on foreign relations -- toward syria. it c-span 2 at 9:00 a.m., we join the washington post cybersecurity summit with remarks from michael chertoff and james clapper. at 12:05, a forum on government oversight and the role of the inspector general. we hear from author and washington post columnist bob woodward and jason jason -- jason chaffetz. the federalist society hosts legal scholars and journalists to preview the upcoming supreme court term and the cases expected to come before the court. an hour, catherine glenn foster, president and ceo of americans united for life discusses legal challenges to roe v. wade. at 8:30 a.m., paul rosensweig

discusses impeachment efforts and the supply complain. her recentalus on piece on asylum-seekers at th u.s.-mexico border. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal" for wednesday, october 2, 2019. we would like to hearrom republicans only this first hour. republican callers only to hear your thoughts on the impeachment inquiry on president trump. do you still support him? how do you think he is responding? we will also look at the latest polls on how other republicans are feeling. republicans only. 202-748-8000 if you live in the eastern and central time zones. 202-748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. you can send us a text.

that is 202-748-8003. make sure you put your name on there, where you are texting from. @cspanwjs how you send a tweet and we are on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. at the start of the program yesterday, we looked at polls. more specifically on republican support, the impeachment and job support numbers. let's look at this monmouth university poll which says 44% overall support impeachment. republicans, just 9% in that poll supported impeachment. quinnipiac university touched on this, too. this is the approval rating. overall, the approval rating is 41%. ofublicans, however, 88% republicans say the president is doing a good job and 7% in that poll supported impeachment. your thoughts, republicans only.

202-748-8000 eastern and central time zones. 202-748-8001 in the mountain and pacific time zones. the daily news and political tip called thepolitico playbook out this morning with information on how republicans on the hill are feeling, what republicans are saying privately about impeachment. on tuesday night, a seasoned and well-known gop operative sent us this stunning note underscoring gop alarm with how the trump administration is handling impeachment. gop lawmakers are concerned at what appears to be a lack of urgency in forming a unified response to the democratic impeachment threat. there is eiler -- either a failure to grasp the situation or inability to protect the president like they did his supreme court nominees with a centralized war room that has credibility with stakeholders across the party.

to lookht nobody wants like kevin mccarthy did on 60 minutes and they will duck and cover until they are on firmer footing. there is deep skepticism the late-night fox lineup will have any credibility with rank-and-file publicans necessary to prosecute this argument against house democrats. the reporting out this morning from playbook that the president kept up his twitter stream into last night tweeting a couple of things from the president. as i learned more and more each day, i am coming to the conclusion what is taking place is not impeachment, it is a coup intended to take away the power of the people, their vote, their freedoms, second amendment, religion, military, border wall, and their god-given rights as a citizen of the united states and trump. from president

some news this morning as we go to phone calls from the state department. state department inspector general requests an urgent ukraine briefing on capitol hill . the inspector general expected to give a briefing to staffers about documents obtained from the department's office of legal advisory related to the state department and ukraine. we will be you know hearing from speaker pelosi and adam schiff, they have a news conference this morning at 10:45 eastern. we will cover that live on c-span. the president is welcoming the finished president to washington. a joint press conference set for 2:00 p.m. eastern. let's say good morning to ken. california, you are on the air.

ken, are you there? one more time. we are going to go to joe, georgia. caller: bill, love c-span. i am so fired up about president trump, i think he is the best in history and david perdue will lead the fight to defeat socialism. they are joining a national effort to defeat socialism. we have a booming stock market, the best economy in the world. i am going to run and sprint to the polls and vote for him. i think he is by far the best leader in american history. caller: i am going to vote for trump because i think they should overthrow the democrat party the way they are doing people. they are going crazy in that town. i don't know what is going on there. callow -- california.

republicans only this morning. caller: good morning. glad to be on c-span. watch every day. i agree with the president, this feels more like a coup then impeachment. they are not following their own rules, they have not been following them for a long time. day, all c-span every day. i don't see the quorum in congress, the decorum rules being followed. the hearings they hold are rude. they say lot -- outrageous things. adam schiff's suppose it reading of the whistleblower document was a travesty. i have never seen anything like this. i voted in a lot of elections, 12 presidential elections and i have never seen the country in

this kind of shape. we are being ripped apart at the seams and frankly, i was a democrat for many years, i don't think only one party is responsible for what is going but i really think the congressional democrats misbehaving terribly. host: how do you think president trump is handling? how do you think he is responding? caller: i am amazed at his perseverance and his strength. 400 odd't deal with people trying to keep me from doing my job every day. i give the guy a lot of credit. he may not be the most polished personnt or eloquent people have been accustomed to liking to see in the presidency, but he knows how to get things

done and he is doing the right things. in a very short period of time, he turned this economy around when i had given up in the obama years. i see him looking and doing and trying to get things done and he has no support from congress, none. it is frustrating. not just for me, but it must be terribly frustrating for him. i give him a lot of credit to stand up to the overwhelming a dailyon he faces on basis and still gets things done. that is what we elected him to do, that is what he is trying to do and i wish we would help him. host: on twitter, we are @cspanwj. this one says the rules were changed just to frame trump. front page of the new york times, pompeo battles inquiry leaders over testimony.

to question state department officials who might have witnessed president trump's efforts to question ukraine for political advantage. in the first skirmish and what promises to be an epic impeachment struggle, secretary of state mike pompeo lashed out at congressional committees seeking to depose diplomats involved in american policy toward ukraine. mr. pompeo called their demands "an act of intimidation." joe in washington. good morning. caller: good morning to you, sir. efforts ofpposed the the democrats because it is an embarrassment to our country. i have a question for democrats. how can you vote for somebody calling for a recession that can make you lose your job? they don't care because they are

wealthy. .hey can go wherever they want toet in ouble when i say this one. another thing to white men only. when i saw that clip of omar saying the problem with the country is white men, how can you sit there and support somebody like that? that ungrateful little girl needs to go back home. milford,e is gary, ohio. republicans only this first hour. your thoughts on the trump impeachment efforts. caller: good morning. first time caller. i want to make a quick comment about everybody all the time complaining about president he is onehavior, how presidential -- un

presidential-like and running him down. nobody tks theedia's behavior or the democrats' behavior. they treat him terrible. before he was even inaugurated they were like, he is not our president and resist him, bring up the resistance and they badmouth him and treat him worse than some -- it is awful. it is like the chicken or the egg. is he responsible for their actions or are they responsible for his actions? withieve they started it their actions the moment he was elected. host: we will hear next from sharing in indiana. good morning. caller: hello? host: hi, sharon.

you are on the air. caller: i keep telling everybody it sounds like a soap opera to me. if you don't stay and listen one day and you go back the next day, that is what you hear. i have never seen such a bunch of democrats that have been so full of -- foolish. i am surprised some ofhem have not been shot. that is about all i have to say about it. host: surprised who hasn't been shot? caller: some of the democrats. host: by whom? who would do that? caller: i don't know for sure. democrats would lose our patients. we are not as different as anybody else as far as that is

concerned. i am not able to get out and shoot somebody. i am handicapped at home. host: appreciate you calling in. away topwing democrats. 2020dent trump's reelection campaign and the republican national committee will report raising a total of $125 million. the pro trump groups have raised more than $308 million in total than $156d boast more million cash on hand. that far exceeds the $105 million second-quarter joint total and marks a new presidential fundraising record. the republican national committee has begun a campaign and produced ads in what they are calling the stop the madness method dealing with impeachment.

here is a look at one of their new ads. [video clip] >> i don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. maybe there would --will be. >> if you see anybody from that cabinet, tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere. ♪ .> we will bring the fight they are marching in step, acting like north korea. -- trump is as destructive a person in this century as hitler, stalin. he may be responsible for many more million deaths than they

were. >> i am worried if we don't impeach him, he will get reelected. ♪ host: republicans only this first hour on "washington journal." your thoughts on the trump impeachment efforts. 202-748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. for mountain and pacific. looking at usa today, trump sets a record on twitter amid impeachment fight. amid calls for his impeachment and preparations for his reelection bid, president trump tweeted or retweeted 800 times in september. his monthly tweet frequency has steadily risen for months and a

couple of those yesterday included re-tweeting of a breitbart pole with breitbart showing do you stand with president trump? 97% of those polled said they did and president trump tweeting try to impeach this with some sort of election map he retweeted. but, florida, irene. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i just have a comment. i am an older american and i keep getting this sick feeling in my stomach because i remember wasdate john f. kennedy assassinated. the more i listen to the news i keepg whistles hearing. i don't agree with him on everything, but i don't want any harm to come to him or his

family and i talked to other older people like me, the country was kind of going in the right direction with kennedy and kind of going in the right direction with trump. i ask everybody to pray for him .nd hope he will be safe thank you for taking my call. host: we will hear next from rosalind. good morning. caller: good morning. i am definitely for donald trump . i voted ever since i graduated high school. voting.ever stop i think the democrats are afraid he is going to get reelected. --hink all the presidents they should have whistleblown other presidents. i think they are scared of him. host: how do you think the

president has responded so far? caller: i like him. he is a very strong man. he is for the people of this country and i hope people realize it. i see jobs are getting better. thank goodness my husband is able to find another job. gets one, ite who is important to fill it out and back our president. examiner, withn the headline much of the impeachment inquiry may be conducted in secret. tweeted that on tuesday. a decision by nancy pelosi to

hand off the impeachment inquiry to the intelligence committee means a key part will be kept secret. house intelligence committee led by adam schiff is scheduled on friday to interview intelligence committee inspector general michael adkinson. he is one of the most important witnesses in the impeachment inquiry. he conducted the initial review into a whistleblower allegation that president trump asked the ukrainian president to investigate corruption allegations against former vice president joe biden. the white house attempt to conceal records of the july 25 call. you may find a bit more -- here a bit more about the inquiry's process or the plans going forward with a news conference today at 10:45 eastern. nancy pelosi joined by adam schiff. we will have it live on c-span and c-span radio. adina in ohio. welcome. caller: hi, my turn? host: it is your turn, go ahead.

iller: i am republican and enthusiastically support president trump. i began voting when i was 18 years old and i was a democrat all that time. in 2008, i became a republican. i used to be a democrat and now i am ashamed to admit it. democrats and establishment media are badly miscalculating this. it is going to blow up in their faces. look beyondeed to what they are trying to do to president trump and i think they are trying to neutralize the presidency. i don't think they would care what happens to a democrat if a democrat were in office. they are trying to run the country. iry sorry to see that because

am very invested in our constitution and what it can do for us. they will regret this. host: perhaps one of those establishment republicans dina mentioned is peter wainer, former aide to president george h. w. bush. here is a statement of his, part of a new york times piece that came out earlier this week. the republican party is the republican party of donald trump. the party finds itself deep in a dark alleyway. renewal and regeneration are also -- always possible, but that will require the republican party future leadership to repudiate. mr. trump's most recent abuse of power pressuring the ukrainian president to do his dirty work is the longest link in a chain of corruption.

