty of it and how it affects me on a grassroots level is hearing all of this money going out of our country, i know people are .uying up real estate margewe go to michigan -- in michigan. caller: thank you for taking my call. like to quote a portion of a quote by breslin james. it when the masses are fed, a web of lies over a generation, the truth seems preposterous and its speaker, a raging lunatic. that is all i have to say. host: back to the wall street

journal, pompeo took part in ukraine call. mike pompeo was among the administration officials who listened in on the july 20 five phone call between president trump and ukraine's president, a senior state department official said a disclosure that ties the state department more closely to the house impeachment inquiry. linda in mississippi. hello, there. caller: good morning. --gree with nancy pelosi with the inquiry because she walks this very carefully. trump got away with russia helping him the last time. he did it again because he is such a child, he doesn't have any boundaries. these people coming on defending him, he admitted it himself.

it is in the summary, he stood up and admitted it his own self. about joe biden and hunter, why don't we talk about his children? ivanka with all those trademarks in china. why don't we talk about jared and donald, could not get a security clearance, but in the white house dealing with security matters. host: more ahead in the next hour on "washington journal." we will be joined by a former senior counsel for the intelligence committee talking about the inquiry into president trump. later, we will hear from martin smith. we will talk about his new documentary looking at the rule of saudi crown prince, ben solomon and his ties to the murder of washington post columnist jamal khashoggi.

more ahead on "washington journal." ♪ ♪ >> here is a look at books being published this week. rachel maddow argues that the gas and oil industries are weakening democracies. examines cohen american urban policy following world war ii. radical looks at the science and history behind treating rest cancer. cigarette," the political history of tobacco in america is explored. also being published " the invention of yesterday" looks at

different interpretations of history around the globe. us,"the fires upon nicholas reports on the televised civil rights debates. look for these titles this coming week, and watch for many of the authors on book tv on c-span2. campaign 2020 20, watch on live coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. campaign 2020, your unfiltered view of politics. journal"ngton continues. on theamil jaffer served house intelligence committee as their senior counsel. he is now in george mason university law school and founder of their national

security institute. welcome to the program. of then your experience house intelligence committee, and they are the lead on this impeachment inquiry, what concerns did you hear coming out of that one one guest: guest: -- one piece of evidence. the phone call is concerning. if the president is asking for things from foreign leaders that do not go to the national interest, and go to the personal interest according to the claim, that is a concern to the committees of the house, but the judiciary committee which will vote on impeachment and send it to the floor. the intelligence committee is doing the investigations. there,served their, -- it was very bipartisan, they had figured out a way to work together and get it to be common cause. as we have seen in recent months

and over the past two years, the committee has become partisan on both sides and we can blame the former or current chairman, but it has become partisan, and that may be part of the climate that we see, and that will play in the -- into the dynamic. host: that partisanship that we the does that carry on into level of the staff councils as well? guest: it did not use too, when i served it was bipartisan. when the common -- when the chairman came in, they were new to the committee. it had previously been very partisan. the committee has gone through phases of being partisan, bipartisan, and partisan. we are in a phase where not only it is happening in front of the cameras but it is devolving to the staff level. the staff works in the same area.n type of so they are not fault -- far apart. given the current dynamic in

public, it is hard to imagine that it is bipartisan internally. host: we have linked to the released and redacted report from the office of the inspector general by the whistleblower, when you look at that, i assume you have taken a look. you look, what would have to rise up to be an impeachable offense? what more would have to come out of this? guest: the constitution refers to high crimes and misdemeanors. as we know from having to go through the clinton impeachment, those terms do not have a defined meaning, at least not one that we have identified specifically. there was a lot of talk about what it meant when the constitution was written. other people believe you should look at it in an evolving way. impeachment turns out to be a political decision than it is a legal question.

there is no legal to standard to say if the house votes in the senate convicts, no court will say that was wrong and it does not meet the standards. that is a political decision for the political branch. then, the house essentially and the senate become a judge of what that term means. no.t a federal crime, doesn't need to be more than a federal crime, it does not have to be. does theion here is, house believe it has the votes to recommend articles of impeachment to the senate, and if all the facts were prudently bear, doesought to the senate find fault. if they do, they remove the person, whether it is a judge, sitting member, or the president. we will see what happens. based on the current facts,

there is an open debate. i think much more will come out. the house will do a big investigation not just of this complaint but other things around it. that will be interesting to see and whether that will lead to things that people believe are impeachable offenses. host: he served on the senior counsel for the intelligence committee 2011-2013. republicans your line is, 202-748-8000. .emocrats, 202-748-8001 independents and others, 202-748-8002 send us a tweet, and text us at 202-748-8003. a lot has been made of the term quid pro quo, explain what that means, and does there have to be a quid pro quo for some sort of offense to be cited? guest: the term means an exchange, one for another, i

gave you this, you give me that. people have been debating this question is , these, if in fact president was saying if you do this favor for me, investigate joe biden and look into the , but do thisaine and i will do some favors down the road. quo,is there a quid pro no. itwe talk about impeachment, is a political decision for the house and senate. there is no requirement that the president violate any law. a law that is on the table and might be in play as the campaign finance laws. was the president after something of value for his campaign in exchange for something of value for the government. that is why this debate is taking place. what people really focus on are andtwo pages, pages two three.

discussion by the president of ukraine saying i want to buy missiles. response is not let us talk about the price or the work -- or how it will work. his responses, can we talk about the server of ukraine. it could be the president is changing topics, or it could be the president of ukraine asks for x in the president says if you give me y, i will think about it. people need to focus on if it was a quid pro quo. it does not need to be, but that is the ongoing debate. if there is a conviction there needs to be a suggestion of what was in play. caller: the house investing -- host: the house investigators giuliani.naing rudy what sort of records innocent -- in this investigation would this committee seek to find.

guest: if they are looking for anything into the substance of the allegation, the claim that the president was in an priateriate -- an unappro exchange of value, if there is it would be impeachable. because the president brought rudy giuliani into the conversation during the transcript, it is not surprising that the investigators want to know what he was doing. stu giuliani has been on tv public about his role in ukraine and what he was doing. so the question is does he have any way to protect the information? does he have privileges? attorney-client privilege, because rudy giuliani is president trump's personal attorney. said i was not behaving as an attorney, which would undermine a claim.

then there is a question of executive privilege, was he a personal envoy of the president. was he on a mission? if you remember in the days of george washington, he sent john jay to negotiate the treaty. he refused to give the house the records of the negotiation. george washington said this is not part of your role, and i will not give those those private -- you those private negotiations. it does not matter that i used a person acting in a nonofficial capacity to do the negotiations. host: that is some long-ago president. 7 -- guest: 7092. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 four independents and others. surely, on the republic -- shirley, on the republican line.

caller: this is very important. what i would like to ask this they be goingld on with this inquiry, wanting to impeach when they have no proof. hearsay, he said, she said, and nobody wants to say i said. i heard. this is ridiculous. you know what, really the people in this country, it is a shame. they all need to really check on their own what they have done in their life. have they lied, said a little white lie. it is about time we get down on our knees and ask god to take charge in this country. he sent trump they are to do a job, and believe me, nobody will take trump out of there because god almighty sent him. raises au know, it

good point about this complaint. a lot of people have said that the complaint is inappropriate because the whistleblower does not claim direct knowledge. the whistleblower heard from somebody else. heard from somebody else that the records had been stored in additionally compartment did files and computer systems. it was all hearsay. the flip side to her point is that now the president has sent a transcript which is a record of his direct conversation. this debate over what the president said, what he was implying when he was talking about the server, ukraine, and joe biden while the president of ukraine is asking for military support, does that mean he is about to exchange value? that is not hearsay. the committee is looking to get testimony from some of the people on the phone call. mike pompeo was substance of the --the -- abstinence of late

was on the phone call. it is unusual for presidential aides, whether they are cabinet officials or people on the white house to actually testify, because you want to protect the confidentiality of communications that the president has with other leaders. have candid conversations. the more that comes out the less likely it is to get the candid conversations. it is where that line of privilege is. congress won the document and they will be the tussle. the president has been transparent in that he has declassified the whistleblower complaint and given the transcript. caller: let us hear from arizona. caller: i just made an observation that looking over , you're going to

have patriots, i do not think you guys will be carrying that. it is a serious event that they are looking at. host: i think he is talking about the mention of a potential rally in washington. that is here from indiana, republican line. caller: good morning, and thank you. the only thing i want to say is there is nothing in the history of the united states to impeach he has awhen conversation with somebody else. , from the first day, mr. trump got elected, they were after him. that is a fact.

