man pushes impacting campaign 2020. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. good morning. it is saturday, october 5. we will begin with the latest on the each men inquiry into president trump, and your thoughts on whether the president has committed an impeachable offense. if you think he has, dialing at (202)-748-8000. if you say no, he has not, (202)-748-8001. you can also join the conversation by texting us with your city, state, and name at (202)-748-8003 or go to twitter at c-spanwj and you can also post on facebook.com/c-span. we will get to all your thoughts in a minute, but here is the latest on the impeachment

inquiry and the headlines. -- impeachmentry probe reaches into white house with new subpoenas. the house democrats of the committees in charge of the impeachment inquiry are asking the white house for documents related to ukraine and the phone call between president trump and ukrainian leader. u.s. news & world report house democrats are requesting ukraine documents from vice president pence, as well. other headlines this morning from "business insider," a second intelligence official is considering filing with the whistleblower complaint about president trump and the ukraine leader. and in "the washington examiner," secretary of state mike pompeo missed yesterday's deadline to provide ukraine documents to the house committee. your thoughts this morning on whether president trump has committed an impeachable

offense. yes or no? let's begin with what the president told reporters on thursday before departing on thursday. he is asked specifically, sir, what did you want out of that phone call? [video clip] president trump: i would think if they were honest about it, they would start a major and survey should -- a major investigation into the bidens. it is a simple answer. they should investigate the bidens. how do they form these companies -- by the way, like wise, china should start an investigation into the bidens because what happened in china is just about as bad as what happened with ukraine. so i would say that president zelensky, if it were me, i would recommend they start an investigation into the bidens. because nobody has any doubt that they were not cricket. that was a crooked deal 100%.

he had no knowledge of energy. didn't know the first thing about it. all of a sudden, he is getting $50,000 a month, plus a lot of other things. nobody has any doubt. and they got rid of a prosecutor, who was a very tough prosecutor, they got rid of him. now they are trying to make it the opposite way. if i where the president, i would certainly recommend that of ukraine. >> [indiscernible] butident trump: i haven't, certainly we can start thinking about because i'm sure that president xi does not like being under that kind of scrutiny, where billions of dollars is taken out of his country by a guy that just got kicked out of the navy. he got kicked out of the navy. all of a sudden, he is getting billions of dollars. you know i they call that? they call that a payoff. host: president trump thursday morning. here is how adam schiff

responded to hearing the president's remarks. [video clip] again, the president of the united states suggesting, urging foreign countries to interfere in our presidential election. this is theion of president regards anything within the two years of the mueller investigation ac can do is he can do anything without impunity. [indiscernible] breach ofndamental the presidential oath of office. it endangers our election and national security. it ought to be condemned by every member of this body, democrats and republicans alike. host: that was thursday. yesterday, the president talking argumenters made this

why he was concerned about what was happening in ukraine. [video clip] president trump: everything to me is about corruption. we want to find out what happened with 2016. there is a lot of work going on in that. i don't care about biden's campaign, but i do care about corruption. his campaign, that is up to him. politics, that is up to them. i don't care about politics. yesterday, somebody asked me a question, and i gave an answer. but always in the form of corruption what i want to do, and i think i have a duty to do it. we are looking for corruption. when you look at what biden and what his son did, and you look at what other people have done, i believe there was tremendous corruption with biden. but i think there was beyond, i mean beyond, corruption having to do with the 2016 campaign and what these lowlifes did to so many people, to hurt so many

people in the trump campaign, which was successful despite all of the fighting us. despite all of the unfairness. we are looking at corruption. we are not looking at politics. host: let's get to your phone calls. did president trump commit an impeachable offense? robert says no in clearwater, florida. why? after: they keep going this guy since he started going elected. ohlone,p coming up with and there is corruption -- with goingy and they keep after him. the more they go after him, the more people are going to vote for him. people going to be protesting against him, but they are getting paid by the democrats. saysu wear a hat that great for america -- host: how do you respond to

people like adam schiff, who say he is abusing his position, his oath of office? caller: go ahead. host: no, you respond. caller: he is not abusing nothing. he is the president. he talks the way people want to hear. they want to hear a president is not afraid to talk and say what is on their mind. a lot of people, they know he is right, but he comes out and says what is on his mind. that is what is good about this president. they don't understand that. he will get reelected because none of them are close to winning this election. host: is it ok for a president to ask a foreign country for help in an election? or do you believe he did that? caller: i don't even believe he did that. he talks to foreign countries because he is trying to protect this country.