if republicans don't break with the president now, they will pay a fearsome price generationally, demographically, and morally. helen in california, we are hearing from republicans only this first hour. go ahead with your comment. caller: after hearing the last comment or what you just read and after hearing that commercial, i did not know republicans were so evil and menacing, especially if you support trump. i support trump and i am not or menacing.evil democrats are terrified republicans will remain in power for four years. . am going to say something the republicans and trump is right, there are a lot of people who really do support him and i quietness, the

whispered vote. i live in los angeles, it is a --y heavily return our jobs, which would make things overall better for people in los angeles. we dare not say anything. we are intimidated and threatened, surrounded by people who are anti-trump and make their hate very well known and they direct it randomly, which is frightening to us. the whispered vote and the whispered support and it is between me, koreans, 8 other asians, hispanics, blacks, but we never, out and say it because we are afraid of being ostracized from our jobs, may be threatened by people in the neighborhood. this is not to be confused with

nixon's silent majority. host: you said you felt threatened, intimidated by others because of your support for president trump. give us an example of what that is like? caller: sure. at work, i don't tell anyone i am a republican and there are a few other people i work with who don't say i am republicans. we are constantly questioned. they will stand up there and republicans are and how they are trying to destroy the united states and they look at us as though, you agree, don't you? we cannot say anything. we are afraid because we are overwhelmed. there are billboards, it is ridiculous. we feel like this is random and democrats are stirring up all these hate to promote their special agenda.

this is a power struggle going on and democrats are desperate to return to power. they need to hear my voice because i am tired of whispering it. we are very afraid, we dare not speak our minds. we don't have freedom of speech anymore and we feel intimidated. there is a lot of people of all ethnicities and races in the same boat i am. host: this is david. caller: i don't think it matters a whole lot because it doesn't matter what the democrats do, what the media reports or what the polls say. on election day, republicans will be there to vote and president trump will be elected, when the house back, and we will keep america great. thanks for taking my call. we will go to brian,

republicans only this morning for the first hour. we are asking your thoughts on the impeachment inquiry. brian in washington, go ahead. caller: i am a republican. this year, i think i am going to .witch and vote democrat i don't believe the democrats are evil and hateful as everybody is saying. i think there is a lot of republicans that are ill informed. they give this president and the republican party like moscow mitch a lot of credit for stuff they did not do. they seem to be embracing communist parties. people like russia, putin, kim jong-un. as far as economy goes, they give him a lot of credit for the economy. if you look at the last 8 years under obama, unemployment went

4.9%.2.7% to the stock market, which almost collapsed under bush was at a high 6000 and when obama left office, it was at 22,000. host: all right, brian. republicans only this first hour. for those in the mountain and pacific time zones. 202-748-8000 in eastern and central time zones. you can send a text at 202-748-8003. this is from tim in rhode island, texas. i believe democrats don't care about losing the presidency, they are playing to the radical base to keep their jobs. rosemary, welcome. caller: good morning. a republican. i am also an emigrant.

if you come and work hard, you will succeed in this country. i am against impeachment because i know democrats are trying to steal the election, a duly i thinkpresident and trump is doing a very good job. he is working for the people and people should vote for donald trump. host: new york times with the headline as impeachment inquiry language trump's takes a dark turn. they talk abut the president's increasing use of the word treason and write the last time in american was convicted of treason was in the 1940's in

part because the constitution defines it narrowly as levying war occur -- against the united states or giving comfort to an .nemy during wartime mr. trump used the term to accuse people of disloyalty and signal to his reporters his political opponents are un-american. experts see a danger in the president frequently and falsely calling out what he labels treasonous behavior. a professor at the university of california davis school of law said the president cheapened a word through overuse saying it is a complete debasement of political discourse where ordinary does agreements elevated to a level of capital crime. if trump did uncover an instance of true treason, no one would believe him because he debased the meaning of that word. dan is on the line, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my

call. impeachment,l this you have a lot of anxiety no matter which station you look at. one says one thing and one says the other. i am listening to both sides here, republicans that are .alking terror this guy. he is a person and a man of god, he is one of us, which means he is an american. what has happened to that?

i want to say it is a forgotten thought. you don't see a lot of god-fearing people anymore. why don't we pray for the people that are suffering? host: randy in wisconsin, you are on the air. caller: good morning, c-span. at this president anyway they can. they tried russia, russia, russia. that was going to be the big one, that did not work. then it is this ukraine deal. papersas the president's and what he says to the world -- as far as i can see

-- as far as trump tweeting all the time, i love it. of what is going on in washington every day. i don't get the news all the time, but i am pretty faithful with c-span. you have to know what is going on and what is coming down the pipe. host: do you follow the president on twitter? do you just see the tweets we post? caller: i follow him. i think it is great. he is going straight to the people. he stops and he talks and pretty much gives them all the time they need on a press conference every day. no other president has ever done that. there is a lot of trick

questions, but the president is how to treat these people and everything he says, .hey turn it against him the senate will not impeach him. the house will. when election time comes up, the only thing they will have his he was impeached. we will hear from the president this afternoon in a joint press conference planned at 2:00 this afternoon. the president is meeting with president. just getting video from the secretary, mike pompeo in italy and during a press conference earlier today, the secretary of why he objected to the request for depositions in relation to the ukraine

investigation. [video clip] >> what we objected to where the demands that deeply violate fundamental principles of separations of powers. they contacted state department employees directly and told them not to contact legal counsel at the state department, that has been reported to us. they said the state department would not be able to be present. important constitutional -- our partners, countries like italy have -- can have confidence the information they provide will continue to be protected. the -- the response they provided was one that acknowledges of course we will do our duty to cooperate with this coequal branch, but we will do so in a way that is consistent with fundamental values and we will not tolerate

people bullying or intimidating state department people and it is not something i will permit to happen. host: secretary of state's mike pompeo press conference in italy. he also said he was in on that phone call -- listening on that president trump and the ukrainian president. we are asking to hear from republicans only. those of you in the eastern and 202-748-8000zones, . 202-748-8001 mountain and pacific. you can text at 202-748-8003. back to. south carolina, this is max this morning. sir, thankd morning, you for taking my call. i am curious after just hearing

what secretary of state said and it seems our system of government has gotten to the point that everything is based .n hearsay part of the me too movement, got him politically correct. police got him out of office. .here is no evidence, i mean bring up the evidence. we did the mueller investigation, accept it. there were no charges for him. now we have a direct, transparent transcript of what trump actually said on the call this narrativee this by adam schiff, this parody of what was said. it is absolutely ridiculous. they are making games of the united states and the people of the united states.

we deserve to have our government back. thembsolute thing of improperly going to pompeo's people and everything else, these are individuals with rights. they need lawyers. they need to also go ahead and trump soe to impeach the republicans can have a right to call their witnesses as well. host: we will go to bob in texas, your thoughts. caller: good morning, everybody. i would like to say what we have now is a coup d'etat, and overthrow of our elected president. look at california. is a total mess. these sanctuary cities and

sanctuary states, if you live in a sanctuary city, you better be scared because american citizens have no rights anymore in a sanctuary city, especially in fairfax, virginia. this morning, on the news, illegal. he was supposed to go back and do his trial. cop stops him,he gives him a ticket, arrests him and they put the cop on suspension. what kind of country is this? you want your city or state to vote fortuary city, democrats. democrats are democratic-socialist communists. host: the lead opinion in the wall street journal, foreign influence and double standards. note the double standard at work. democrats and most of the press corps want to impeach donald

trump for inviting help to investigate joe biden and his son in ukraine, but they want everyone to forget the clinton campaign paid for foreign dirt the fbi used to justify a secret surveillance warrant against the trump campaign. this is what mr. barr has asked mr. durham to investigate. the u.s. attorney has a reputation of being thorough and fair. he may find there is no you legality, but investigating this is a public service because half of america wonders if james in a's fbi took sides presidential election based on foreign propaganda agenda by the opponents of donald trump. --gainesville virginia gainesville, virginia, nancy. caller: i want to say i am not entirely sure when all of this started on the democrat side. when trump was elected, i think

it got a lot worse. what your previous callers are saying really resonates with me because i think we are at a point now where it is really scary to be here even trusting your own government. i worked for the federal government and it is getting to a point where i don't trust leadership and the people around me because i am afraid, what side do they fall on? democrats are making it tough to trt in theysm. i wish they would come out and say we do hate donald trump, we don't want him in office. some of them have said if he does not get impeached, he is going to be reelected. what kind of message is that? they are beyond the point of even caring what they actually say. it is very obvious and it is making the people afraid to come out and say what they actually believe. host: does it feel like the whole impeachment process if you look at this process and go back

to the clinton impeachment process, that the process itself has become too politicized? caller: absolutely. i understand impeachment itself, it can get to a point where i don't like the color shirt you are wearing, so i will impeach you. make it formal and pass a vote so republicans can actually subpoena their own witnesses and bring their own people to light. the fact this was put into the intel committee makes it more secret. what are you telling the american people? it is too obvious what is happening and the people supporting this don't really understand what they are supporting. i refused to believe these people are truly enlightened about what is going on here. they are just feeding into whatever is being spoonfed to them because they hate the man. a good analogy was given before. if i am dying on the operation table, do i want a doctor with the best bedside manner who is

the sweetest doctor in the world of popularity or the best doctor in the world who is the best brain surgeon? that is what i want. i don't want to invite him to dinner and be his best friend, i want him to save me. they are terrified because they will get 4 more years of republicans. they think the american electoral voters voting are that stupid and it is insulting. we are not stupid. you are getting a lot of people turning over from democrat to republican because of these charades and shenanigans. host: nancy in gainesville, one of the far suburbs of the nation's capital. a couple other news stories, front page stories, the celebration in china70 yea of communist rule. hong kong violence overshadows china's anniversary

celebrations. protester shot by police. military might on show in beijing. wanted to show you a story that is front page of the washington times this morning. dealing with a military demonstration they had. the rest of the world was watching the pomp, circumstance, and speeches celebrating china's 70th anniversary. of cutting edge weaponry capable of challenging u.s. military might for decades to come. read more at washingtontimes.com . yvonne.er, tennessee, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to make a few comments. i also just changed over to republican in 2016. i had always been a democrat and i think there is a lot more to

them than people think because the democratic party is not the party used to be. ashamed, i would never vote democrat again. i would be hard-pressed to do so. my biggest thing is this president has done so much and they have talked about impeachment right from the beginning. right when he got into office. it is very obvious all they have done is gone after him and after him and after him. i support what the other person said earlier, i don't know how the man does his job and how he does it so well. i will definitely be voting for trump again this next year. host: santa clarita, california, we say hello to tony. go ahead. caller: good morning, sir. this whistleblower is about the whistleblower. -- this is about the whistleblower. what if the whistleblower is a

republican and baited the democrats into a trap. they cannot present to congress because democrats run the committees. if they go to an impeachment hearing, bring out all the evidence because they cannot bring it out any other way. they want to be charged with something so they can defend themselves and have a right to bring out the evidence. when the democrats hear the evidence, this will not make it to the senate. host: there are all kinds of ideas. this is one from a columnist in the new york times -- washington times. is biden the real target for ukraine-obsessed democrats? why would democrats go after president trump for allegedly threatening to withhold usa to record -- to ukraine when their 2020 standardbearer did the same thing and is on tape admitting it? democrats either don't care what happens to former vice prede

joseph r biden or they are intentionally trying to take him out. that is part of a column in the washington times. in maine, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would just like to say i think a lot of what is going on here is the fact that democrats are dismiss what barr is going to bring forth here pretty soon and what the ig has already brought forth about the intelligence agencies. i voted the last three times for democrats. vote straightlly republican even though i am registered that way. i vote for whoever i feel is

doing the best job. host: did you vote for president trump in 2016? caller: yes, i did. and i will vote for him again in 2020. ho: john is next in denton, maryland. caller: thank you for c-span. i never cared about donald trump as far as his show on tv and the rest of it. when he came down that elevator and started in on this whole campaign, he started chiming in with my feelings about everything about our government and our representatives. i think that is what sticks with all of us that feel this way about the man. perseveress and throughout this nonsense that has been going on down there. i live in a state that is totally blew and there is not -- totally blue and there is not much we can do about it.