they wanted hillary to get elected, but she did not. that was the election, they chose him as the president. host: thank you. anothere raises important point, which is that there is a feeling that after the election and the surprise election of donald trump, and a feeling that the president has helped through his tweets and conversations. the partisanship on capitol hill of democrats and republicans has stoked this idea that people have always been out to get him out of office and this happens to be the latest thing and they will grab onto it and run with it. mccright -- democrats have wanted impeachment since day one. the question is how does that play into how the house will vote and whether the senate will vote to convict.

that will weigh heavily if impeachment articles have their way. should it, that is a harder question. should it be on the merits, or thecan -- or should republicans have said that there is an effort, and people feel the way that they do that there is an effort and has long been an effort to remove the president on any basis, this is the one people have grabbed onto. host: it will be along this path of the speaker proposing that they vocus on the ukrainian issue and the phone call, which is a very narrow path. will the intelligence committee right the articles of impeachment and pass it onto to the judiciary committee? guest: as i understand it, this is a new dynamic, we have only had three impeachments to date, this will be the third or fourth. or, attempted up he -- impeachments, i should say.

theircommittees will do investigation and provide the evidence they find and report in their jurisdiction. the judiciary committee will draft the articles will be voted on in that committee and then go to the floor to be voted on they are. if passed, it will be prosecuted by prosecutors supported -- appointed to represent the articles for a trial in the senate. host: there is nothing in the procedure that says the house has to votes first before we have the inquiry. people are saying they have to vote first, but they do not. guest: as a general matter, the house's investigative power is and oversight powers do not in -- do not require. my recollection from the clinton impeachment, i do not involve -- recall voting to begin an investigation, that was done under the purview of the chairman. from let us hear from deb

wisconsin, democrats' line. caller: i have a couple of questions. i am wondering why the program this morning started with our host saying quid pro quo and the guest adding, after the word solicit, the words and get something in return. if people would look up the law cfr 110. 20, there is a prohibition on solicitation by foreign nationals. it does not say anything about getting anything in return. thato find my comment is it is very interesting. i had a that with my husband. c-span decided to make the call 50-50 this morning, so that half the calls were showing that they were against impeachment, as i

polls.ng the i feel that you do that to help republicans, and you are helping them to feel comfortable that half the country must be on the side of this lawbreaker. host: your point on the phone lines, we separate them for various segments, and that is not the reason. we have different ways of dividing up the phone lines. quo versus- quid pro solicitation. guest: the federal election campaigns act, the relevant law that might apply here. it does prohibit the solicitation of an american of a foreign national for campaign contributions. thinking, campaign contributions does not have to be money. these are debatable points. it can be something of value, it

is not just that i ask for cash, i could ask you to paint my inse or campaign office, an time contribution. if you were to solicit a foreigner, that would be unlawful. there is a question, was the president soliciting campaign help? that is a debatable point. there are a lot of legal questions about that. but impeachment is not a legal issue, it is a political question. the legal question is what the president will say. he might say i want to investigate corruption. and i want to root out corruption in a foreign country. that is a say that

reasonable or silly argument, but it is an argument in the sense that he will have to prove that he was trying to get something of value as the goal in order to prove. host: that is the process is noa criminal process, it is a political process until and if and until the president is found guilty by the senate and the senate trial. could a president be held responsible or could he be charged with crimes if he were convicted by the senate? in criminal court and civil court after he leaves the presidency? guest: i do not know that it will take a senate conviction. if the president would leave office, as a general matter, the government has taken the view that the president cannot be prosecuted for official acts. that is not free from doubt. the speech and debate clause is very clear, it says that anything said on the floor or house of senate, you cannot be sued for it. whether the president could be

for an official act, or a pseudo-official act, that is a harder question. the general position is that not while the president is in office. when he is out of office, whether removed or left office, or the end of an eight year term, then it is a more open question. and it goes to the question was the act official, wasn't official in the time of office but not unofficial. those are harder questions that i think may or may be not be debated -- or may not be debated. we have not seen suits after-the-fact. we saw them against richard nixon, from my recollection i cannot recall any prosecutions by the government of a president. there are also the political questions. party isf the opposing elected, and they were to pursue a president criminally of the other party, that would cause

huge political tensions and maybe that is why we have not seen that. the: our guest served as lead senior counsel in the house intelligence committee 2011 to 2013. now at george mason law school he founded the national security institute. what do you do there? guest: we were set up to identify hard questions and national security law and identify real-world actions. law is about civil liberties, which is a very important debate. george mason talks a lot about civil liberties. we find it important to talk about civil liberties and national security and have the discussion in public and help give ideas to members of congress and elective officials about how they can solve thelems and reconcile important, competing values and our national security while preserving the privileges that americans enjoy. host: let us hear from cindy,

north carolina, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to know, does the president have a right to inquire, and i believe he does by law, to any foreign government about corruption in a former election, 2016. does he have a right to inquire to any leader of any country about corruption in our own government? this letter, the way i understand it, where the secondhandedly got information that the president was looking at biden. wasrding to the letter, he

-- what the president said was he was inquiring about election. in the 2016 is this fact or something that they are still debating? nancy pelosi wants something ,hat is ripe for impeachment and it is just confusing about why she is pushing something and saying that it is our national security. it is our national security, for a president to know whether there is corruption in our own government. host: ok. importantin, an point. this is the debate. congress and the democrats are concerned that the president was trading a thing of value for some political gain. republicans in the senate in the house or saying no, the president was asking about corruption and wanted to root out corruption in the prior

election and get to the cause of the investigation into alleged russian interference in the election and how that began. that is what these were about, these were effectual acts as his role in president, the soul oregon of the nation's foreign affairs and not to be questioned. this is a debate that the country will have. say what you want about what happened and the underlying thing is, there are a lot of debates and a lot of people are troubled by that conversation. the president has been beenparency -- can -- has transparent and put the transcript out. we have a chance to have that debate in congress and potentially in the senate about what was the meaning of the phone call. are there other phone calls like it? were there other foreign leaders where similar exchanges of value were discussed or similar topics of corruption were discussed? is it important for the country to know that.