he is trying to find out about what they are doing. that is what he does all the time, try to find out what other countries are doing, and then they turn it around and make him look like a bad guy. he is not a bad guy. he did not get to where he was because he is a bad guy. he got to where he was because he did the things the right way. that is why he got elected. host: let's hear from virginia, who says yes. she is in maryland. caller: hi. has brokeneve he many laws, federal and constitutional law, from day one. i think it is about time we actually did impeach him. actually elected by the people. he was elected by the electoral college. host: virginia, give us an example of where you think he has broken the constitutional laws. caller: i think there has been plenty of proof of collusion.

i think there has been proof of using executive office for capital gain. he has put his family and positions with no experience, and key positions, that could affect this country. he has violated things by using , open fracking for his oil investments, getting protective lands. using executive orders to undo bills that were beneficial to people. i think he is clearly abusing office. host: jerry in carlsbad, california. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. first of all, god bless america. i would like to say that we have a rule of law in this country. we have grand juries. i think the facts need to come out. you have this "whistleblower," who is unnamed, and right now,

everything is hearsay. it is so politically motivated that it is just being spun around in circles. in the court of law, that doesn't work. i believe that our country is founded on laws. host: have you seen the reports of these text messages between the u.s. envoy to ukraine and also the ambassador who was had the portfolio of the european union, the two who testified on thursday for over eight hours, have you seen those text messages? caller: are those confirmed, greta? host: who would confirm them? mr. voelker turn these over to the house intelligence committee and they release them, so what other information are you looking for? caller: the confirmation i need is for these text messages and

these individuals and all parties involved to be in a court of law and for the facts to come out. not to be politically spun out then basically hearsay. it needs to be in a court of law. and under penalty of perjury. host: you don't think of them that the house can hand -- you don't think the house can handle an investigation and impeachment inquiry where they would be the court? where they are investigating. caller: that is what it has to come down to, that it has to get to that point, greta. we have to get to that point. we have not got to that point. all we have now is hearsay, text messages, whistleblowers, this, that, and the other thing. we need to get to that point, and that has to get through the due process of law. host: jerry, are you withholding judgment at this point on

whether or not -- caller: absolutely. just like in the court of law. without ao be reasonable doubt. i mean, that is why we have 12 jurors deciding whether a man or woman goes to jail or not. host: jerry, are you concerned at all when you hear the president on thursday say, when asked by a reporter, specifically, sir, what did you want out of that phone call? i wanted them to investigate the bidens. are you concerned? caller: say it again, greta. host: when the reporter asked the president, thursday, specifically, so what did you want out of that phone call? and he says, i wanted them to investigate joe biden and his son. caller: if i was the president, i would not have answered the question. host: does it concern you? caller: of course it does. host: why? caller: because he should not answer those questions. it should be done legally. host: what should be done? caller: he should restrain his

comments and have it done in a court of law and done with due , and the facts should come out, whether they be bogus or not. and it should go through a court of law, not through the media. host: ok. jerry in california. thank you for watching so early and calling in. i appreciate that. times" andrk "washington times" front pages has the text messages jerry and i were talking about. "the new york times" front page goes through exchanges. is messaged oner july 19, in advance of president trump's call to zelensky. potus says, looks like call tomorrow.

kurt volker says, good, had breakfast with rudy this morning. teeing up call after an advisor to the ukrainian president zelensky, keying up that phone call monday must have felt. most important is for zelensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues, if there are any. text anddent's aid was he says on the 25th at 8:36 in the morning, volker says, good luck, thanks. assuming president z will , "get to the bottom of what happened" in 2016, we will nail down the date for visit to washington. good luck. see you tomorrow. two weeks after the president's call, mr. volker discussed whether ukraine would issue a statement, announcing an investigation. sondland, ready to get dates as

soon as confirm. from volker, excellent, how did you sway him? sondland response, not sure i did. volker does he know that? clearly lots, yet, of combos going on. asked to set up the white house visit before ukraine commits to announcing an investigation. they say once they have a date, we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visits and the reboot of u.s.-ukraine relationships, including among the other things in an election meddling in investigations. i also want to add what "the washington post" highlights on their front page, bill taylor, the ambassador in ukraine, says 2019, aseptember 9, i sat on the phone, i think it is crazy to withhold security reasons for help with a