we can complain about it. andy harris is about the only one that represents us. as far as the rest of the state, we have a governor who is republican who does not even admit to that. we have representatives lined up in this state against our president. i am shamed of them and i think they should think twice about their future in government. host: your congressman is republican andy harris? caller: andy harris from this area, the eastern shore of maryland. go to two hats when i work. i am home improvement contractor. i have a trump hat riding around in the car and then the rest of the time is a baseball hat that does not offend people. that is how silly it can get in this country and this area. we have a reversal of mccarthyism. we have schiff-ism.

something has to be done about that guy. he is coming on ridiculously against everything american and everyone gives him a pass on everything. host: congressman schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee will join nancy pelosi at a news conference this morning on capitol hill. 10:45 eastern. we will have that life for you on c-span and you can follow on c-span radio. a former congressman just resigned yesterday. former house member pleads guilty to conspiracy. former republican congressman chris collins pleaded guilty to two charges in an insider trading case just over a year after proclaiming his innocence to allegations he schemed with his son to avoid losses on a biotechnology investment. collins pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit fraud and making false statements

answering the judge's questions on count 1 and 11 on the indictment. at some video of him headed to the courthouse. connie in california. caller: good morning. ever sinceay president trump got elected, it has been hatred all over. them, waters, if you see tell them they are not wanted. the other people get so frustrated and they just follow her like -- i don't know, like leeches. instead of saying, we are going to do this or that, let's unite. no, our country is so divided with all this hatred going around. democrats, you have heard the theng you withoutsin cast first stone, they -- saying you

t the first cas stone, they think they are it. let's not be so hateful. host: thank you, connie. to new york city, good morning. caller: i would like to go back to something -- this guy came down. i don't even see this guy as the president. what is the first statement he made? let's send them all back. he has this war against immigrants. all this technology we enjoy today. the guy who invented the rocket that takes us to the moon, he was an immigrant. enjoy, wechnology we have these fiber-optic things, those inventions were all because of the possibilities of the invention of when we went to the moon. now we have a man in office who

is talking about sending back -- his parents came from germany and ireland. if he is talking about sending people back, he should go back. the only indigenous people of this country were indians. everybody came from somewhere. host: from the new york times, prosecutors face increased pressure to make a decision in the mccabe case. the justice department has come under pressure in the investigation of the former deputy fbi director andrew mccabe as a judge threatened to release department records unless prosecutors decide weather -- whether to move forward with or abandon the case. judge reggie walton for the district of columbia is aoviding -- presiding over lawsuit said he would soon begin releasing documents. the material should stay controversial -- confidential

while prosecutors investigate mr. mccabe over whether he lied to investigators about dealing with the news media. "you all have got to cut and make your decision. it is not a hard decision and i think it needs to be handled. if it is not made, i will order the release of investigation -- information because the public has the right to know what is going on." we go to don in nevada. welcome. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i am of ukrainian u.s. -- a u.s. citizen and a veteran. i have been voting for 52 years for republicans. the other day i was watching jake tapper on cnn and he was jordan about impeachment and trying to convince the general public that

impeachment is correct. you know what? he never presented the other side. the council ofn foreign affairs and he bragged about how he pressured the president of the ukraine and told him if he doesn't fire the prosecutor, he is not going to get the billion and a half in loans -- the $1.5 billion in loans. that is how slanted and one-sided the media is. they don't present the other side and i am surprised c-span hasn't showed that as much as we are talking about the impeachment efforts. host: we covered that event. the council on foreign relations a year or so ago with former vice president joe biden.

we haven't shown it in a bit, but that clip has been showed on this program. the entire event, you can find it on c-span.org. not sure of the exact date on that. a couple of comments on text. you can text us, 202-748-8003 joel says democrats need impeachment, presidential candidates have nothing to offer. marvin, i was a trump supporter, voted for him, big mistake. it is apparent he is trying to be a dictator. i am amazed to see so many people who hate democrats so much are willing to accept this president. as president donald trump and his allies attack the whistleblower who kicked o the house impeachment inquiry, the unidentified person gained a powerful ally, chuck grassley. the most senior gop senator fashioned a career on protecting whistleblowers of both parties.

--iowan --erm ioan seven term iowan is sticking to his position. he said this person appears to have followed the whistleblower protection laws, ought to be heard out and protected. george is next in pittsburgh. good morning, george. caller: good morning. a republican and i am a lincoln person. a man should work for his own self-interest. we should be up in the states --ause what trump is doing management. us against management, he is taking all the money, he has -- the individual person has power

fighting against creating hatred between each other. right now, i am talking to all americans. americans on the democrat side and americans on the republican side. that is what people are saying. how can we fight against each other like that? to usher groupie talks racism andm, cynicism and all that type of stuff. he has these people all hyped up and america -- this is almost like a civil war. it is not illegal, what he is doing, but he better not make a mistake. host: we will go to pennsylvania, robert. you are next. caller: good morning. i think you for take -- i thank

you for taking my call. i think the president is holding up well against impeachment and all the other stuff he is going through. since he was elected, democrats have done nothing but try to get him out of office because like a bunch of spoiled little brats, they want hillary clinton to be the president and even if they --each president trump, not that is not going to happen and the vice president will take over. they need to grow up and act like adults instead of the spoiled little kids they are. host: alice in florida is calling from tampa. go ahead, alice. cuban. i am mexican and they have been harassing this president from day 1. i call it presidential harassment. when this president offered

amnesty for these young people who came here three years old with their parents and pelosi turned it down. i said, what the heck is she doing? andffered her a sweet deal she had the nerve to say he has been using these kids. i am going to make it very clear that pelosi and her cronies -- if you don't do what is right, you are going to lose this election. enough is enough and i agree with the last caller. they are spoiled brats and they want power. they don't just want power in washington, they want power over the people. we had an election and if they don't like it, it is too bad. when they go to the polls, this will hurt them. they will lose really bad. host: there is more ahead on "washington journal." will have a discussion on the legal challenges to roe v. wade and

the supreme court decision. be joined by catherine glenn foster of americans united for life. later, we will talk about impeachment efforts. paul rosensweig will join a spirit he served as counsel in the whitewater investigation. announcer: washington journal mugs are available as c-span's online store. go to c-spanstore.org. check it out to see all of the c-span products.

announcer: the supreme court justices return for the 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 dock a -- of daca. on sexualfunding orientation. watch on c-span. >> the house will be in order. beenr 40 years, c-span has providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c., and around the country, so you can make up your own mind. created up by -- created by cable in 1979. brought to you by cable or your local satellite provider.

announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: joining us this morning, ceo ofne glenn foster, americans united for life. there aresupport -- potential supreme court challenges for roe v. wade in the upcoming term. tell us for americans -- tell us about americans united for life. what is your main mission? 1971, we were founded in two years before roe v. wade legalized abortion nationwide. we were founded to work in the statehouses and in congress. educating people about the facts about abortion and the law about abortion. host: so you guys have been fairly busy, i assume, with the statehouse efforts to change abortion laws across the country. guest: we certainly have. so many lawmakers are relying abortions related to

and other life issues, and also turning to us for testimony and other support, both passing and defending pro-life bills. host: must be a fairly big organization with people spread out across the country, working on this legislation? guest: we travel the country, absolutely. crisscrossing the nation so often, it seems we are all in different places at the same time. at americans united for life, how do you get funding? guest: we are nonprofit, so we rely on the support of donors across the nation, people focusing in states coast to coast who care about life and want to ensure that mothers, women and girls, are supported both in the womb and throughout life. host: you come to this issue with a very personal story, if you feel like you would like to share that. guest: sure, absolutely. , came to the pro-life movement

i came to americans united for life because of my story. i foundas 19 years old, myself unexpectedly pregnant, and i turned to the internet, as we so often do, and looked for answers, and what i found out was unfortunately really just one sided it was an abortion facility. i made an appointment. but nothing that i experienced, either in the lead up to that saturday or behind those doors restored my choice. there was never a where i felt like i was making an informed decision that was in fact my choice. behind those doors, over and over, my choice was stripped away from me. my autonomy was stripped away from me. i worked to ensure that other women and girls are not in the same position that i was. host: we talked about your legislative efforts with aul,

but what about other women in positions that you are in? you work with those women? guest: sure. i have worked with so many women through the years, in so many cases who are in situations like myself. many of them, when i have been able to converse with them, to offer counseling and support, so many of them and up choosing life. the ones who do not, whether they they know about the full range of options, parenting or placing a child in a loving home through adoption, they still need so much support and help it having been there, i can have that conversation with them. i have heard so many stories like my own, stories where other women were denied informed consent or denied information, were denied choice. catherine glenn foster is with us talking about some of

the legal challenges coming up on the supreme court. republicans, 202-748-8001. for democrats, 202-748-8000. , 202-748-8002.s two text us, 202-748-8003. explain how your organization reacted. tost: we were very pleased see the change because it ensured that abortion facilities will not be using that same funding pool from title x. what we saw was that abortion facilities would be taking title x funding and then using it for referrals to abortion facilities , which in so many cases were connected. by ensuring that both physically and financially these facilities

are separated, we are able to take away some of those layers, where women find themselves in situations without choice. host: are most abortion facilities paired as women's health care centers as well for broader reproductive issues? guest: we definitely see that most abortion facilities do pair family planning type facilities and other limited health care. host: what is the state of women's access across the country to those kinds of facilities? guest: to abortion facilities? host: or reproductive health centers. guest: absolutely, there are reproductive health centers and communities throughout our nation, and family-planning facilities, thousands upon thousands of organizations in communities in our backyards. so that we can access family planning and contraception

services. host: i wanted to play for you the ad released in february after that and get your thoughts. the trump-pentz administration just issued a new policy blocking access to birth control and cancer screenings at planned parenthood. this is going to be devastating for women's health. women need care and they should be able to access it. dr. this could leave women at risk. >> a lot of people would be lost. >> this administration should not get to decide what happens with my body. host: catherine foster, your thoughts. congress' original intent when they passed title x was in fact to ensure the separation of these facilities, the family-planning facilities from abortion facilities. and so, given that, these facilities have not been following the intent of the law all along, they still have a number of options.