if so, how much do we need to know? do we need to know every call that the president has? is this president special? we should not let the moment overtake us. there are important values at stake longer-term about if it is right to do. these host: host: are tough debates. let me get your thoughts on news that we are seeing that the president pressed the australian leader to help the attorney general investigate the molar inquiry's-- mueller origins. the president pressed for information for a department -- for a justice department inquiry that will discourage the investigation. guest: it is one of those things where we have to see the transcript. we will not say that the president has given up the

transcript. there are important equities when it comes to executive privilege and foreign affairs that might come into play. if we look the transcript we wast learn what is about said. is this about the prime minister of australia wanting something and if he does, i will give you this thing? if it was, that is troubling. thate president says somebody began with a staffer of mine and one of your diplomats in england, and that is how something began, it is not crazy if you are going to investigate the roots of the probe to start there, which is where it began. there is a lot of people where if thewill debate president should do it. if that is a problem, that is a different question. host: what do you make of the

reports that the transcript of the foreign call -- phone call was kept in a different server. is that normal protocol? guest: as a general matter these phone calls are classified. the president is talking about things that are sensitive, both to the foreign leader and us, because -- and because the context and how this might play out for a foreign leader in our own country or the united states. my general matter, in experience that phone calls are classified. typically that confidential or secret level, but not top-secret. there is one interesting fact that came out that raises the question about explosive -- put inxplain why it was that file. this is typically used for covert actions. wasof the key things that capped was conversations with

russian diplomat about foreign election interference that said i do not care, we do it too. if we do such things, and there are historical examples, they are done in the form of covert action. one might say, the president might have been restoring -- referring to covert action program that we are aware of. we need to put this conversation in the covert action file. that my explain -- might explain the conversation with the russian officials. not all these things are the same. an interesting debate but not typical to put in top-secret files, also when they are talking about a sensitive program, and unless there is something that the president did that we did not know about. host: it was not a transcript, but it was a memorandum. guest: same thing, you are

right, it was not a direct transcript, but this amounts to call records. you do not have a stenographic taking notes. host: here is deborah, florida, on the democrats line. caller: i would like to call the lady who called earlier saying that god put donald trump in office. that is incorrect. donald trump has children engages, taken from their -- in cages, taking from their mother and he is using a secret server to cover up his corruption. he has been corrupt since day one. alexandria --nd in alexandria on our republican line. democrats want to impeach trump because they lost the election, that is what it is all about. trump is doing an excellent job. the democrats say is that nobody

is above the law, but they should say that nobody is above the law except for us and the illegals. storywe let -- we read a with the headline trump targets whistleblowers as the inquiry deepens. attorneys fear for the safety and warn against retaliation saying that the notoriety has brought about a reported $50,000 bounty for revealing his name. in your experience forgetting a whistleblower or somebody whose identity needed to be kept secret to testify before a committee, typically how would that be done? unusualhis is an circumstance because the whistleblower is in the government and the president i s the head of the executive branch, and could in theory order for officials to reveal to him the name. that would not be unlawful, but hugely problematic and a crisis

for the executive branch officials who were told to do that. they would have to be put to the test on whether they would do it or quit. it is hard to know. matter,eral whistleblowers are protected from retaliation, not for their identity being revealed. there is a different law that protects identities from being revealed publicly, not within the executive branch. president has the power and he has the power. ability toe has the direct anything and interpret the law authoritatively to say that it does not prohibit him from doing this. the political consequences are the real check in these circumstances. that is on -- that is a check that we see playing out here. i think the president may understand it, or the people around him understand that and they are advising him that it is not a good idea to target or

refer to the whistleblower. that has not stopped the president from tweeting. the president is saying a lot on twitter. we will see how this plays out. the real check on abuse of presidential power is not the laws, but the impeachment process. that is what we see playing out. independent on the line. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. you people in the press do not seem to want to ask the simple question, here goes joe biden over to ukraine, and he brings little boy with him. all of a sudden, hunter biden is , sitting on a month a board and he knows nothing about the petroleum or national gas -- natural gas industry.

what do you think they were paying him for? they bought joe biden and he went up for auction and was bought off nicely for $1 billion in china. honest, biden be is about as crooked as a bag of elbows. thank you. guest is not a member of the press. your thoughts. concernooked, this is a for a lot of people in the american public and the president himself. the question of whether that joe biden who may be the presidential candidate in the upcoming election, whether there were inappropriate activities going on with his family. this was not the first time we have heard of potential concerns. and onehe has a brother of the uncles who has been alleged to have been engaged in inappropriate activities related to official activities. there is been no evidence that

we have heard of that senator biden when he was vice president or in the senate, that he took any actions as a result of his son or brother's activities. they are obviously concerning. we have seen a lot of folks raise questions about that. i think that as a political matter, political campaigns will look into these things and try to raise them. should the president be doing that, is that something appropriate? depends on whether this -- his person that while this was in office he did something inappropriate. a futurepropriate for or later president to investigate those questions, that is a hard thing to figure out. if it is appropriate, how do you do it without looking partisan, if there are foreign leaders involved, without engaging in quick -- quid pro quo, particularly when the person involved, the politician involved might be a candidate in

the upcoming election. host: it may be a little out of your realm, how would political corruption in ukraine the a national security or could be a national security threat? guest: if you play out the working theory that hunter biden got this highly paid position in the ukrainian private sector company, paid a lot in an area that he did not know a lot about. as the caller laid out, those of the facts that he laid out. if that is true, why did he get that position when the vice president was in office and working in ukraine matters. was not something that they sought to gain? if it is true, didn't have an effect on the actions and that have an effect on national security at the time. host: neil, in york, pennsylvania,s and on our democrat -- and on our democrats' line.

caller: i have some comments, first of all i think trump is a criminal, and i think it would be obvious to anyone who has half a brain. biblerepublicans, these thumper's are in some kind of republican euphoria, and denial. it is really sad that they think trump is the second coming of christ, and that is the joke, he is a joke, they are a joke. thank you. line,to the republican and we will hear from long beach. jerry, hello. conversation. to make the comment about the whistleblower, it bothers me that the democrats have changed the rules. that whistleblower should have gone to someone and said things were going on, and that person should have encourage them to

become whistleblowers. earlier you said that if there is -- first of all, if the house convicts, it goes to the senate. said that leaders has there will be a trial. the trial would be handled by the supreme court justice. i read an article that said if that was the case then anything and everything, and everyone could be subpoenaed and it could go all the way up to the president, president obama. is that true? when the house considers impeachment charges and the senate sits in trial, both houses are acting not in their classic legislative capacity but as a quasi-site judicial capacity, almost like a court. the house acting as the prosecutors and deciding whether there is enough to bring charges and voting.

if the charges are voted on, taking the case to the senate and prosecuting it as attorneys. the senate, in its quasi-judicial role, the chief justice provides, but the senate sits as a jury, a very large jury to consider whether they would vote for conviction. caller as a result, the is right that it is unusual, and it is also unusual in the sense that you might think, and i think people have argued historically, that both the house and senate have additional powers that go beyond their legislative powers so where you might be able to get evidence or materials, stuff like phone records or phone calls that you would not get in the classic situation of a legislative proceeding. even george washington in the case i cited where he refused to provide the records of negotiation actually said i am not going to give you these records. if you were sitting in

impeachment, i might have to, but i'm not going to. he actually said that. he said impeachment would be different. bringing charges against me so you will not be worried about that. even the context of debates of whether you can get records of negotiations on treaties, impeachment might be a special case even going back to the era of george washington. host: that caller brought up the issue of the intelligence community "changing the rules." who tweeted out -- the president tweeted out yesterday, and a headline with the intelligence community allowing secondhand complaints. media matters saying that there is a false report. tell us what this is about. caller: there was a form in

which whistleblower complaints are reported. the question is whether the form was changed around the time the complaint came in in order to commit this want to go forward. this whistleblower, the principal allegations, the personal makes -- some allegations they might have personal knowledge about. the phone call and the stuff about the certifier, that appears -- stuff about the server, that appears to be hearsay. they heard from somebody else who told them about this and they recounted it in a complaint. as the original purporting suggested, the original form said you had to have firsthand knowledge. the claim is that the form was changed. the dni put out information that that is a misunderstanding and the rules always permitted it. i have not sorted through the details of who has the better, but there is a debate on whether the phone had -- the form has

changed, or the change was already in place. .hat is an ongoing debate the inspector general has inspected the report. guest: ultimately it does not matter, whistleblower complaint is out and has been declassified and everyone can read it. host: we go to providence, kentucky. ken on the independent line. caller: i know it takes a majority in the house to vote for impeachment, but actual numbers with the makeup of the house today, actual numbers how many would it take? thank you. host: i think a majority for anything, they would lose one today because chris collins has resigned. it is around 218 in the house.