campaign. says, the president has been clear, no quid pro quo's of any kind. the president is trying to evaluate whether ukraine is truly going to adopt the trends -- transparency and reforms that president zelensky promise during the campaign. this was september 9, 2019. the whistleblower filed the complaint on september 12. week later, the white house was aware of the complaint for it went to the acting director of national intelligence. here is the president yesterday on these text messages. [video clip] president trump: the text messages i saw was just about the last text messages. i don't even know most of these ambassadors. i don't even know their names, but the text message that i saw from ambassador sunderland, who dland, who isson highly respected, he said there is no craig crow pro. -- quid-- quid pro qu

pro quo. listen to this, there is no quid pro quo, and that was the text message that i saw, and that is nullified. host: back to your calls. washington state says yes, the president has committed an impeachable offense. caller: yes, i absolutely hiseve the abused presidential powers for it quid pro quo, and i think we are in a constitutional prices, and i feel sorry for mike pence because i think he is a pretty good guy, and i think that when trump goes down, he is going to take a lot of people with him. he reminds me of a rotten potato and a bag of good potatoes. once he gets in there, he just infects the whole bag. you have to get rid of him. host: peggy, are you a republican?

caller: i am an independent. i didn't vote for him, and i will tell you why. it was because of the immigration situation. the syrianaving all refugees at the time of brexit. about six months into his president, i went holy cannoli. bob, old fort, tennessee. bob, you say no. bob, good morning. oh, i have to punch the button. sorry. good morning. caller: i think the president is doing a great job, and what the problem is, you have good against evil. the evil is the democrats want to do everything. host: we are listening, bob. caller: they are trying to do anything to undo his election

from the get-go. if a president cannot be chief and commander and check into anything he needs to be checking into, right now, there is no campaign being run against donald trump. as a president should act. there was corruption. and if any other person, republican with a democrat, and his son took all this money just like them, they would be doing the same thing, and they would have a right to, if they felt like they were corrupt. all i know is this man has been attacked from day one. they hate this guy because, like i said, we are fighting an evil christiansse the stand up with donald j. trump values they see what the of this nation was always founded on. , wherewatched last night

they were praying over this man, in the end, don wins. murderers,by democrats, where you go in for not, we are in your party. thoughts there. some of our viewers texting in this morning. karen and pennsylvania -- we are a nation of laws. impeachment is the duty of congress. when the president or any other official violates the constitution, which he or she has sworn to uphold, it is not a matter of opinion. saying they were joking does not get them out of trouble. roos and mount pleasant, texas -- the democrats defend the constitution unless it gets in the way of their actions. from ohio -- no, president trump did not commit an offense. licking his phone calls is an offense. three now have been leaked. and this is another viewer who says -- trump uses coarse

language, and some people think that is being honest, but he lies, abuses his office, and obstructs justice. impeach now. a reminder if you are texting us, include your first name, city and state. susan in germantown, maryland, you say yes. caller: he did meet and impeachable offense. first, he blackmails ukraine into looking into the bidens. apparently, they are going to do that now, but he also went to china, china said no, they're not going to do it. but this guy has proven he is abusing his office. he is abusing his followers. when are they going to wake up and learned that they are being played for saps? he does not give a damn about these people. he only cares about one thing. himself and his family. anything he does is towards that goal. i think you should be impeached. the congress knows exactly what

they are doing. they are following their constitutional rights. hopefully, the house and senate will impeach. the thing is, though, the joke may be on trump in the end because it may not even be biden who will be the nominee. it could be elizabeth warren. that is the thing. then what is he going to do? growing on her? host: you mentioned ukraine officials are going to begin investigations. it is in "the new york times" this morning. they said they would audit several important cases previously handled by predecessors, including the owner of a natural gas company who informed the son of joe biden. an impeachment inquiry, connected to requests he made to the ukrainian president during that july phone call. john from indiana, you say no. caller: yes. he should not be impeached. i agree with all the other