they can stop providing abortions. they can separate out these types of services. there are a number of different options they have chosen. instead, they for the most part chose to back away from title x funding. host: we have calls waiting period 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. for others, 202-748-8002. good morning to brian in ashburn, virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. governe right to life the testimony as well? guest: there are so many different perspectives out there . i think we can personally say that many of us in the pro-life movement to oppose the death penalty. across the board. there are others who certainly are open to the death penalty on

some limited grounds. there is a wide variety of opinion, but i think the pro-life movement generally recognizes that every human valuable,nique, is and that every single human being deserves to be welcomed in life and protected by law. that is what we are working toward. dannyhere is denny -- from georgia come on the democrats line. caller: how are you doing today, ms. foster? guest: very well, thank you. caller: i really want to speak a little bit about impeachment. with pro-life, to stay on subject -- what do you think some people are not looking at when it comes to speaking about pro-life? what issues do they need to pay attention to that they may not be thinking about? host: we will leave your question there because we talked about impeachment earlier. catherine foster. guest: there are so many different aspects about this

that americans simply are not aware of. are not aware that emanation -- that our nation is one of the most radical nations in the world for abortion laws. know theicans do not extent to which roe v. wade legalized abortion in america, really all nine months for virtually any reason. they don't realized what happened. behind the closed doors, the conditions in these facilities, in so many cases, and the lack of informed consent, which i experienced when i asked to see my ultrasound that they were already performing. i said let me see my ultrasound, medical records, and it was denied. sot is the kind of thing many americans do not know. as americans learn these things, as americans start viewing more ultrasounds, learning about the science and technology and the advances we are seeing in our world today, so many more are increasingly pro-life.

whether or not they call themselves pro-life, they support basic restrictions, whether it is opposing late-term abortions. we conducted a poll a few months ago and found that 80% of americans overall, two thirds self-described pro-choice americans, opposed late-term abortions. they favor protections when it comes to informed consent, favor protecting women from unsafe, unsanitary conditions in these facilities. host: that caller was from georgia. i want to get your reaction from the judge's decision yesterday. a federal judge handed -- blocked it -- blocked georgia separate restrictive law from going into effect. tep at the the first se law makes its way through.

onceaw bans most abortions -- established by the supreme court ruling of roe v. wade. what are your thoughts on that decision by the judge? guest: first of all, i would point out that when you look at states like georgia or alabama, you cannot understand what is going on in those states without also understanding what is happening in new york or virginia, where we saw the governor essentially defending infanticide, saying that, in fact, if a child was born alive during the course of an abortion the child would be kept comfortable while the doctor decided what to do. both sides of the abortion debate are taking a look at -- and the supreme court -- are taking a look at the polling and the shifts we are seeing toward protections when you're talking about specific polities, and --

specific policies, and are looking at the abortion rate, which is the lowest it has been since roe v. wade. just last week i was on a stage with catherine colbert. she is the lawyer who argued a case in 1992 that upheld the fundamental rulings of roe, and she said outright that this is the court that will not overturn roe. so advocates on both sides of the debate are laying groundwork. we expect most states, post roe would be more gray state. will.ple, if you and have some protective laws but not go as far as new york, would not go as far as georgia. it is a 50-state effort, but that is what we are seeing. when it comes to georgia, we are seeing that the federal bench is responding in the way that we might expect that they would

when facing some of these new laws. whether there is progress being made and we expect that the court will open the doors to these kinds of laws going forward. host: i want to touch on the supreme court. the cases that are coming up -- this is a baseline, the decision in 1973, roe v. wade protected a woman's right to abortion prior to the viability of the fetus. one of the cases coming up, fox v. planned parenthood, in kentucky, challenging the 2016 law that requires a woman to have an ultrasound and gives the hearing thetion of heartbeat and seeing the image. guest: let's be clear, ultrasounds are being performed. they are happening at abortion facilities and they should be, because without them, the facility does not know what kind of procedure to perform, whether

the pregnancy is ectopic or not, and they do not know how much to charge the woman. ultrasounds are being performed. those are our medical records. speaking as a woman who has been in those shoes, who has been lying on the table getting the ultrasound and has asked to see it and been denied, i fully support this law because it is a part of our informed consent. i believe that woman -- women should have the right to see it so we can know what is that thing in our womb? is it a clump of cells, is it something remotely recognizable as a human being, as a child? and so many women i have spoken with who have seen either their own ultrasound or other ultrasounds from the same gestational age years later in so many cases, that is when they feel that regret because they suddenly understand -- it hits

them, this is what i chose. had i had that information, i would have chosen so different. host: we will get back to calls here. richard, you are in north carolina on our republican line. good morning. why is no attention paid that most abortions were formed in this country against the african-american community? get hardly no we attention paid to that fact? it is a huge fact that millions of abortions have been applied to the african-american community. and if she wants to bring some real attention to that fact, she should raise that issue. the african-american community is suffering greatly from all types of abortions, and the

white community has remained silent about this. host: ok, richard. guest: absolutely agree. americans united for life works closely with the african-american community to raise awareness of that fact. i would just say that there is hope for greater awareness in the future. there was a supreme court case just this past term that dealt with what we call a prenatal thatscrimination law, considers race as other factors, down to genetic diagnoses. opinion,homas, in his in his concurrence, wrote extensively, about 20 pages, writing on the eugenics history of abortion in america, and it is powerful, powerful reading. i would strongly recommend both you and all of the other viewers

to take a look at that, read justice thomas' words. it is a learning experience. host: let's hear from andrew next, oh, city, democrats line. caller: thank you for having me on. the problem with the way that people actually look at this that are sitting at home right voice, andng to my probably including your guest, is they look at abortion and how to solve the idea of having no abortions or less abortions is to control the courts or control government. many of those people vote republican. but i would challenge all of them to consider a couple of important things. they vote republican because they think they are going to fight for laws that will reduce abortion, but the truth of the matter is, we have to look at the main driver of abortion.

the main driver of abortion is poverty. you have got three people in america right now owning more wealth than the bottom 150 million people. republicans't the voting record, they vote down minimum wage increase, they vote down health care for all. they vote down paid sick leave. they vote down affordable housing. if you are for singapore women to have a baby, you give her no support -- if you are forcing a poor woman to have a baby, you give her no support -- host: that is andrew from oklahoma city. of the key is one reasons why people may choose financialthings like issues, relationship issues, not feeling ready to have a child,

all issues where we as a community, as a nation, can and must come alongside women and provide support. so states increasingly are not what weat only passing might think of as the pro-life law, certainly they are doing that. looking at the latest science and medicine to do that, but they are also looking more holistically at outcomes and how to improve lifelong health care outcomes and life outcomes for a mother and child. so increasingly, we are seeing that, and it is encouraging because what it is is renewing the conversation about the ethical and moral law of abortion. what abortion is, the extinguishing of a human life. host: nine states have bet -- have passed bills to limit the procedure this year. a headline from may of this year. let's look at another case coming up before the supreme

court. vs.e medical services llc f -- why did this law come about? guest: taking a quick step back americans released united for life, a report that found that 46 states introduced pro-life bills this year, a total of 58 bills passed in 22 states. we are seeing momentum here. beforerticular law is up the court. the court is considering it, considering hearing it this term. it is a law that is important because we know from so many government reports that we have seen, from so many health care emergency reports, that women can sometimes experience -- women are sometimes in emergency

and need emergency care. so this kind of law makes sure that women get the medical care that we need. aul legislative report, 58 life-affirming laws from their report saying that we are signed into law across 22 states. in the addition -- in the event that roe v. wade is underage -- in the event that roe v. wade is under turn -- is overturned. from leesburg, virginia. caller: good morning. the gentleman who called poverty, he is advocating socialism. i had to say respective -- i have to say respectfully it doesn't work. as a young conservative, i am in a position where i think a woman

should choose her best choice. i don't think a man has too much to say, and that is just my opinion personally. at the same time, if an individual does not want to support that program with taxpayer dollars, they should not go toward that. just like a case several months ago i heard on c-span about a does notre a gentleman have to pay their dues into union fees if they do not support that union or the political candidates that the union supports. i do think that is a reasonable position to take, but i just want to make that comment. thank you. guest: sure. abortion is a divided issue in our country still. most americans support rollbacks, but it is certainly a divided issue. it is an issue where we should not be extending our valuable limited taxpayer dollars on that when we could be working with our dollars to support

life-affirming options for women. host: let's hear from newport news, virginia. this is doug on the independent line. caller: yeah, i'm not for or against abortion. you're one caller who said that you need to vote for bernie sanders because you will get free health insurance and stuff, that is a joke. it will never happen. who is going to pay for it? is, the newsng needs to understand proper etiquette -- it is not donald trump, it is president trump. host: i do want to ask you about efforts in the house, certainly some in the senate, on the boerner life -- the born alive abortion protection act. exercising the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an attempted abortion and doctors who fail to comply

will face a fine or up to 10 years in prison. guest: we have been very invoice of -- we have been very involved in the born-alive abortion survivors protection act. this is a greater recourse then the 2002 bill on born alive abortion survivors. andould provide a remedy, sure that all employees of the facility are mandatory reporters. that children are transported to hospitals. it would save lives. we have seen efforts throughout the year from the time it was january,roduced in introduced in the senate, in the house, a february companion bill. and the hearing that we saw a few weeks ago, where we heard from health-care providers themselves on the need for this, heard about their stories, about the times that they did encounter children born alive

during the course of an abortion and how they reacted. this is a bill that is needed. and we are expecting that sooner or later it will pass therein but in the meantime, in states like new york, expanding abortion law where increasingly we do need a born-alive protection act. governor northam in virginia explaining why we need this federal bill. even in north carolina, where born alive sailed this year. host: quick news from virginia. has upheld age virginia law requiring women to undergo an ultrasound and wait at least 24 hours for having an abortion. a couple more calls here. we will go to mary in cambridge,

massachusetts, on our democrats line. believeyes, i cannot this woman who is devoting her around.jerking women when i was 17, a friend of mine, someone i knew, died during an illegal abortion. , and he real doctor knew what he was doing, but they -- she forgot and ate before she went, and he put her under and she choked to death. the other person that i noticed, a girl named becky bell, a 16-year-old, about 20 years ago, instead of telling her parents she was in someplace like kansas , out west, where it was very hard, so the clinic could not

take her because she was 16. planned parenthood could not take care. she ended up in the hands of an illegal abortion, as millions and millions and billions of women over the centuries have done. host: catherine foster? guest: first, i would just say how devastating that is to hear what happened to your friend and the other young girl. you know, we have seen the pain that can be caused by abortion and the devastation. i would look to the government reports themselves, the inspections that we have seen of abortion facilities. right there in virginia, just a mile or so from where i am now, we saw that there was one facility, where they were reusing the same sponge to sterilize instruments, four

weeks straight without sterilizing the sponge. thgs like blood residue and just horrible unsanitary conditions. we are also hearing the stories of women who have been injured, who have been transported to the hospital, emergency situations, who have even died during the course of supposedly safe and rare abortions. this is a situation where you would think we could all come together and say, ok, well, during our current abortion and casey, we are at least ensuring that these facilities are being treated the same as any other outpatient medical facility. sadly, we are seeing abortion againstes fight back basic health-care standards. callat is an area i would on the abortion facilities and the abortion industry to join with us to clean up their act and ensure that women and girls

are not being harmed in that way anymore. host: we could not get to all the supreme court cases coming up in the next term, but catherine glenn foster, americans united for life president and ceo, thank you for being with us this money. guest: my pleasure. thank you for having me. joins usl rosenzweig next. he served as senior counsel during the whitewater investigation. later on, we will look at u.s. policies toward asylum-seekers with camila dechalus. she will join us here on "washington journal."