with the full majority, 218. , and maryland, on the republican line. caller: there is a big difference, as you know, between inappropriate and illegal. i do not think what trump did was illegal. what i saw biden do, by his own admission and implicating obama as well. you need to look that up. he did. he implicated obama. that seems to me illegal, holding $1 billion of funds for a private prosecutor fired in ukraine. you being a loyal -- a lawyer, that is more criminal than inappropriate. host: we have not talked about that end of the equation. guest: there are things that are illegal and violate federal or state law. and, things that are inappropriate and people might not be happy about the president doing, other it is this or the

prior president. the question for the house in the senate is not is it per se illegal under federal statutory law, but doesn't reached the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, again, an undefined term. if you look to the original meaning or in evolving standard depending on how you interpret the constitution. it does not mean you have to violate federal law to be convicted, you do not. it could be something short or well beyond that, you do not have the kind of proof that you need. this is not a criminal trial and there is not a jury of your peers. the senate is sitting as a jury, that is like a classic trial presented -- presided over where you have a criminal judge. the prosecutor is the legislative grant -- brands. a majority in the house

and two thirds in the senate needed to convict. intelligenceformer -- formerly with the intelligence committee. coming up on washington journal, we will talk with frontline correspondent, martin smith joining us to talk about his new look at the rule of hamed bin solomon and his ties to the murder of jamal khashoggi. ♪ >> sunday, the smithsonian institution's peter leopold and the history of tariffs and managing the u.s. economy. >> the supreme court ruled that the tomato is a vegetable because of a tariff. it is an odd story. any botanist will say a tomato is a fruit. 1883 tariff put a tariff on vegetables and not fruits.

importer of vegetables in new york pointed out that the tomatos he was bringing in were a fruit and he did not have to pay tariff. the battle went on for quite some time and eventually the supreme court ruled that tomatoes are actually vegetables. it is an interesting ruling that it had repercussions beyond just tomatoes. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern q on7a. the house will be in order. >> for 40 years c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, white house, supreme court, and public-policy events. 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: joining us from new york is frontline -- "frontline" correspondent, martin smith, joining us to join -- talk about the crown prince of saudi arabia. tell us about mohammad bin salman, who is he and his rise to power. guest: that is a big question. we deal with his emergence as the crown prince and a two hour documentary. oldest son of his father's third marriage. king the one son that s

salman took a liking to. his father was governor for almost half a century and he tutored his son all of that time as he grew up. close by,pt him consulted with him. when he became king in 2015, he lineohammad bin salman in -- and the line of succession. he was 29 years old and he gave him the ministry of defense, and -- time.

the crown prince. he was on his way at a young age. he is now 34. host: the documentary debuting tonight on pbs also available now, streaming at frontline.org. tell us, as we come up on the one year anniversary of jamal khashoggi, the washington post columnist, his murder in turkey. tell us about his relationship with mohammad bin salman. guest: sure. khashoggi, i interviewed him a couple of times and talked to him. he was someone who journalists went to in saudi arabia to find out what was happening. saudi arabia is normatively opaque, even under the reforms mbs as he isammed

called. it is hard to get information. it is an opaque place. jamal was the guy you went to to find out what you could. the beginning, a great fan. he saw in this young prince a reformer, somebody who wanted to open up the country to foreign investment and diversify the economy, open up the country to outside influences, to deemphasize religion and put the religious police away. jamal khashoggi was very enthusiastic, and even enthusiastic about prince inammed's foray into yemen 2015 as soon as he became the deputy crown prince. he was a supporter and insider

in the elite. he had been the spokesperson for the saudi embassy in london, and later in washington. so, this was a guy who evolved over time to become an outspoken critic of mohammad bin salman. it did not begin that way. host: martin smith joining us from new york, we welcome your calls and comments on the documentary. this debuts tonight, and also your thoughts on u.s.-saudi arabia and and the murder of jamal khashoggi. 202-748-8000 is the number to call for republicans -- 202-748-8001 is the number to call 202-748-8000 202-748-8000 for republicans. democrats 202-748-8000. for all others, 202-748-8001 -- we will give our viewers a flavor momentarily, and your conversation with jamal khashoggi and that the market --

documentary. did you ever have a sense of concern for his personal safety before he returned or left washington and went to turkey? guest: no. i think that he was clearly seen as a threat, as an enemy of the crown prince. to bear a taxhad on social media, so he was now an outsider to the regime. but there was no sense of mortal danger. i think many people -- no one was thinking that this murder would take place in the consulate in istanbul last october 2. this was something that really opened the window on saudi arabia and had people asking just what is going on. ishould point out that this

about much more than jamal khashoggi. this is about a human rights record that is abysmal. there are women in prison for pressing for women's rights. clerics, one economist, many people rounded up and put in prison. there were 200 businessmen and others. this program looks broadly at all the kinds of repression that has been ongoing under mohammad bin salman. host: let me ask you about the relationship between saudi arabia and the u.s.. a headline saying that with the chips down saudis find fewer friends a year since the murder. what is your assessment of the relationship? guest: certainly the relationship with the trump administration does not seem to change. the president is standing by saudi arabia and has been close to them all along. he made his first foreign trip

to riyadh and was welcomed with a royal treatment. and, a sword dance. they put his picture up on buildings. you can see this in the documentary. like no otherd president before him. that relationship has stayed strong even through the murder of jamal khashoggi. have do not see, now we this attack on the saudi oil fields in the president has made it clear that we are going to do all that we can to defend saudi arabia. as far as the rest of the world, much of the rest of the world sees this guy as something -- someone to keep at arm's length. no, therethe u.s. -- is opposition on the hill, in washington. the war in yemen has gone horribly, it is the world's

largest humanitarian disaster. havethousands of people died, civilians, from the air attacks that the saudi's with american weapons have carried out. there is a lot of tension, but the trump administration has stood by. host: the documentary debuting tonight is "the crown prince of saudi arabia." martin smith is with us. let us take a look at part of the conversation you had with jamal khashoggi in washington. [video clip] >> he had recently left saudi arabia and settled in d.c.. i sat down to talk with him. before all of our cameras were rolling, he spoke personally for a moment. he told me he was uncertain about what he would do here. i am restructuring my life. at the same time. . do not go back home

and also, i could be banned from traveling. >> soon after he decided what to do. he published his first column in "the washington post." saudi arabia was not always this repressive, and now it is unbearable. >> he was upset when other activists were being arrested. moderatehat these were people, not extremists. i think he was, in some ways confused about the situation. he really supported the vision of the reforms that mohammad bin salman had. it is a very personal essay. you see that he is wrestling with his decision to speak out or not.

it, we decided to translate into arabic, so that people in the arab world could read it. world could read it. >> did you recognize there was danger for him at that point? >> mortal danger, no. personal sacrifices, yes, of course. martin smith, his editor , jamalhe word, confused khashoggi confused about the direction the saudi empire was going in. guy,: he had embraced this he had gone forward and written about mohammad bin salman as somebody he saw as the future. like many young people in saudi arabia, it is a very young country, 70% of the population is under age 30, there was a great excitement about finally, we get a guy who is young and

energetic and wants to open the country in a way the country has not seen in decades. but yet, when these arrests begin to happen -- what is happening is mohammed bin salman wants it both ways, he wants to open for foreign investment and tourism, he wants a vibrant economy, but when it comes to political rights and freedom of speech, when it comes to the right of self-determination and being able to say what you wish on twitter or in newspapers, he did not want that. ,ost: martin smith is our guest the documentary is airing tonight at 9:00 p.m. .e welcome calls and comments we will get to them momentarily. our obligation is to carry live coverage of the u.s. house, they are gaveling in briefly for a pro forma session. we will go to that and come back to your calls and comments for martin smith in a moment. live coverage here on c-span.