people who have called in and that agree with me, and that is all i can say. host: john, do you think he did anything wrong when he was on that phone call with ukrainian president and said, can you do me a favor, though, can you look into the bidens and some other 2016 election, some other things he wanted the president of investigate, did he do anything wrong? caller: no. host: why not? i have no further comment. it is so ridiculous. host: tony in colorado. you say yes, tony. hi. caller: good morning, greta. i wonder if the question should really be today, do you care if he committed a crime? ig ofc chairman, the

intelligence, christopher wray of the fbi, have all come out in various statements and pointed out that you cannot ask a foreign country, you cannot solicit the help of a foreign country in an election, period. that is the law. you don't need quid pro quo, although it is there. you don't need that for a lot of have been broken. i think what is stumping most americans are now is when we went through the nixon trials, it took a year before the tapes were revealed. they went to the supreme court. they had to be released. it all took 90 days at that point for him to step down because the senate, everybody pulled it in and said, you clearly have broken the law. there is evidence. in this case, the text trail, the phone transcript released by the white house, and trump's public statements all demonstrate he is breaking the law over and over again. it is not really has he broken

the law, he has. the question is, do you care if he has broken the law? and one question that i think should be posed, and this was not my idea. i heard this in an interview with hillary clinton, and she said, what if a democratic candidate stepped up right now and said, china, if you are trump'sg, get us donald tax returns.the american press will love you, will reward you mightily for getting those tax returns. all of a sudden, they start packing the irs, and then those tax returns come out there wikileaks. wouldsly, the republicans just go ballistic over something like that. i am not saying democrats should do that and are going to do that, but that is what -- that is a great parallel. one final issue, what happens

and 2020 --rat wins in 2020? they will be so much heat put on that democrat to go after trump and prosecute him for various laws that have been broken, if nothing else, tax issues. what if that democratic president told germany, ok, germany, you put heat on deutsche bank to release everything, or we are going to reduce half the size of our nato basis in your country? if democrats do not hold him accountable now, there are no rules up the road. anything goes in the future. democrats could go after him long after he has left office. we do not want to be a country like that. so if democrats do not hold him accountable now, there will be no guard rails on the future. everybody should be thinking about that. --t: tony, how do you think

we did pose the question that way -- do you care if the president had committed and impeachable offense? what kind of answers do you think we would get? caller: people are going to have to step up and say, no, i don't, or, yeah, i do think if you have done something wrong, yeah, you should be held accountable. if we got to that point, then we could just get to the issue. chairman, ig chair of intelligence, christopher wray, are they all right if they say, this is the law? q put the law on the screen and say, this is the law. do you believe he violated the law? people are throwing up all kinds of different things. it doesn't matter what the bidens did. this is not about the bidens. the question is, we are talking about the president and a law. did the president break the law? period. he is the one on trial for impeachment.

biden is not the president to read his son is not the president. none of these people are the president. the question is has this president violated a law? host: with your remarks on the table, hopefully viewers will respond to you. eight is a conversation we are having. richard, you say no in florida. caller: yes, i say it is not impeachable what he did because the democrats say over and over, no person is above the law. well, then, biden should not be above the law either. he should not get immunity, nor should his son get immunity. there should be equal treatment under the law. i don't think running for president should give you immunity from gathering information anywhere in the world. as a voter, what i want to know is the truth, and if he actually did do these things to enrich his family and coworkers foreign

coernments or -- and herce foreign governments and get favors, then i went to know about it and any person who does that. it doesn't make a difference if it is the bidens, a democrat or republican. host: richard, do you apply that same rationale to an investigation by house democrats into whether or not the president violated his oath of office by asking the ukraine leader to do something that would enrich him politically? you know, you cannot separate the two early. wants to-- if he look into a law being broken, the democrats will say, oh, he is just trying to enrich and make his position in the election better, but he has got

to say something in order to get the information that is needed for the investigation. you cannot split hairs. i don't see how you could possibly do that. host: pam, kansas city, missouri. you say yes. caller: he absolutely needs to be impeached. the sooner the better. country's say, that needs to happen quickly. as far as the people say there is no proof and, it is just hearsay, that is a bunch of bull. but he did his outright wrong. look at the election commission and what the head of commission said. givingeign government our president or anybody help winning an election is wrong. i did not state it correctly, but look it up.