announcer: our c-span 2020 bus team is traveling the country , visiting key battleground states, 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 really think an important is protecting lgbtq individuals from discrimination because right now they are not protected under the constitution when it comes to, say i want to get a job and i am a bisexual woman. i think it is an issue that needs to come to the forefront. >> the u.s. political system

overall has to address the development of new technologies and having some kind of public input on this. either other technologies coming out about things like human gene editing, which to some people is very scary, or let's say the development of algorithms on the internet and how those curate the information that we see. there is not a clear scientific consensus on what we ought to do. so i think that as a political system, there is a certain obligation to have some kind of conversation about these big issues and decide collectively what we are doing as a society. >> i think we have a lot of issues at the federal level right now. one that we really hear a lot isut with my constituents gun safety. interactive with stronger background checks, and i think that is important.

no one is interested in taking away their guns. we just want to make sure that they do not get in the hands of the wrong people. stronger restrictions on automatic awakens -- on automatic weapons. i think we need to pay strong attention to that issue. theuncer: voices from campaign trail, part of c-span's battleground states tour. announcer: washington journal continues. host: we continue the conversation on impeachment, and the complaint against donald trump. paul worsens wide -- paul the senior counsel during the whitewater investigation. .ou worked for ken starr do you see any legal similarities between that investigation and the investigation against president trump? as it is being conducted by the intelligence committee?

a differentnk it is kettle of fish that present its own level of issues. at the highest level, the legal question of what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor and what are congress' investigative authorities, that does not change. but there is a significant difference in the nature of two levels ats on least. the first is that the congress in the clinton investigation really did not conduct any independent investigation of its own. it relied almost exclusively on the input of the independent counsel, ken starr. that was not necessarily inappropriate. he had spent over a year investigating the lewin ski y matter. the lewinsk by contrast, there has not been a real outside investigation at

least of the trump-ukraine allegations, so that gives congress a real job to do in uncovering what they think might or might not turn outo be peachae. host: let me ask about the whistleblower himself. a piece in "the atlantic ran over the weekend -- "the atlantic" ran over the weekend. small details that help to confirm his credibility. explain that. well, in evaluating a witness, you want to understand other or not what they are telling you it is true, whether or not they are biased, whether their recollection is good. one of the best ways in my experience of doing that is for the witness to tell you something you do not know, and no external way of knowing, and then go out and confirm it.

that is like when the murderer suspect tells you i was wearing blue shoes at the time and nobody has seen the video that shows lou shoes. case, whenewinsky's she said she was in the white house with president clinton and their encounter was interrupted when he took a phone call from somebody. she could not remember his name exactly, but she said it was something like -- then we got the records of the white house phone calls, and at the moment she said she was there, the president had taken a call from a man named alfonso fanjul. democratic donor, a sugar manufacturer in florida. she could not reasonably have known other than the fact that she was there, and that proved her information was valid. whistleblower,he

his complaint described the nature of the president's call with the president of ukraine, including many of the details and describe the fact that the memorandum of the conversation had been moved from the regular white house server to a code word protected server, and he described those things before they became publicly known. again, just like the lewinsk it in advance of it becoming public, demonstrating that he had inside knowledge. host: he also in that complaint offered a statement of information that he is reporting secondhand, or he is not the original source of that information. do you find that credible? guest: most of our lives are built on secondhand information. if i tell you that the nets won nats wont -- that the in theght and the guy

stands told me he had a single, that tells you that the single was hit last night. we accept that. we do not accept it in courts of law because a defendant is entitled to confront his accuser when he is charged with a crime. but we do accept it to start an investigation, to issue a search warrant, to develop a grounds for opening an impeachment inquiry. so the idea that the secondhand information is somehow not to be trusted is just a false construct. host: paul rosenzweig is with us, he was on the whitewater investigation. we are talking about the impeachment inquiry and the complaint -- the whistleblower complaint against president trump. our republican line is 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. other calls, 202-748-8002.

caller: i had a couple questions regarding the eagle case aspects of this. the first one being, -- the legal case aspects of this. the first one being, i understand there can be ambiguity in the ordering of the statement and the transcript and that occurred, so it might be difficult to n wn some legal aspects of wrongdoing there. i know the intelligence agencies are governed by various things about collection on u.s. citizens. i was wondering first, if the president is governed by the sum of those same restrictions, and if there is any lawbreakin there with a foreign nation to do that investigation. and second, if it goes beyond investigation, is there a possibility of any witness harassment with the points that have been made toward the whistleblower? guest: let me take the second of those first. we have a whistleblower protection act that is

explicitly intended to protect whistleblowers from harassment and from discovering confidentiality. so when the president says he is trying to discover the identity of the whistleblower, he is actually contravening the legal protections that the law has granted to whistleblowers it -- to whistleblowers. and assuredly, when his supporters offer a bounty to do so, they are trying to uncover theidentity of whiseblower. the precise reason is we want to encourage whistleblowers to come forward to report about things they think might be going wrong in our government, and we want to afford them the mantle of anonymity and obscurity going forward. as for the first question, asking a foreign government to spy on american citizens, as seems to have been the case here, and whether or not that violates u.s. law -- there is a

good argument it does, but that is quite unclear because it has never actually been tested in court or anything. that where the intelligence community itself to be responsible for listening to the communications of a u.s. citizen like hunter biden, that would be a violation of the -- against intelligence collection against a person. so the argument, the president cannot ask a foreign government to do indirectly. host: according to the times of called donald trump boris johnson to -- he personally contacted boris johnson to ask for help if he tried to discredit the mother investigation that the mueller investigation. guest: as well as in australia. when the president asked

attorney general barr to look into it, he said i hope that barr will look into the ukraine, look at australia. it is not terribly surprising that he would call the leaders of those nations, get them to as ain what he perceives legitimate inquiry into the charges against him. the real ground of the problem is that there is not much ground for the investigation. host: let's hear from sean and columbus, ohio, on the independent line. caller: gentlemen, how are we doing today? my biggest problem i think is with the checks and balances that were set up hundreds of years ago. there is kind of a loophole when it comes to the president. in past years, the president was only seen as a puppet, did not have much power, but i think what we have learned with trump, the president has a lot of power , between the doj, irs, all the little different divisions he

gets to a point to kind of said his narrative. so when the dni it's the report saying the whistleblower did this, why did he take that report to the llc, the white house counsel? guest: those are great questions. you point out something that the incidence of the last couple of years have truly demonstrated, which is that the framers thought of congress as a strong and vibrant check on executive authority. back when they were writing up the constitution, james madison was quite confident and assured everybody not to worry, we would never have a bad man as president, and if we did, congress would assuredly use its impeachment authority and oversight authority to check that power. the problem is that congress seems to have stepped back from its investigative authority for

a number of years, and the president has figured out that in fact congress' enforcement authority is really a bit of a paper tiger. they do not have the power of arrest. they have to go to court to get documents. they are not as strong as madison thought they were, at least not today. as for the dni, he explained that he was looking to the llc for an opinion about executive privilege. i do not find that persuasive, but he was in a really difficult position. a subordinate official with information about an urgent concern relating to his boss, i sort of feel for him a little bit. he is not even the full-time dni, he is the acting director of national intelligence. as he said in his testimony, he is still using his gps to figure out where the office is. acting dni maguire a

bit of a break on this. host: let's hear from jane in olympia, washington, on the republican line. caller: i am concerned that this is a set up by democrats to distract from criminal activity which is about to be exposed by thearr and durham regarding hillary clinton paying for the dossier. thisactually questioning whole thing, and i am an independent voter. i voted for obama. host: she is talking about the investigation going on, the origins of the mueller investigation. do you know anything about that? guest: i know what has been in the public. i know that trump's former advisor says the theory had been completely debunked. it was fully laid out in the mueller report, an explanation for the steel dossier.

i also know that the steel almost no role in the opening of the investigation of russian influence because that began before the dossier was even created. i understand the caller's concerns because i am sure that that is chamber of news yelling this fact into the ecosphere echoes in her world, but the truth of the matter is that there seems to be almost no credible evidence that this is the case. host: let me ask you about your former colleague, ken starr. the headline in "the examiner" -- "trump showed poor judgment but that is not a crime." he was on fox last week and i want to give you a chance to hear that and let you respond. >> i say that because impeachment is doomed to fail given what we know. obviously the facts are flowing in. in the history of the country,

obviously presidential efforts to impeach do not work. that we know. but gets what -- but guess what, of the 62 impeachment resultedgs, eight have in convictions. this is not going to result in a conviction, so why are we on the impeachment train? we should be on the oversight calling it --t and quit calling it impeachment, especially since there is something profoundly wrong under our constitution to call it impeachment, that we are on a formal impeachment inquiry. no, with all due respect, until the house of representatives vote as a body to conduct an impeachment inquiry or investigation, there is simply action by committee that has been sanctioned by the speaker. it sounds like a structural point, but we live by structure and a constitutional -- iswhat they are doing now

leaving it to a half a dozen committees, largely the judiciary committee, to get the ball rolling. to get it toange move toward what you say? >> if there is any court fight, a federal judge or a court of appeals, the supreme court knows, this is the action of the people's house, not of the speaker saying i hereby smile on what these different oversight committees are doing. it would also have the practical effect of centralizing the inquiry as opposed to this balkanized approach that seems to be getting underway inhe house judiciary committee come as we saw, in the clinton inquiry years ago. host: that is former whitewater counsel ken starr. paul rosenzweig, your thoughts? guest: well, it is very difficult for me because -- and he is an old and dear friend.

i worked for him. i think he was deeply and unfairly maligned by president clinton at the time. i continue to believe that the actions he took, that i took while working with him in investigating president clinton were proper and appropriate. that having been said, most of what he just said is unfortunately not really persuasive, and in some cases wrong. for example, the house rules do not require a vote of impeachment. so his structural point is in error. the house has in fact proceeded without a formal vote of impeachment. it is many of the judges that have been impeached. he is correct that there have been 63 impeachments and only eight impeachment -- eight convictions per that is because many resign. that is a meeting -- eight convictions. that is because many resign.

mostotably, if the standard is that there shouldn't -- that you shouldn't proceed with an impeachment inquiry unless you are certain there could be a conviction, that calls into question why he and i recommended impeachment in the instance of bill clinton, since there was almost no likelihood that there would be a conviction ? quite to the contrary, i think impeachment by itself is a useful function. by putting on the record the view of presidential conduct, and the pluses or minuses of conviction in the end, which, by the way, i don't think president trump's acquittal is a foregone conclusion. it depends very much on what has shown up ahead of time. that is useful. inonderful piece appeared "the atlantic" three month ago about how the process of

impeachment is itself a performance of american values in the public severe. -- in the public sphere. host: let's hear from jeff, republicans line. caller: thanks a lot for c-span p thanks a lot for your response to what ken starr had to say. that was very informative. i completely agree it is not very convincing unless you say how many people are still sticking around after impeachment, not how many were actually impeached. my original question was that you can say what the criteria is for high crimes and misdemeanors. my understanding is that is different than committing a crime. whether that is well-established, and whether you are willing to say whether you think at least based on the evidence now whether what he has done could be considered that. another quick question is, whether giuliani and trump will be able to hide under attorney-client privilege.