host: legislative work is beginning on october 15 and at that moment the clerk announcing

the resignation of chris collins, the congressman from new york. the headline in the buffalo news business times, ultimately doom for his career, facing a scheduled hearing on an insider trading case today in manhattan. our guest this morning in new york is a martin smith, a "frontline" correspondent and they debut of his documentary on mohammed bin salman premiering tonight. the numbers are on the screen. we will go to wayne in baxter, tennessee. go ahead. caller: it seems that the jamal khashoggi matter brings to light the old saying, politics makes strange bedfellows. and theessive regimes democracies,el, to are aligned in a strange order. can you comment about the relationship and how it clouds

the jamal khashoggi matter between the u.s., israel and saudi arabia? hast: the one thing that cemented the relationship between the u.s. over the years has been oil. in exchange for that, we pledge to defend the kingdom. when donald trump came to office, he looked at saudi arabia as a partner in beating back iran's ambitions in the region, and at the same time he asked of the saudis to support his son-in-law, jared kushner's, peace plan. we have not seen that yet, but it was talked about, a peace plan that would bring palestinians and israel to some kind of deal. core ofhas been at the this relationship, it is why donald trump was persuaded by jared kushner to go on his first foreign trip, most presidents do not make their first foreign trip to a place like saudi

arabia, they go to canada, mexico or somewhere in europe. here he was going over to saudi arabia. he got a great welcome there. because of this idea that we could get out of the iran nuclear deal that donald trump so opposed, and start a new policy in the middle east centered on saudi arabia, bolster their reputation and strength as a sort of dominant power in the region. and support their pushback on peacend get some kind of in the house -- in israel and palestine. host: now miles on the democrats' line. go ahead. caller: i want to ask about the guy and a saudi arabia, why did you say his name was? host: our guest is martin smith. caller: mr. smith, the guy over

here in the u.s. is going back, is he a serious -- for doing what he is doing? it seems like the guy running the country over there, he said it is alright to do this, but do not do that. is that the right way to run a country? i will give you a chance to speak your mind, but i will not let you do what you want, i will do what i want to do -- ain't that wrong? guest: i would not want to live in a country like that and i suppose you would not want to either. we have free press in the united states . people can say what they want from the left, right and center. saudi arabia, he wants to move this country into the 21st economically,m it but he does not want to allow political rise, freedom of speech. he wants to keep the lid on. it is it is not -- yeah,

not the kind of country you would want to live in, i am sure. host: back to the saudi government's efforts in washington with the trump administration and more broadly, lobbying in washington. the wall street journal reporting they have stepped up efforts since mr. trump took office, spending more than $34 million last year, up from $16 million in 2017, according to the center of responsive politics, while other companies cut ties after jamal khashoggi's killing. saudi arabia continues to spend millions on lobbying. what is driving that, martin smith? guest: since the murder of jamal khashoggi, which opened this window on a pretty ugly situation, vis-a-vis the human rights record of saudi arabia, they needed a lot of help, they needed cpr quickly. they had been working on that and of the crown prince himself has tried to make efforts to come to terms with this, although his understanding of

transparency is quite different from yours or mine. they are spending a lot of money , they've always spent a lot of money in washington. the u.s. is anonymously important to them. they live in a dangerous neighborhood and they are depending on u.s. support for their military. it didn't help them in the case of the aramco attacks, however, but they lobby in washington and they lobby all the more now that on their these stains reputation. it is surprising, actually, that placethe purges that took in the beginning of 2017, just after mohammed bin salman becomes the crown prince and is in charge of the whole thing, he -- after the purges, he comes to the u.s.. he has put people in jail on i -- i think he would have to think of them as a serious

charges, causing sedition by twitter account for instance. he was allotted. he came to the u.s. and he was celebrating. he met with the president, he met with the titans of silicon valley, he went to hollywood and everybody embraced him as a great reformer. columnistork times" thomas friedman, famously, was lauding him. this was all after he had begun a series of harsh crackdown on the country. host: we will show you more of the documentary momentarily, $34 million in lobbying and the defense spending for u.s. arms sales to saudi arabia reported by cbs, the u.s. sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide in the fiscal year that ended september 30 come up 30% from previous fiscal years, near record. and in 2017, the u.s. cleared

$18 million in new saudi arms deals. we will hear from joey main on our independent -- joe from maine on our independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of things. korea, weia, north see what we see in russia -- the president of the united states, the democratic society or republic or whatever you want to term it, he has supporting those three. he is lying about them. i'm sure it will be on your show tonight, jamal khashoggi was ome fictitious people, i do not remember what he exactly said, but the crown prince had nothing to do with it, that was his first thing, right? so now we have the crown prince

saying he did it, or has taken responsibility. so once again the president of the united states has lied about a foreign leader. lied. whatever your definition of a lie is. the i would like to have is president tell the american people, very simply, what is your definition of a lie. this guy has lied about vladimir putin. he says he has nothing to do with election interference. and that is a joke. host: martin smith, the president's reaction to the jamal khashoggi murder? guest: it is for the first time he spoke out and it said that he took full responsibility for what happened, but what he said was that he took full responsibility because it happened on his watch. he then followed that by saying, to me exclusively, i am not going to tell you that i did it and i will not tell you i did not do it, that is just words.

i take full responsibility. he is dancing on the head of a pin. he is saying he takes responsibility, but that is like saying, i am the crown prince and i am in charge, it is not saying enough. host: i want to give viewers a chance to see that interaction with the crown prince. before we do, how did you get access like this? this arrangement of you speaking to him in private, but his words being on the record, how did that come about? i informed, he -- the saudis. it was not an off the record conversation, it was a conversation that i had with him at this big sporting event. he is somebody that i first met the in 2017, just after inauguration of president trump, he was very excited about donald trump coming to office.

so i had worked in saudi arabia over the last 20 years and made as many as six trips there, and i knew a lot of the people in the power structure or the elite of saudi arabia. into the able to get royal box at this formula e electric car race they were putting on. rock concerts and a lot of stuff going on there to bring people in. so i was able to see him at this party. and i had a conversation with him that was an on the record conversation and i shared it with the saudis and i told them exactly what he said, and what i was going to be quoting. host: let's take a look, here is from the "frontline" documentary. [video clip] >> last december i spoke with prince mohammed at the racetrack, he spoke about his role in the jamal khashoggi

murder for the first time. my camera was outside, but he said -- "it happened under my watch. i get all the responsibility because it happened under my watch. i really take it very seriously, i do not wanted tell you, no i did not do it or i did do it or whatever, that is just words." i asked how it could have been him knowing about it. "accidents happen, can you imagine - we have 21 million people, 3 million government employees, i am not a supercomputer to watch over 3 million. they can take one of your airplanes, i asked. toave officials, ministers follow things and they are responsible. they have the authority to do that. katani is texting

you, right? he he is texting me every day -- he is texting me every day. i was curious about those text messages. they were in the report linked to the killing about jamal khashoggi. insisted they were innocent. host: were you surprised at how candid mohammed bin salman was with you? guest: um, somewhat. you know, at the end of the day he is not coming clean. they have taken this position that this attack, this murder, this grisly murder and dismemberment of jamal khashoggi was a rogue operation. he says in that conversation, look, i have 3 million government employees, i cannot monitor them, i am not a supercomputer, i cannot be on top of everything that happens. that the saudiuy prosecutor fingered as running the operation is his very close

aide, who he says in the exchange you played, he texts every day. just not it is -- it's acceptable that he is saying that this is a rogue operation and i cannot monitor everything that my employees do, because the people who are doing this operation, who are on trial, although qahtani is not on trial, that is an interesting side note, but the people identified and on trial in saudi arabia for doing this were close, they worked for the royal court. they were bodyguards of the crown prince. so the idea he cannot monitor what is going on and it does not know. it is bad either way. either he ordered it, for he is running a government whereby people very close to him can go out with the tools to dismember a journalist in one of their

diplomatic buildings abroad. and that he does not know about it. either way, it is a big stain on his reputation. host: we will go to lake city, tennessee to hear from judith. good morning. caller: the media likes to call him a washington journalist, this jamal khashoggi, he was not. he was a muslim brotherhood member who wrote for "the washington post." thefamily made billions in iran-contra arms dealings. he was best friends with osama bin laden. in fact, he tweeted, "i collapsed, heartbroken for you." he had a nickname for osama bin laden. this is all about jamal khashoggi into the big show that "the washington post" and a liberal media is making about this muslim brotherhood member who came to write a few articles