it is right there, black-and-white. it is against the law. there are laws for reasons. he thinks he is above the law, and he has acted like that from day one. it is high time we did something. host: pam says this inquiry needs to happen quickly because the american people are not patient. the house intelligence committee this week has been opposing witnesses, and they will continue to do so next week. who hasnett with msnbc, been standing in the hallways outside of the committee room this past week, tweeted out last night -- ambassador gordon sondland, who you saw text messages from him to mr. volker, will appear october 8 on tuesday. that is gordon sondland right on your screen, ambassador to european union. they note in the papers this morning about the profile pieces in ther. sondlan

papers this morning and you can find out who he is. mr. sondlande that million to the president's campaign before he became the ambassador to the european union. so that is in the paper this morning, if you are interested in learning more about him. front page of "the washington post," -- president says house has the votes to impeach him, but he says the republicans are unified as some of the parties break their ranks. inside "the washington post" this morning, in the headline -- democrats seek ukraine documents from vice president pence. trump said he would sell out his complaints in a letter to

speaker pelosi, who republicans have accused of short-circuiting a formal impeachment process by not holding a vote on the house floor to launch an inquiry. the argument has become a central point of the gop's response to the debate, with few republicans depending trump's behavior or the assertion he has the absolute right to act on investigations from governments to look into his political opponent. nancy pelosi held a conference earlier this week, or she was asked, why not hold a full vote on the house floor? [video clip] nancy pelosi: that is not anything excluded. by the way, some republicans are very nervous about bringing that boat to the floor. host: speaker pelosi saying she is not required to hold a full vote. the white house saying they would not turn over some of these documents until they see a full house boat. karen is in honolulu.

you say no this morning. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: clearly, there democrats do not have a leg to stand on. if there was any evidence of a crime, then they would charge him and indict him. it is like if you or i were picked up on the streets by the cops, they would have to charge you before they could proceed. there are no charges. they cannot even identify the crime the president has broken. host: they would respond saying they are still investigating. caller: but you cannot charge somebody or arrest somebody without first showing evidence of a crime. they don't have any evidence. this is a fishing expedition. if nancy pelosi and the house actually thought they had a crime that they could use, they would have had to vote because while -- until they had that a, the president cannot only -- until they had that vote, the president cannot only

claim his own executive privilege but he can also declare lawyer-client privilege with mayor giuliani. vote toouse takes the impeach, that eliminates opportunities to use privilege, and they don't want to do that. they are afraid there are so many democrats out there, especially in states that trump won, that they would lose a vote. that is why they don't have the vote. they don't have a charge, they don't have a crime they can point to, and no evidence to prove of a crime. documentation, so far, he was trying to fight corruption. matter of fact, we had arrangements with ukraine long before this to cooperate to root out corruption in america and in ukraine. this is all a bunch of bunk, honestly.

, panorama city, california. your argument for yes. caller: yes, number one, there does not need to be a crime to impeach. impeachment is a political process. it is nothing like -- and you cannot indict a sitting president. if you cannot indict a sitting president, but you can impeach also, thereans -- is no quid pro quo required at all. i could redo the law right now that says nothing, all you have to do is ask, solicit. that is all that is required. just like he did with china and china responded because it was not a joke. china heard what they heard and they said no. it is obvious. plus, he released, all these people released the whistleblower tapes, they released all that stuff.

it is just all there. they want to see proof. there is a lot there. know, biden's son did not have any experience with what they are saying and that is hard to believe. trump did not have any experience in politics, and he is running the country. wise in that odd? -- why isn't that odd? host: most house lawmakers are back in their states and districts this past week, and they will be next week, as well. they are on a two-week recess from washington, back in their states working. many are holding town meetings. ernst iswns -- joni asked to buy one of her own constituents about what the president has said about the whistleblower. [video clip] >> i have said this time and time again, north korea, not our

friend. russia, not our friend. i have made that very clear, and the president knows where i stand on those issues. >> what about the whistleblower? >> i have already said that, too. so blower should be protected. i stand with chuck grassley on this. laws need to be enforced. >> but we are not hearing it -- >> that is because our media is not covering those issues. >> you have to say it for our media to cover it. >> whistleblower should be protected, thank you very much. whistleblower should be protected. please, let folks know. >> and our president should not be threatening them, and he also should not be encouraging other countries to investigate his political rival? >> i would say to that, corruption, no matter where it is, should be ferreted out. if we have corruption here, it should be ferreted out. if there is corruption in other countries. i have traveled to ukraine, and i have visited -- i had not visited with the new president,