thanks very much. host: thanks, jeff. guest: those are great questions. i will take them in order. high crimes and misdemeanors is a standard that the u.s. constitution derives from british practice. so it goes back a couple hundred years. if you want to dive into it, a law professor out of missouri 250-300-pagelong book that will tell you what you need to know about it. the bottom line is this. there are some crimes that are not impeachable. ink of a drunk driving infants -- a drunk driving offense. nobody would take a president out because of that. there are crimes that are impeachable, obstruction of justice, perjury. then there are also crimes that take on a more abusive authority, political character to it. is themple, there

example that george mason, the debates onted during the constitution. a president who misused his pardon of power to pardon all his friends and protect himself from criminal prosecution. nobody would say that issuing ae problem -- the pardon was crime, but mason said it was an abusive authority unless a high crime or misdemeanor. gerald ford said a high crime or misdemeanor is whatever the house committee says it is, but that is probably a little too strong. on the attorney general -- on the attorney-client privilege issue, through the giuliani, there are several aspects to this. the first is that giuliani said on tv that when he went to the ukraine, he was not acting as a lawyer, he was acting as an advocate for the president's policy. to even begin to consider an attorney-client privilege, it is not just that you were talking

to an attorney. i am an attorney right now, in our discussion is not under the attorney-client privilege because i am not here as your attorney, bill. that is the first piece. the second piece is that the attorney-client privilege only protects the confidential communications from your client. so if bill were my client and he told me a secret, i could not be forced to disclose it outside. it is not attorney-client privilege if i interact with a ukrainian foreign national and tell him what the president said or tell him that i am investigating hunter biden or anything like that. the third piece of this, which is appropriate, is that if the advice from your client is to help the client commit a climb -- a crime in the future, there is something called the crime exception which eviscerates the attorney-client privilege, which means you cannot use an attorney 's advice to commit a crime.

on at least three grounds, it is quite unlikely that giuliani has a claim. that having been said, he is going to assert it. the house will have to go to court to try and get him to testify. s expedite the court it, giuliani will drag out his refusal to appear for weeks, months, once again demonstrating that congress' enforcement authority has unfortunately become a bit toothless. host: from new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning. -- sideways.s with adam schiff, he sits up there and is in charge of this impeachment that really is not an impeachment yet. and he makes a parody. is this serious? you talk about echo chambers. i would guess that your echo

chamber is different than mine. -- what if his echoes go across the media and people believe what he said, which was not truthful at all? you were counseled to what thank you.- host: are you talking about our guest, paul rosenzweig? was partwas not -- i of the council group that investigated bill linton -- bill clinton under the independent counsel law, which is now no longer law in the united states. host: how long did you serve in the whitewater investigation? guest: i started in 1997 before monica lewinsky was even a dream in people's minds, and i finished -- i left the office in 2000. i continued outside as a

consultant to help write the final reports, the last bit of work i did for the independent counsel's office was probably in 2001 or 2002. called to you ever testify on impeachment matters? guest: know, the only one called to testify was ken starr. host: republican line, go ahead. cannot hear you. i think you are listening to the radio. it is tough to hear your cell phone there. we have to let you go. sorry about that. new orleans, derek, on our democrats line. caller: hi there. relates to the impeachment inquiry, i am wondering if you think that the senate will ofually act on their part impeachment if the house does make a decision, or whatever they do fine. right now there is a lot of discussion about that. i wonder if you think the senate

will take their step if it comes to it. guest: that is a really good question. there has been some speculation that the senate would ignore the impeachment. majority leader mcconnell spoke to that a couple of days ago and he said very clearly that he would follow the rules and bring the impeachment up before the senate. it is not a constitutional requirement, but there is a senate rules requirement that says that is happening and he will follow those rules. this is where your point becomes a little more salient peer he said how long we stay on the matter, how long we spend discussing it, that is a different question. he would bring it up, but he may very well try and spend only a little bit of time and deal with it summarily. so the real question going forward for the senate is going to be whether or not he has the vote to actually short-circuit the impeachment inquiry once it is started, and that means asking questions like will

moderate republicans like susan collins, who is up for reelection, vote to short-circuit the impeachment inquiry. will people who have said that they are troubled like mitt romney do that? i am sort of guessing, and this is just a total gas -- a total gas, i'm guessing they won't feel comfortable with too short a process. when andrew johnson was impeached, they spent two months on his trial. were not going to get two months, but it is possible we won't get two minutes either. host: they could choose to block it or table it? guest: once mcconnell brings it up, his motion could be to summarily dispose of it and acquit the president. i he gets 51 votes for that,

imagine he can achieve that by overruling the parliamentarian and changing the rules just as they did with judges and the nuclear option a couple years ago. it.'s got a raw sense to he's going to be making a much more nuanced political judgment when the time, spaced on whatever evidence there is that comes forth. host: 15 more minutes with our guest. served in theg clinton impeachment inquiry. you are currently national security and senior fellow at the art street institute. guest: we are a relatively new think tank.

we call ourselves a center-right think tank. markets,ne is free real solutions. we like free markets to work but when they don't we like real solutions to make them work better. host: secretary mike pompeo confirming today he was on the call between president trump and the ukrainian president. the secretary of state is in italy. the news conference was asking why he is preventing some of the depositions of state department employees. here is his response. [video clip] >> was i on the phone call? i know precisely what the american policy is with respect to the ukraine. it has been remarkably consistent. we will continue to drive those set of outcomes. were focusedr team

on, taking down the threat that russia poses in the ukraine, it was about helping the ukrainians corruption with outside the government and to help this new government build a successful and thriving economy. it is what state department officials that i have had the privilege to lead have engaged in as well and will continue to do even while this noise is going on. what doul rosenzweig, you think of the secretary's stance on this issue? guest: his letter to congress that he would not let people appear because congress was bullying them. i have lots of witnesses who are demanded to testify in front of congress and grand juries and i 'm going to use that excuse fro m now on.

you can't call my witness because it is bullying. the executive branch has a way to stop inquiry. it is executive privilege. he just said i don't want to play. congress' enforcement authority is weak so maybe he will get away with it. i have heard at least two of the people he wants to stop from appearing have agreed to appear anyway. since they no longer work for him, he can't stop them. let's hear from robert on the democrats line. trump ishat if donald the whistleblower and he already because he was getting cold feet on the election? guest: that is an interesting theory. i don't know who the fall guy would be. host: by all accounts it does seem to be that there is an

actual person. they were perhaps a cia employee. guest: i think it is quite clearly a real person. ink thson at pers sought anonymity and i would want to respect it until he or she decides to forgo it. host: how does the committee ensure privacy? guest: it's going to be very hard. evidencecan take behind closed doors. they can limit the number of people who are exposed to the witness. they can make sure that almost no staffers know who it is, but most, if not all, of the congressman are going to know. fact,k congress knows the

the whole world knows the fact sometime later. aller: i just want to make statement and i will ask your guest a question. my first statement is as an independent i recognize that the two-party system, the duopoly, is adversely affecting our country. it's like the bloods and the k cryps. you are essentially pitting people against one another. you that i voted for trump and i am voting for him again in 2020. first anduest, foremost, biden is on record for withholding u.s. aid to ukraine in order to get a prosecutor fired that was investigating his son. we have heard that the

ukrainians investigated this. ukrainian an ethical government conduct the investigation and let's conduct one in the u.s. if you want to go forward with investigating trump, go for it, but let's investigate biden as well. there was some monetary gain. i don't know how you can sit here and say. the narrative you put forward is so false and its premise and it is so dam it -- dangerous to this country because you frame it in a way like we are digging up dirt on biden, but we need to impeach trump because he broke the law or violated the constitution. that's the narrative. they're all dirty. they're all corrupt. let's go after them regardless of what party they are affiliated with. parties, the on founders thought that there wouldn't be political parties. they were wrong and within 10

years of the framing of the constitution. the federalists and the democratic republicans. piece for meg a to fix. on the biden issue, i regret to say that the viewer is factually wrong. it is the case that then vice president biden threatened to the threatid, but was because the prosecutors were inadequately investigating corruption, not because they were doing too much, and that particular prosecutor was not investigating hunter biden's company at all. that was the problem. the reality is that the vice president was trying to do more to root out corruption and not less. i know that is an uncomfortable fact and that listening to that makes the viewer probably unhappy, but its the truth. more to the point, even if all

of that were true, it would be utterly inappropriate for the president to withhold military aid to the ukraine in order to get them to reopen the investigation of his political opponent, irrespective of whether or not his political opponent has done something wrong. randy ins text from wisconsin says if mcconnell lets the impeachment go to a vote, won't that put republicans on the spot? i don't think they want that. guest: that's exactly right and the smart money is that mr. mcconnell will try to avoid that if he can. there are a lot of republicans who will have to own this vote at some point in time. some of them are up for reelection in 2020. some are in states where they might or might not win. i have heard number of democratic operatives say they think it might be a lot closer than the president thinks, the

vote count. there is nobody protecting that the president will lose. it's easy to be on the winning side of a 51-49 partisan vote to reject the allegations. much harder if it is 60 in favor and 40 against. politically that is harder. host: charles on the republican line. welcome. guest: -- caller: good morning. i have a comment and a question. the comment is that the democrats seem to be the party of the process, that means legally picking apart every nuance, while the republicans seem to be the party of results. i don't think you can argue that the president has not done exactly what he said he was going to do when he ran for president. that is one thing. the second thing is, and i'm if the some bias, but

narrative is that the president was digging up dirt on a political opponent, that's one the sittingiden was viceresident when his son was i'veg $50,000 a month, and never seen an investigation similar to the one that the spi did on roger stone and paul manafort. -- fbi did on roger stone and paul manafort. they went in like swat teams. we don't treat this as a corruption thing. we treat it like candidate biden is the one the president's after. if he's asking, and he did not --there was no quid pro quo in that phone call. if he's asking, why don't you open up a corruption case, i think he's fully within his rights. i really don't see where this impeachment case is coming from. guest: let me do two things. i want to talk about bias and

then quid pro quo. on the issue of bias i have been repuican since the 1980's. my first vote was for ronald reagan. i worked in the bush administration. i chased bill clinton around the country for a year and a half. i am as conservative as one could be. if you are looking for bias, with respect, listener, you are looking in the wrong place. the reality is that what i am not is somebody who is willing to close his eyes to the evidence. when the president asks for a favor, that's a quid pro quo. there is a supreme court case that says you don't have to say the words quid pro quo. lots of requests happen with a wink and a nod. if we needed a requirement that there be an explicit quid pro quo, every criminal in the world would do so only with a wink and a nod.

the evidence is actually pretty a quid prothere was quo request. it's slightly unclear as to exactly what the president expected the ukrainians to do. favor immediately after they asked for antitank missiles. that is hard to defend. i realize that is not something that you want to hear and i'm sure it is disturbing, but that's the truth. we will hear more about the investigation and more from president trump as well. the chair of the intelligence committee will hold a news briefing. live with the president, holding a dual news conference with the president of finland. we are likely to hear more at 2:00 et. piecere quoted in the

today. call frequently drawing parallels with nixon. what do you see? guest: one of the major differences between the clinton inquiry and the trump inquiry is that the clinton inquiry involves the president including lying but the thing he was lying and obstructing justice about was a personal affair with monica lewinsky, which did not bear upon the use and misuse of political power. the nixonian effort was the misuse of authority. the creation of an enemy's list at the irs. the decision to shut down the fbi investigation to cover up the burglary at the democratic national committee's offices. those kinds of efforts to use the levers of governmental power to protect the president's personal interests are what got

nixon in trouble. here, the parallel, such as it is, is the use of the levers of the call tois case, the ukraine, the earlier attempts to fire mueller, to protect the president-esque of a personal interests, sound a lot more like that nixonian abuse of power than the clintonian cover-up of personal malfeasance and misconduct. host: we go to and on -- we go to anne on our democrats line. guest: i want to thank you for clark -- caller: i want to thank you for clarifying some of the issues in the news that have been confusing. i have a question or two. when i was a high school teacher, i had a student handcuffed in the front of my classroom because he was threatening a witness. that's an example.