for "the washington post." host: what is the question? i think just a statement. any comments? guest: sure, we could dissect this and talk at length about all of this. these are things i have heard, of course. ton you talk about closeness osama bin laden, the power structure within saudi arabia was close to osama bin laden. he comes from one of the most distinguished and wealthiest families in the country. and the turkey -- the former intelligence chief and ambassador to washington was somebody who also knew bin laden. a lot of saudis knew bin laden and before he was a terrorist, he was somebody who was receiving help from saudi arabia for his activities in a war against the soviets in afghanistan that was supported by the united states. so, you know, it is tricky

territory to get into saying -- but yeah, he did go over there and he did -- this was before 2001, well before bin laden had decided to form al qaeda as a terrorist organization, and stood with him as a reporter and i have seen pictures of him with bin laden. a a lot of saudis have been pictured with bin laden. as far as the muslim brotherhood, i am not sure what you are getting at. the muslim brotherhood is not a terrorist organization. it is scene by the saudis as a terrorist organization. severed any kind of relationship with anybody who wants to use violence. the favorite elections. avor elections. and they are seen as a threat by

the royal family because the saudi royal family is a monarchy, they are not in favor of elections. was he a member of the muslim brotherhood? i am not sure. i have heard this charge. it is a little unclear. he was a man who came out of conscious to the united states and wrote what he felt about what was going on inside saudi arabia. host: we will go to mike in ohio, argus martin smith. -- our guest is martin smith. mike, go ahead. caller: good morning. by the way, martin, i admire yours and "frontline"'s work. probably one of the last investigative journalists going on today. aside, willas an lineman has one of the greatest voices in the history of

broadcasting. guest: no doubt, thank you for that. go ahead. caller: you are welcome. it is amazing to me that our president, the first place he goes to his saudi arabia when we go ahead. have traditional allies, as you overbrought up, and to go there and do a sword dance, and by the way, the secretary of howerce wilbur ross said amazing it was the drive through saudi arabia and there are no protests. of course there are no protests, because they routinely cut off the heads of hundreds of people a week in that country. to expound a try little bit, is it true in your

investigations that saudi arabia actually threatened the united thees to take their oil of dollar? does your show get into that? and i really look forward to seeing it. thank you. guest: i hope that you watch. thank you for your comments. i have to correct -- they do not lob 100 heads off every week, that is extreme. they do use capital punishment some of thosehead people. [coughs] excuse me. it is a nasty place if you are trying to write openly about what you think and feel, and you have criticisms of the royal family or the royal court. as far as your question about

the dollar and oil, we do not get into that. this is a vast territory to explore. we look at the rise of mohammad bin salman, his rule, his vision for the country, his economic and social reforms. we then look at how he keeps the lid on that. his repression. and we look at the murder of jamal khashoggi into the investigation into it and the saudi response to that. in any of these films, it is not that what you bring up is not important and should not be looked at, it is that we have to have some parameters or we would never be able to fit what we have in the two hours that "frontline" we were given by "frontline" -- the two hours that we were given by "frontline." host: it will be on pbs at 9:00 p.m. eastern, also available on their website at frontline.org,

and also on youtube. now a democrat. caller: good evening -- good morning. i wonder why we do not hear about the amount of american children being held hostage in saudi arabia. i have a cousin that married a saudi man, and she left the united states and she went to saudi. she came back, but the kids were not able to come back. their father would not let them come back. these kids were born in america, they are american citizens. could you say anything about that? and i wonder why they are not able to come back to the united states. guest: this has to do with it the whole structure of the saudi culture and society around the roles of women and the roles of men in the family. have onlys rights

recently -- only recently have they made reforms with regards to women's rights, that extends then to the children and with custody. i cannot speak very intelligently about the question you bring up specifically, but i know it is all wrapped up in the int that women are still, saudi arabia, very much second-class citizens with limited rights. they have been given the right to drive cars, but this is not about driving cars, this is about much more than that. and the children that are being held, i do not know about your figures about how many are held or any of that, but it is something that is important and it should be looked into. but we as outsiders, i think, have to be careful about telling them how to run their country. this should be the work of either bravely

spoken out inside of the country, god help them, or saudis outside the country who have raised their voices and have called for change. this is their business. it is not for us to tell people how to live their lives in these places. that has gotten us only into trouble, in my opinion. host: "the washington post" headline on the purported iranian attack on the saudi oil processing center, after oil attack pentagon authorizes modest air defense booster for saudi arabia. the question on twitter for you, martin, why would saudi arabia need our military assistance? it is a large and rich country, why should the u.s. put boots on the ground and invite the iyer of the muslim world? guest: the boots on the ground, i am not sure what they are doing. it seems like a gesture of solidarity with them, with the saudis, against iran by the

trump administration. it is a small number. yes, we have sold them enormous numbers of weapons, enormous weapons and systems for billions of dollars, yet the attack that took place could not be defeated by the patriot missiles that they had been sold. the patriot missiles are of agned to hit incoming -- different nature than the drones and cruise missiles that came in at low altitudes, apparently. so i think it is interesting, if you remember "lawrence of arabia" when peter oh total as lawrence goes and comes from the desert, because he knows the guns ining the -- the the city are facing the sea, so he came from behind. it is ironic that that lesson was not taken in by the saudis to provide the kind of defense

they need for a saudi aramco, which is really -- so until recently it was 90% of all the income, 90% or so was coming from oil. so you would think he would do a better job of protecting and anticipating the kind of attacks that could take place. was: do you know if there any internal fallout or embarrassment over that, mohammed bin salman mohammed bin salman particularly for -- particularly for mohammed bin salman? guest: not that i have seen, but it is an opaque place. it is not something i have seen. there seems to be turmoil now, because of the murder of a bodyguard, a major general close to the king. people are asking a lot of questions about what went on, but i am not sure if that has a relationship whatsoever to what happened at aramco.

the fallout will be that the ipo that he has announced and it is necessary in order to fund the whole vision 2030 plan, an ipo will bring in cash to saudi arabia and they can then spend that on their plans. i think that this attack would give some banks, and investors, some pause. on then the aramco ipo, front page of the financial times, "dangling a $75 billion a year payout." let's go to phone calls. we will hear from marie in massachusetts. go ahead. caller: yes, my question is -- can you hear me? host: yes. caller: what is the relationship today between saudi arabia and israel? the reason for

saudi arabia falling out with the obama administration? yd i look forward to seeing our pbs documentary tonight. guest: thank you, i hope you get a chance. arerelationship -- those intertwined questions interestingly. is relationship with israel stronger than it has been in the past by a wide margin. the crown prince has said he recognizes israel's right to their own land. this is not a position that arab states had customarily taken. tois -- has pledged to try bring the palestinians to the table, to sign some kind of major peace deal with the

israelis. so this is saudi muscle coming to help jared kushner, the son-in-law of president trump, to get a deal between the israelis and palestinians. and when mohammed bin salman came to the u.s., he met with the jewish groups, he made pledges. he has been very -- he had one foot forward on this issue. the king has been more reluctant. the king has pulled back. when the embassy was moved to jerusalem, the u.s. embassy, this was a great affront. and it was hard for mohammed bin salman to convince his father, it seemed, that this was ok. as far as -- the other question was about iran, i believe. nost: i am sorry, she has gotte off the call, but i think you are right. guest: it was about obama, it was about what they did not like about obama. that was because he was trying -- and come to

some kind of nuclear deal with iran, and the saudis rejected that outright. whataudis want an end to they would call adventurism by iran, whether it is in iraq, syria, yemen or lebanon, they would like a deal with them to a -- to include in it reduction in the iranian support for various proxy groups around the region that are threatening saudi arabia. so they rejected this outright, so donald trump came to office and said, we agree, we will help you beat back iran and we will cancel the nuclear deal, which they believed was nonstartera. that is why they did not like the obama administration. host: you mentioned earlier somebody and i wanted to play a piece of the documentary and