but many years ago i had the opportunity to meet the former president. one of the issues i spoke to him about was the fact ukraine, there are still a large amount of corruption. have tried to deal with that corruption. they need to continue dealing with corruption. i don't care where it is. i don't care who it is. when it is. corruption is corruption, and it should be combated. host: that was senator joni ernst, being pressed by her constituent at a town hall. we aired that yesterday. you can find it on our website, c-span.org, and watch the whole thing. mitt romney yesterday, as we said the senate is not in session, sent out this tweet. citizen only american president trump singles out for china's investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the democratic nomination process, it is strange credulity to suggest it is anything other

than politically motivated. by all appearances, the president's brazen and unprecedented appeal to china and ukraine to investigate joe biden is wrong and appalling. that tweet making the front page of "the london financial times" this morning. romney slams trump over china appeal. thursday evening, after listening to over eight hours of testimony by mr. volker, the u.s. envoy to ukraine, who resigned from that position, mark meadows, one of the republicans in the deposition, talked to reporters, and here's what he had to say. [video clip] no quickknow there is quote pro. it came out over and over. it came out probably 20 different times, and we know for expertthat in this witness's testimony, and i would say he is probably the

democrat's star witness and most informed witness, it was certainly a day that i believe the american people need to see the transcripts. i know that we will be talking with the committee with chairman schiff about that, but it is critically important that i think if the american people can witness what we were able to witness today, they would understand that they were well served by the president's decisions, and certainly by what the president has been able to over theh with ukraine last several years. listen, if there was an academy award for leading the witness, my democratic colleagues would have gotten three oscars today. narrativeresting, the that they were trying to get out of the witness, in hopes of

being able to spin it their particular way was not rewarding. is"the washington post" reporting that the reports are not credible, is that true? >> i do not one to get into the specifics of what was mentioned in there, so whoever is talking about that, i'm not sure the validity of that. i know scott and one to make sure we do not get into the specifics of that. i can tell you that any comments that thereindicate was some nefarious purpose on behalf of this president was not backed up by the facts today. congressmanican mark meadows there, also a member of the freedom caucus, talking about what he heard in closed-door testimony this past week at the house intelligence committee as they continue with their inquiry. on the senate side, republican ron johnson of wisconsin makes headlines in "the wall street

journal" this morning. savon hughes and rebecca reports, the republican senator says he was told by an american diplomat in august that the release of u.s. aid to ukraine was in tengion -- contingent on an investigation, but mr. trump denied pursuing any such proposal and the lawmaker pressed him on it. senator johnson says the u.s. ambassador to the european union had described to him a quick quote pro involving a commitment to pro matters related to u.s. toctions and u.s. aid ukraine. alarmed, mr. johnson, supports aid to ukraine and is the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the region, said he raised the issue with mr. trump next day. in a phone call, days before the senator was to meet with ukraine, august 31, remember, the whistleblower complaint was filed august 12. the white house was aware of the

whistleblower's complaint a week later. this is august 30 first, when ron johnson talked with the president on the phone. according -- this is august 31, when ron johnson talked to the president on the phone. the president said in response when he asked if this was happening, an expletive, and then he said, no way. i would never do that. who told you that? tot is what mr. trump said senator johnson of wisconsin. then "the milwaukee sentinel journal" reports this -- senator johnson said he was blocked by president trump in august from telling ukraine's president that usaid was on its way, amid accusations trump was holding it investigatedion his political rival. it says trump rejected johnson's request for refusing and made to back ukrainian president zelensky. this is what the senator told "the milwaukee journal

sentinel." i was surprised by the president's reaction and realized we had a job to do at constituent stops. i try to convince him in august to give the authority to tell president zelensky we would do that. i did not succeed. tonson said after traveling ukraine for the new president's inauguration, johnson said that he was part of a delegation that attended zelensky's inauguration, and he and others briefed president trump on the inauguration and urged trump to back zelensky, but he resisted the idea. "we all went in there having come from the inauguration, and, you know, we were trying to encourage the president to show a great deal of support. oval office visit, appoint an ambassador who could be appointed on a bipartisan basis because we came back from the meeting with president linsky for the confident, pretty encouraged that he really does understand that his mandate is