the other thing that leads me to the question, and the question crime to imply a threat against this whistleblower? as trump has done and some of his tweets? my other question has to do with money and the emoluments clause of the constitution. if thereon here is, actually was money laundering going on between deutsche bank and russia and president trump -- host: we will let you go there because we will run out of time but paul rosensweig. above the president-esque witnesses -- the president's witnesses don't have to be -- it's like the mob saying, it

sure would be a same if some -- a shame if something happened to your daughter. threats don't have to be explicit. i think to prove that i'm trying to play fair, i think that is over reading but the president is doing. he is angry at the guy and he wants to know who he is because he feels like he is being unfairly harried by the whistleblower. i don't read the president as breaking that particular rule right now. clause, i'mments going to try to play it down the middle. there has been a lot of speculation about that. there has been no real public that the president had anything to do with laundering money through the deutsche bank. that may come out in the future and it may not, but that is just speculation. rosenzweig, thanks

for being on with us this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: next up, the discussion on u.s. policy toward asylum-seekers with a writer who .ust wrote an extensive piece she joins us next. ♪

q&a.nday on peter leopold. >> supreme court eventually ruled that the tomato is a fruit and not a tariff. any botanist will tell you that i tomato is a fruit. tariff put a tariff on anetables and not fruit, so importer of vegetables in new york pointed out that the tomatoes he was preening in from the caribbean were fruit and he didn't have to pay a tariff. the battle went on for some time and eventually the supreme court ruled that tomatoes are actually vegetables. it is an interesting ruling that

had repercussions beyond tomatoes themselves. >> washington journal mugs are available at c-span's new online store. spanstore.org and see all of the c-span products. washington journal continues. ast: camila dechalus is homeland security and immigration reporter. she does extensive reporting at cq and cq weekly. the darknessory, for asylum-seekers. tell us about it. guest: i was there for a week. we first went to the mcallen

sector and then we went to el paso and we studied what was happening, how customs and border protection were accommodating this increasing flow of migrants arriving at the border to seek asylum. policies some of the that were enacted in recent months. host: had you been down to the border before as a professional journalist? guest: no, but for the past two years i have covered immigration policies on capitol hill and following the conversations and policies that both lawmakers have tried to put forward to mitigate the flow of migrants coming to the border. host: you have a couple of pieces and cq weekly, extensive pieces including borderline despair and how the u.s. is wearing down asylum-seekers. you write about the policy of

the trump administration which is called the remain in mexico policy. why was that developed and what did you see as the net effect of that? the policy was implemented in january and it to allow them to apply for it but had a port of entry, whether they applied but thenr lawfully, they had to go back to mexico to wait as the asylum process was being processed in the u.s.. asylum is implemented, there are only a few people being sent back, but do to federal court decisions the policy exasperated -- exacerbated, and more than 40,000 asylum-seekers were sent back to mexico. of problems lot with the mexican government and border cities. you have all of these migrants

flooding into the cities. they are not just spanish-speaking. they are coming from south asia, africa. what you saw a lot as they were africa. what you saw a lot as they were being inundated with a flood of migrants coming and a lot of them lacked shelter and food. they weren't provided safety because there were not a lot of procedures. it was one of those policies that just expanded and they did not have protocols in place. one of the stories that you write about is that of a young man, a 17-year-old and his father from nicaragua, they were kidnapped in mexico, held for ransom. you write that they are waiting out their time in an asylum shelter in juarez, with 500 windowlessnts in a former clothing factory, on the desolate outlets of juarez,

guarded by the mexican military. meals have been regular but not assured. while officials say they offered classes none of the children interviewed had attended or heard about them. you saw this facility firsthand. a new migrants facility designed by the mexican government. it was supposed to serve as a model for how other migrant children would be facilitated. they had migrants come in who were already waiting for a case. in many times you saw that even though they provided regular meals, there were hundreds of children, and none of them had access to education. they were idly standing around. i asked what they do all day and they said just draw. another factor, a lot of people don't realize that a lot of them don't have work permits. they're not eligible to work in mexico. for people waiting for the immigration cases or hearings,

they want to get a lawyer but can't afford one because they don't have an income. they are in these shelters waiting in these shelters waiting out but with little means. they are only getting food but not a lot of opportunities to work or get education or training. host: camila dechalus is with andreporting on cq online cq.com. .e welcome your questions you can send us a text that 202 -748-8003. a couple of highlights on the mpp policy. tens of thousands of migrants are living in uncertain and

often dangerous conditions and mexico border cities. food and mpp program, shelter are not guaranteed and many of the migrants cannot lawfully work. decisions about who goes into the mpp, who is metered and seemsd to wait inconsistent. what does metered mean? guest: one of the things we realize when we were on the border is that there is this unofficial practice that customs and border protection is conducting in between the port of entry. in betweenn officers two ports of entry. we were in el paso, stationed at an el paso port of entry, and across the border is juarez. they are putting officers right in the middle of the bridge and they are asking for people if

they want to go to el paso, they ask to see documentation. if you are a u.s. citizen and have a passport, you can go through. if you're there and say, i want to request asylum, they'll say, you need to go back to mexico and wait in line because we don't have enough capacity to practice -- process this many people in a day. the mexican government is conducting a waitlist. on august 18, they said that they processed 12,000 people on that list already and there are 6000 people in mexico just waiting. are the facilities similar? guest: no, they're just waiting. they are not guaranteed food or shelter. then they have to go to the mexican government to get on a waiting list to go to a port of entry and formally request asylum.

more we will get into about the article that you wrote on the types of people and nationalities of people coming in. china is a longtime leader in asylum request. the makeup of those granted asylum each year rises and falls based on unrest and conflict. if you look almost 20 years back china is the longtime leader in asylum requests. who is requesting asylum at the border? this really spans across all different nationalities. border patrol say they are seeing people come from 15 countries. it is a misconception that the only people arriving are from central american countries. you have a lot of chinese migrants coming, immigrants from india. to 2018, the amount of

migrants from india increased by more than 4000%. the agencies and the department of homeland security needs to adjust to the different types of people comin to the border and how to accommodate their needs when it comes to language access when it comes to making sure that they understand their rights. in a companion piece from cq weekly, refugees from around the world are caught up in the crisis at the southern border. let's go to philippe from staten island, new york. caller: i'm very upset about what this president has been i have never been more afraid of my country than now. this man has destroyed our trading.ur tpp

he has destroyed america and it is time for peoplto wake up and smell the coffee before its the end of the world. we're in a problem now with iran. we don't need to be in all these countries, fighting everybody's wars. this country is great. we don't need this man trying to make america great. america is great and it is time to impeach this man looking to destroy us. host: from your experience on the border, what do they say the number one reason they wanted to come to the united states was? guest: there is this conception that everybody coming to the border is just requesting asylum because they are fleeing gang violence or persecution. a lot of the migrants we crossed -- talked to just crossing, a lot of them coming to the u.s. were just seeking a better life. they talked about providing

educational opportunities to their children and not having resources like that back home. mary in texas on the republican line. caller: hello. i lived in houston my whole life. i taught children of all 101onalities and there are languages that are taught in this area. loveoblem is this, we people. americans have always loved people, but the situation is that at this point, the government is in such disarray. my feeling is that the reas ' in such disarray is that we are also incompatible.

there are some of these cultures, languages, ideologies, religions, races, just in my area. it makes for a lot of incompatibility. ofnow that we're a nation immigrantss. i, myself, am a child of that, but the thing of it is is that most of the time, our immigrants game and they were able to assemble with us, able to work together. we were comfortable together. so, a lot of the anger, much anger -- host: mary, we will let you go there. cmamila? few monthshe first

of the administration, the increase of migrants coming to the border passing 100,000 individuals per month. it started decreasing at the end of july. republicans and democrats, the tension is how to accommodate migrantsng influx of coming to the border, how to do it in a humane way. there are conflicting ideologies about whether put tm in theytion centers, where can wait for the overstay or immigration hearing or process, which can take months or years. the trump administration solution was to send them back to mexico. the biggest thing that we saw when we were down there is there was not a lot of coordination between the trump administration on the mexican government and it caused a lot of problems, especially migrants not really understanding what the problem was or how to get on the waiting

list or comprehending that they might be mexico -- in mexico waiting for an immigration hearing for months or years. the problem is that there is not a lot of communication between how this policy was enacted. they have to come into the u.s. for the hearing. guest: usually you're given a slip and given a date for court. case, the court date was november 26. he was supposed to go back to a port of entry and i was supposed to pick him up and take them to the hearing and as soon as the hearing is over he goes back to the migrant shelter if there is space and wait for his second hearing. conception that you have one hearing at it's

over but it can take months. has been president tweeting about the border for the last few minutes. massive sections of the wall going up being built to the highest standards. experts say it is an amazing structure. our u.s. military is doing an amazing job. ofnow it is not the subject your reporting. what were your observations of the border wall situation? guest: i'm putting another piece next monday examining the technology at the border. what we have found when looking at the border wall in the rio grande valley sector and the el paso sector is that a lot of border patrol agents felt at the wall was important but that there are other factors that are important like technology at the order, like manpower, infrastructure. the border wall is just one layer of defense but it is a multilayer approach to securing

the southern border. we are showing our viewers some of the photos from your report. next we go to bill at the nation's capital. caller: you may not be familiar this,he legal aspect of but it is rarely spoken about clearly. the united states signed a convention right after world war that allows anyone fleeing persecution a safe haven here. u.s. law.he effect of this isn't just a nice idea or something that we should do or something that is recommended. this takes the form of u.s. law. it's the same as if you would go out and run a red light and you got a ticket, except it is much

more serious, it is u.s. law and i don't think that is repeated enough, if ever. parenthetically, or more to the point, the united states is a vast country. the country of jordan has taken in over one million refugees from the syrian war. 2 million taken in refugees from wars in the middle east. when you hear people say we are nol up, no where, it has connection with reality whatsoever. lawse two points, it's u.s. not just international law. host: ok, bill. camila dechalus. guest: this last year the state department announced they would slash the refugee cap by