your reporting on the and the conversations between the advisor to mohammed bin salman. take a look. [video clip] >> later i learned that they hired an intelligence firm to examine the tests. mbs wanted to share them with the cia. i was allowed to look at the report in washington. to jamal do not refer khashoggi or say anything about a kidnapping or a murder. but then the nsa discovered they had had some damming evidence all along, they just did not realize it. >> after he was killed, the u.s. intelligence community starts looking backwards. they look at intercepts that years.d picked up over and they find them chatting with -- in 2017. >> mohammed bin salman is expressing frustration and annoyance about jamal khashoggi,

saying he is becoming more influential. he said that any move against jamal khashoggi could create an international uproar. and he said he was too cautious. and then -- >> there is a conversation between mohammed bin salman and another influential advisor. he says we should show him a bullet. ♪ host: martin smith -- was there any fallout for his aide? guest: let me help people understand who he was. he was a very close aide to mohammed bin salman who was brought in to help him monitor, in the beginning, social media. but over time he took on a interrogator,s an

downody accused of shaking princes and businessmen at the ritz-carlton, so he was very close and he had said on twitter, we put it in the program, that do not think i do this on my own. an executioner of the orders of the crown prince and the king. so, the question was about? host: was there fallout for qahtani? guest: right, good question. if i had mohammed bin salman in front of me, that is a question i would ask. -- public prosecutor of your your public prosecutor has leader ofm as the the operation against jamal khashoggi, and yet he is not on trial -- why not and where is he? we did have a conversation with

veryy close advisor, a high level advisor to the crown prince, who told us he did not want to be named, but he said that i am sorry, but going after qahtani would be to politically -- too politically impractical. it would not look good and we cannot do that. he has protected. and he knows a lot. i might choose if i was in his shoes to want to silence him. and putting him on trial might lead to him speaking out or dropping information that the crown prince does not want out there. host: we have a couple more calls. frost, texas, a democrat. caller: good morning. mr. smith, this is also a question outside the parameters of your special, which i will

watch. doo not understand why -- i not know what the justification was for saudi arabia's war against the human, -- against yemen. and i do not understand why it is our policy to support them in this war. host: martin smith. guest: it is an interesting question. it is true that the hoopty rebels are engaged in a civil of against the government yemen, such as it is. it is also divided. it is a complicated situation. those rebels are getting support from iran. et again, it is a civil war. felt that they could give iran a bloody knows

quickly -- this was the initial selling of the war by mohammed bin salman to, as a freshly appointed defense minister, that he could push back iran. them inme, i can beat yemen. it has not worked out that way. it has turned into a huge humanitarian disaster. during the obama administration, they were trying hard to get a deal with iran on nuclear weapons and they needed some kind of saudi buy in t o that. one way they tried to do that was to support the effort in yemen. the middle east is always complex, but the idea was if we support the war in yemen, sell you weapons, perhaps you will not oppose the nuclear deal with iran? it did not work out well. they opposed it anyway.

now, we have a situation where the iranian support for the rebels is only growing as a result of this, the several years of fighting that have gone by. as more people have lost their lives, the trump administration has doubled down. the trump administration -- everytime they talk about this they talk about weapons of sales and jobs in the u.s., there does not seem to be much sensitivity from the white house about the enormous humanitarian disaster that has unfolded there. host: martin smith has been with "frontline" since 1990. the program is on pbs tonight at 9:00 p.m. the crown prince of saudi arabia. we appreciate you being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: morehead ahead on the program. we will look at the continued discussions, the news reports on the whistleblower complaint against president trump, and ask

if you support or oppose impeachment. .f you support, 202-748-8000 opposing, 202-748-8001. ♪ announcer: on sunday, the smithsonian institution's peter lee hold on the history of terrorists and managing the u.s. economy. >> the supreme court ruled that the tomato is a vegetable, not a fruit, because of a tariff. story.an odd any botanist will say it is a fruit. putin fact, the 1883 tariff a tariff on vegetables and not ofits, so an importer vegetables in new york pointed out that the tomatoes he was

bringing in from the caribbean were a fruit and he did not have to pay a tariff. the battle went on for quite some time. and eventually the supreme court ruled that tomatoes are actually vegetables. and it is an interesting ruling that had repercussions beyond the tomatoes themselves. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 a.". eastern on c-span's "q& announcer: the supreme court justices return for their new term next week, the first monday in october, with the court hearing cases on employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, the trump administration's winding down of daca, and state funding for religious education. listen to significant oral arguments on our website, c-span.org. and watch on c-span. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we would like to hear your

opinion, do you support or oppose impeachment? if lines are 202-748-8000 you support, and if you oppose, 202-748-8001. the headline in "usa today" -- "trump lashes out at accusers. another week of turmoil with attacks on his accusers, including a suggestion that leading investigators be eason.'" for 'tr they write that adam schiff falsely described his phone call with the ukrainian president. the present tweeting this morning, this is what he said a short while ago, a bottle if the so-called whistleblower has secondhand information and everything he has said about my perfect call with ukraine president is wrong, much to the embarrassment of nancy pelosi, why are we not entitled to learn

everything about the whistleblower? and also the person who gave all the false information to him. this is about a phone conversation that could not have been nicer, warmer or better. no pressure, as confirmed by the ukrainian president." ronnie from irving, texas. supporting impeachment. caller: thank you for taking my call. since day one, donald trump has tried to normalize the type of behavior he has shown throughout his whole presidency, the constant lying, the constant barrage against any criticism. so this is where we are at. when he stood on stage in helsinki and threw his intelligence community under for vladimir putin that

was treason. so i do not see any choice but to impeach him. basically, he is new york gutter trash. he never was worthy of being president. he is not even worthy of scrubbing the toilets in the white house that obama used. host: patrick in maryland, opposing impeachment. good morning. caller: the main reason i am opposed is i believe it is being used as a political strategy and divisiveness between the parties is hurting the country more than the other issues. thank you. host: one of the events we covered yesterday feature that national security advisor, you can find it on our website c-span.org, the reporting, john bolton criticizes donald trump's courtship of north korea. in his first public comments since leaving the white house, john bolton delivered a stark warning on monday about president trump's approach to

north korea, undercutting the president's insistence that its leader wanted to make a denuclearization deal, without mentioning the president by name, mr. bolin said "he wanted to speak in unvarnished terms about the threat from north korea and made it clear he thought the outreach to mr. kim had benefited only one side. and while mr. trump has made a deal with mr. kim, one of his signature goals, mr. bolton the decisiont the ' he is operating through is a kim will do whatever he can to keep nuclear capabilities and to develop an enhance it further.'" mr. bolton said, "under current circumstances, he won never give up nuclear weapons voluntarily." find that online is c-span.org. doris is in phoenix. good morning. supporting impeachment. caller: good morning.

i support the impeachment k itiry, because i just thin is shameful what is happening in the united states. we need to go back to when people really did have faith in their government, they had faith halfwaywere at least being told the truth. and to see the senators and all the other people saying what we know is wrong. i've always been taught, if you admit that you have been wrong, we can move on. but as long as we have these people telling untruths and the american people being divided on the level of the families and be threatenedo with the civil war and all these

bad things that this president should be standing up against and protecting all of us, not just one section of people. the congress are supposed to be there to make laws, to help us raising ourthis children and making better lives for us. thank you. vaughn isennsylvania, on our opposed line. caller: basically, i am looking itthe situation here that -- seems to me that this was put out front a way long time ago. "the washington post" came out with a story that they were already ready to impeach the president. fine, go down that road. i want to look at everybody else involved also if they do that, talking about interference from the 2016 election. it was president?

what did president obama do about it? it was president at the time when ukraine was invaded? it was invaded when obama was president, what did he do about it? i want to know about the pfizer process, they got the ball rolling and they failed, they failed again. clapper, the spying, i want to find out about that. if impeachment is on the table, let it run its course, no problem. but i want to these other actors involved looked at, and it specifically people in our intelligence community. seriously, after everything we have heard over the last couple fbi?s, who would trust the host: a quick follow-up to the john bolton story read a moment ago about his appearance yesterday. this news, north korea announces new nuclear talks with the u.s.,

the national review with after a stalemate, north korea announcing it would resume working level talks with the u.s. over dismantling of its nuclear program. in dayton, oregon, regina supporting impeachment. caller: good morning. good morning. i want him impeached. it seems like everything he has done ever since he came to office was to favor russia. and russia was involved in the voting system. he needs to be closely looked it. his policies that he has run in the last two years has favored russia far too much. i feel like our country is in jeopardy. that is all i can say. host: annamarie is next, she is in connecticut. and she is opposed to impeachment.

caller: yes, good morning. absolutely opposed to impeachment. the best president. and i attended his inauguration. the best president we have had since ronald reagan. secondly, the reason why these democrats, and i will call them our presidentt out, is because number one, he is the most pro-life president we have ever had. and number two, he loves israel. and they cannot stand it. god bless our president. host: you can send us a text message and this is one from mickey in wisconsin. "the more the president attacks adam schiff and at the whistleblower the further guilty he sounds." no on twitter, "bullying longer has power."

and of ago his business model is based on the mafia, it is the only one he knows, that and his narcissism explains his behavior, which has deteriorated in the past few weeks. and we have a color opposed to impeachment in georgia. caller: yes, i am opposed to impeachment. is amazing how all of the democrats calling in are criticizing people who call on the, what they call the republican line, but the truth of the matter is everybody has a right. if you listen to certain news ve nothingons who ha positive to say about the president, you cannot help but want him impeached. that is a fact. hear both is you must sides of the situation.

i blame computers. if you give your brain both sides, it can figure it out, but when you listen to only one side there is no way to figure it out. i have always listened to both sides and i will tell you, it has gotten so bad, i had to stop listening to msnbc. it is ridiculous. the wall front page of street journal, china celebrating the 70th anniversary of communist rule. troops marching past tiananmen square in a military parade commemorating the anniversary of the founding of the people's republic of china. hong kong braces for another round of protests. in tallahassee, florida, supporting impeachment. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, virginia. caller: ok, i do support impeachment. there has been improper behavior, very on presidential,

for a very long time. it decreases the quality of how the u.s. has been viewed by other countries, i feel, having a representative like that. his actions are completely inappropriate. and i find it hard to believe that they are such strong supporters still with this behavior going on, calling in. i feel like a concern to me is from a health standpoint. the man has dementia. anyone in the health field who has worked with people with dementia or alzheimer's would say that this is clearly -- this is not even the beginning of it, this is like the medium range. you cannot have somebody like that running the country. martin smith this is -- host: this is the story of a presidential phone call that did not happen. iran did not answer a secret phone call while top -- while donald trump waited. the president waited on the

other end of the line and the president of iran, all he had to do was come out of his hotel suite and walk into a secure room or mr. trump's voice would be piped in by a speaker. president rouhani were blindsided by the offer presented by the president of france on an unannounced visit on tuesday night to their quarters in the millennium hilton hotel near the united nations, where the world leaders had converged for the annual general simply. it was a mission lifted out of a hollywood thriller, the president of france had sought to broker a thaw in the state of between the u.s. and iran, which has threatened to escalate into a new middle east war. the times writes, accompanied by a small team of advisors, macron waited outside of the iranian leader's suite, according to three people with knowledge of the event, first reported by the new yorker. stitches were passed between them by an aide. in the end, mr. rouhani refused

to come out of his room and macron left empty-handed and mr. trump was left hanging. linda is on the line supporting impeachment. caller: yes, i do support impeachment. the investigation needs to go on. donald trump seems to have no respect for the law, only if it benefits him. he seems to think if a court disagrees with him, then the judge must be a trump hater. and a person who tells the truth as a rat. the whistleblower is protected by federal law and he has no right to try to find out who it is and endanger them. he i am tired of his just -- has no respect for the office of the president, none at all. faye from alabama,

opposed to impeachment. caller: yes, i oppose it strongly. fayei agree with the lady from georgia. i think, this is my opinion, i watched this a lot. everybody who is speaking against our president actually hated him before he even took office of president, ok? and adam schiff has no business calling donald trump names. let me tell you something, we are all human. if somebody keeps calling me names, yes, i will probably say something back. this is really getting all blown out of proportion. all these people are spewing hate out of their mouths, when they need to be on their knees praying for our nation. god to take over our nation again. host: catherine in ohio,

supporting impeachment. tell us why. caller: because he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. here is my question i want to put to the people who listen to c-span. this president has surrounded himself with a really good people, men and women, how does this president totally corrupt all that are around him? it is very simple. the woman before said we need to be back on ernie's, i believe that, but i believe this is in the hands of our almighty god. he is doing exactly what he is doing to bring the united states back to their knees. and i will tell you this as a christian, we do not need donald trump telling us, because once you meet the lord jesus christ, you are humbled. this man has been humbled -- he is high-minded and only has self interest at heart. host: more of your calls

tomorrow. we appreciate them all this morning. "washington journal" will be back here live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we will see you then. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: join us later today when charlie cook, founder of cook political report looks ahead to 2020 and the upcoming elections. it's a conversation hosted in washington dc. live coverage today at 7:00 p.m. eastern. you can listen live on the free c-span radio app or watch online at c-span.org. >> i come from a family of

teachers, and when they went to college to become an educator, they weren't thinking part of their job was going to have to be a security officer. stated in my testimony before, we had an armed officer in my school, and when it came to that moment of fight or flight, he went away. idea that teachers having guns would solve this issue is the same idea as giving another person a gun to solve gun violence. likewe hear those things two guns will protect the majority of people from one bad guy with a gun, that is sounding like we are trying to turn every single individual, or every single teacher in this case, into an armed vigilante. that is something no teacher should have to be. i also cannot imagine if teachers were armed, then the amount of incidences that would take place which would be them

killing a student who didn't happen to be the perpetrator of the violence. there would just be more violence coming out of that if teachers were armed. announcer: just a short portion of a recent summit -- senate hearing on gun violence in safety. witnesses include state officials, the parent of a student killed in the parkland and a survivor of the parkland shooting. announcer: our c-span campaign 2020 bus team is traveling across the country, visiting key battleground states in the 2020 presidential race, asking voters what issues they want presidential candidates to address during the campaign. >> congress in washington should do more to address the climate crisis because defense spending or any other partisan divide will not matter if we don't have a planet to live on. >> i think a really important issue washington needs to address is lgbtq a quality when

it comes to the federal level, protecting them from discrimination. right now, they are not protected under the constitution when it comes to say i want to get a job and i'm a bisexual woman. somebody could fire me because i'm gay. i think that is an issue that should come to the forefront. >> really, the development of new technologies and having public input on these. these other technologies are coming out about say things like human gene editing, which to some people is very scary or development of algorithms on the internet and how those curate the information we see. there's not a clear scientific consensus on what we ought to politicalhink, as a assistant, there's a certain obligation to do some kind of -- have some kind of conversation about these issues and decide

collectively what we ought to be doing as a society. >> i think we have a lot of issues at the federal level right now, but one we should talk a lot about his gun safety. people are interested in stronger background checks, and i think that's important. no one is interested in taking away your guns. we just want to make sure they don't get into the hands of the wrong people. and, we need stronger restrictions on automatic weapons because they are not hunting guns, they have one purpose, to kill. we need to pay strong attention to that issue. announcer: voices from the campaign trail. part of c-span's battleground states tour. announcer: next, a conversation on the how the u.s.-mexico border will impact the 2020 election. garcia, include sylvia in addition