8,000. migrants know that it might take months or years to lawfully apply for asylum to come to the u.s. is then going to incentivize them to go unlawfully? we have been hearing the lots of cases of migrants crossing the rio grande which has claimed lives because it is so dangerous and taking that perilous journey. when you are looking at policies and the problems arising from it, it's to understand if this is putting more lives in danger. if a migrant knows that it is going to be a dangerous journey, but we are trying to go through it and enter the u.s. illegally, knowing that might be a shorter time to enter the u.s. the thing about the policies we examined is it is making it

harder for people to lawfully enter the u.s. whether entering is a refugee or lawfully seeking asylum. with these policies at the border, a lot of experts have thought this might incentivize people to cross illegally. host: next up, democrats line. caller: i was an immigration lawyer from 1990 to 2004. that was my main area of expertise. did is primarily what i during my practice. deportation proceedings forgetting more and more strict. when people say, why don't you come legally? the legal way has become so

restrictive, it is almost impossible. it doesn't even make sense. pushingcies trump is ore, for more and restrictionss. basically, they don't want immigrants from more and more areas. they have a quota system. there are only so many people from mexico, china, and one oner other country that can come. they are waiting for years and years because of the quota system. that is what that immigration law is based on. 1950ration laws started in

. that's why they call immigrants aliens. it is very derogatory and racist, and we are still under that law. one of the things we have seen these past few months is the trump administration pushing for stricter asylum policies that would make it harder for people to apply for asylum. a lot of people don't understand that it is actually a really expensive process. we spoke to one private attorney in el paso and she said it could cost up to $10,000 for someone to pay for an attorney to see them throughout their legal process because it could take months or years. a lot of private attorneys are scared to take on these cases

because they have to cross over the border to talk to their clients and there is confusion about whether they need work visas because they are working in mexico when they are talking to the client and there is also a threat to them. sometimes local gangs know that they are trying to push people to go through the legal process so it is hurting their business. attorneys andor people to represent clients within mpp because it puts a threat on them. host: this is a part of your peace. admittance -- refugee admittance is going to be slashed to almost half here. there a similar number on asylum-seekers? is there a number they will cap?

process.fferent guest: they don't have a cap but it is a different process. even though there are a larger number of people applying, they accept a lower amount. say -- to attorneys who if someone is complaining of gang violence it is hard to prove. they don't have audio, they don't have solid evidence, but even though they have a solid claim going through the proceedings is almost a different process because you have to have evidence. of people who receive it is very low. host: as of the end of august a inal of 38,291 mpp remained

mexico cases make up about 10% of the cases in fiscal year 2019 which hit 384,000. and that number is just at the southern border? guest: yes. host: here is mike in southern carolina. caller: i'm not going to just blame the democrats but republicans too. back in the day they all wanted immigration to come in for cheap labor which boosted profits. that these people coming across the border, they say they are escaping violence and a lack of food but it looks like a lot of them are healthy to me. if their countries are so bad, why are they having so many babies? over, when the

europeans came over they weren't set up with free housing and welfare and stuff like that, they had to work for it and a lot of it has to do with the assimilation. up withe refugees set free housing when they come across the border? guest: if you apply for asylum and you are put in the mpp program you automatically go back to mexico to wait. but if you are an unaccompanied minor, if you don't speak -- which means you might speak spanish identify with the lgbt community you might be exempt from the program then you would not go to that facility to wait out the case. discipline i of want to touch upon is that a lot of the migrants that we talk to were-- even though they

not fleeing from persecution or gang violence, their situation at home was so bad because they didn't have food every day. those kids couldn't go to school. in my experience, just going to the border, a lot of the migrants we spoke to did not eat during the trip because they did not have money to buy food. their sleep deprived or sleep in the bushes are on the streets as they were making the journey from their country to the u.s.. they are in dire conditions. host: this trip was produced in partnership with the pulitzer center. explain that. guest: they had granted and produced these pieces to look at what is really happening at the border.

this issue that people don't really focus on, the fact that troubleion hin accommodating non-spanish speakers because of the lack of interpreters. sayt of times attorneys they don't have enough resources to really give clients who do not speak spanish or english the resources that they deserve. host: let's hear from rich calling us from wisconsin. fostered likendma 70 immigrants who came here the right way. we have been to the system my whole life. it is hard but that's the kind of people you want coming here. i'm not saying we shouldn't be taking people but what is the number we set? if we are only catching one out of five, one million per year that means there is 3 million

more coming across? when do we get to control our own destiny? just curious. have toresources do we take care of these problems because you can't tell me that 30,000 people just got up one day and decided, let's start marching up to the united states. we will take a three month tour. it doesn't make any sense how all of a sudden we are taking on the world's poverty. host: we will go to john on the democrat line. caller: there is a problem that i noticed here. attackne of them democrats. i myself am an immigrant. life, you try your

best to do what you can, but the problem we are seeing, these countries like honduras and el when you are applying for asylum, there has to be a reason. you can't say i'm running from ms 13 and i need asylum. it doesn't work like that. it has to be case-by-case. understand these people am fromt asylum -- i immigrants but at the same time we need to respect the way that we come here. guest: over a few weeks the government has reached agreements with el salvador,

honduras and guatemala to come up with another silent -- asylum process where it would ofentivize migrants instead making the perilous journey they would apply for asylum in their own countries. curb theher effort to mass of people coming from the border. it's something the trump administration has been working on to curb the number of people coming so that our facilities are not inundated with so many people. host: canada is waiting on whether to help people in the central american crisis. it is hard for central americans asylum. the third country agreement between the u.s. and

canada. mr. trump has pushed for third safe party deals with guatemala and mexico, moves that have been pandas trying to shut out asylum-seekers. effectsays it went into in two thousand four. so for the trump administration has not been able to come up with those deals from guatemala and mexico. came out right. they just reached another agreement last week. it is still unclear when the policy is going to be implemented and it when it will be effective in these countries right now is pretty big, but they are pushing more to a safe third-party country >> migrants take a circuitous route to the united states and your graphics show thvarious ports of entry along

the u.s. and texas border in particular and all the way to yuma and san diego as well and some of the arrests at the border points. -- she's is calling us on the up independent line. >> thank you for c-span and thank you for taking my call. i have might question and the comment. we -- iion is what can happen to be a widow, what can we do to help? what organizations are helping to feed people who are detained when there is not enough food, clothing or water to go around? and where donate to can we get that information? saw -- i believe it

by an c-span, a new book pastor called christ in crisis. he is mentioning that we are no following biblical teachings on this. i would urge everybody to read the book of matthew, to read the story of the good samaritan. we are going to have to answer for this, as a country and individually for how we are treating people. thank you for taking my call? was reverend jim wallis whose new book is called christ in crisis. she asked about organizations to donate to, who did you see active down there with refugee guest: two of the biggest groups we saw on the order was the hopes

institute and the catholic charities relief services. they are big in the mcallen, texas, area. called person who just in there is a website who does list all of the organizations on the ground playing a pivotal part including the religious organizations playing a pivotal role in helping migrants accommodate them. host: do you recall the website? host: we will go to greenville, south carolina on the republican caller: my question is when you come to the border

there is a sign that says you are trespassing. we have laws in this country. when people cannot follow the laws they shouldn't even be here. more time and more of our money trying to take care of these people inhe last 10 years. we are letting our own citizens roam the street homeless with nowhere to stay. we need to take care of american citizens first. there are no immigrants. up not fore set illegal immigrants. >> that caller talked about trespassing. coming toare migrants the border arrested for various issues previous offenders, et cetera?

guest: there are a lot of parts to that. if they are apprehended by customs and border protection, depending if they have a child or not they are sent back or have to be processed. there are all of these other procedures that make it harder. the idea of we should take care of american citizens and not these immigrants that is a contentious subject because the u.s. has always been one of the countries that receives immigrants in the last few years. this information is being relayed to them back home in their home countries.

a lot of migrants knew about the trump admission policies and saidcame anyway and they their situation is so bad that they decided to do it anyway. caller: i have an important question to ask. can you hear me? host: we can. can you hear me? host: go ahead. i want to bring something to your attention. what you're talking about is very important. i'm 81 years old. i am a benefit of african-american and jewish faith. i want to bring attention to something that the young lady may not be aware of. in 1970 want a conservative

congressman called the immigration quota act of 1921 which existed until 1965. that act is not mentioned -- did not mention jews by name but it targeted the jews of europe. grandparents, and my mom who was six and 1923 could not get a visa to the united states. they went to cuba and from cuba , they came tor america. some of them went to cape town south africa. marching for a hundred years and i have been marching for 65 years. question, ifu a you're republican or democrat or whatever, franklin delano

jews fromrejected coming into this country prior to the holocaust and during the holocaust. away to st. louis. i'm with you 100 percent. people should be able to come legally. this is a country that should accept all people. we have to protect our borders. host: camila dechalus, any final thoughts on his call or anything else? guest: there are a lot of factors that go to the border. there are a lot of things people don't see at the port of entry. they process almost 100,000 people legally every day and people are crossing from the u.s. to mexico and mexico to u.s..

the you think about how u.s. is ng to accommodate people applying for asylum, and people making their daily commute it is very hard. it is very hard and you see this at the border. there is one -- there is no one solution fits all you need to have different policies in place. can people read your report? it on the site and shortly it will be on. host: homeland security reporter, thank you for being with us this morning. thank you for being with us this morning. we are back at 7:00 eastern on thursday morning. journal"ngton continues.

up, be with us when house speaker nancy pelosi will be joined by adam schiff at a news conference. this comes a week after launching the impeachment inquiry against president trump. will have aials discussion on syria moderated by her.oreign relations at that begins at 12:30 eastern.

president trump welcoming the finnish president. we will have that when it happens. on theexpecting news phone call to ukraine. pompeo admitted being on the call. sorry this will be the second time in the week i have to ask you what's going on in washington while we are not there. this relates to the ukraine situation. is it correct you were on the phone call that president trump had with president zelensky? if so, are the accounts we have

seen of it, including the transcript or partial transcript accurate and complete? if you were on the call, did you hear anything in the conversation that raised a red flag or anything appropriate -- inappropriate that gave you concerns. you said last week that as far you knew, everybody at the state department acted appropriately in regards to .kraine including yourself is that still the case and is that still your belief? to thes, why object demand for deposition from the house committees on the hill? do you have any concerns about what the state department inspector general is going to be briefing to hill staffers later today? answerll try to questions number four through seven first and one through --ee after that back to

after that. tor question about objecting what the folks on capitol hill avenue asked is fundamentally not true. what we objected to was the demands that were put that are deeply violating fundamental principles of separation of powers. they contacted state apartment employees directly and told them not contact legal counsel with the state department. that has been reported to us. they said the state department wouldn't be able to be present, an important constitutional prerogatives that the executive branch has two be present so we can protect the. -- protect the important information. the confidence that will be protected. the response i provided was one

that acknowledged we will do our constitutional duty to cooperate with the coequal branch, but we are going to do so in a way that is consistent with the fundamental values of the american system and won't tolerate folks on apple hill -- onng and intimidating capitol hill bullying and intimidating people. i will not allow that to happen. i was on the phone call and it haven the context -- i been secretary of state for a year and a half -- i know what the american policy is with ect ukraine. it has been remarkably consistent and we will continue to try to drive those set of outcomes. it is what our team, including the ambassador are focused on was taken down the threat that russia poses there in ukraine. it was about helping the outinians to get corruption

and to help this new government in ukraine build a successful, thriving economy. have had the privilege to lead have been engaged in and we will continue to do that even while the noise is going on. against donald trump. paul worsens wide -- paul the senior counsel during the whitewater investigation. .ou worked for ken starr do you see any legal similarities between that investigation and the investigation against president trump? as it is being conducted by the intelligence committee? a differentnk it is kettle of fish that present its own level of issues. at the highest level, the legal question of