and he is dedicated to fulfilling it." wanda says no. hi, wanda. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: back in the 2016 election, there was a lot of hanky-panky and died and was involved in the hanky-panky. trump is investigating what happened in the 2016 election , and there is nothing wrong with that. if some of it happened in ukraine, then that is where you go to investigate. is nobody is does making any kind of deal about that. clapper, brennan, comey, all of those people. if trump needs to find out what happened, where else is he going to go except places where it happened? i don't think there is anything

wrong. is biden above reproach just because he is a political candidate? i don't think so. host: is the president, wanda? caller: what did you say? host: is the president above reproach? should he be investigated? caller: no, but he is doing something that needs to be done. this is justified. host: wanda is in california. gil, your argument for impeaching the president. caller: yes, absolutely, he should be impeached. if i could make a few points, president trump is the president defamation, d's, distraction, disruption. also, he is running a government of nepotism. what do i mean by this? no one is covering what his children have done. ivanka trump got special favor to get patents in china, and

more importantly, jared kushner talked to the qatar government for funding for the building 666 , which was going bankrupt. that are violations impeachable, you have the emoluments clause, campaign-finance violations, and where the this, impeachment inquiry is going, it parallels the watergate impeachment, where at the outset, there was a very low percentage of people that wanted nixon impeached. as the inquiry increases, we will find out more information on coverups, we will find more truth, and when the house in peaches him, remember that john roberts will sit as the judge. john roberts is no brett kavanaugh. john roberts will allow for evidence to be submitted and

thatted, and i pray to god in the senate, senate republicans, there will be some white jim baker, some like senator irvin from north carolina, and others, that will have steel in their backbone, calcium in their backbones, and a compass that points towards moving ourss and from this failed apprentice presidency. and my last comment is this, when we get a new administration, all of the candidates that are lying now, and i agree with the previous caller, it may be elizabeth warren who was the presidential candidate, but i think that in all of the democratic individuals that are vying to become the nominee, you have the

best interviewing process for the next administration made up of stellar candidates that will fulfill cabinet positions, where we now have just acting directors. host: i will leave it there so we can hear from marion and burbank, california. you say no. caller: definitely, definitely no. this president is the most amazing president in my lifetime. host: we are listening. caller: hi, how are you? host: you have to talk and listen through the phone. please turn down your television. caller: my phone is on, and my tv is on mute. host: great. caller: i think this president is the most amazing president. i am 71 years old. i live in burbank, california, and everything you hear on tv, and i hope this goes out on the airwaves, everything you hear on tv about california, about going

to hell in a handbasket is true. this city is terribly run by democrats. off topic. not get do you think the president of the united states, talking to a foreign leader and asking him to investigate his political opponent, as mitt romney says in his tweet, is wrong and appalling? caller: anybody that was attacked like this man has been attacked for 2.5 years, and by the media, by the press, even by people have just convicted this man without any proof of anything that this man has done anything. he is coming out with facts, and people speaking out and everything, and every time something is proven wrong, then they go on to something else and something else. the only thing he is guilty of is exposing everybody.

the media, depressed, and the -- the media, the press, politicians, the congress, and the democrats for what they really are. they are corrupt, they are liars, they make up facts, and they don't prove anything. they just say things and they convicted him. let's talk about the great things this man has done instead of every day you people on tv and on the radio, and on talking about how terrible he is and all the terrible things he does. this man has done amazing accomplishments, and he is not getting any credit from it. nothing. and i don't understand why. host: melody in lebanon, new jersey. good morning to you. what you think? caller: hi, greta. i'm not sure about the impeachment. i am kind of neutral. i used to be democrat, switched to republican, and now i cannot

and aue to health issues legal divorce from my husband, and i can get out of the house, but i just wanted to say that i do not judge people and made the best man or woman win the presidency. i have been trying to follow anyway, be fair, and the thing is -- host: ok, melody. let's listen to a potential rival of the president, if you are to get the democratic nomination, the former vice president joe biden yesterday. here what he had to say about the president and impeachment inquiry. [video clip] >> all this talk about corruption by the president comes from the most corrupt president we have had in modern history. he is the definition of corruption. he has corrupted the agencies of

government, from the defense department, the state department, the justice department, all about making sure that he, in fact, allows somebody else to pick his opponent for him. that is what this is about, and i am not going to stand for it. and i'm not going to respond to it. i am not going to talk about anything other than what the facts are. he has embedded himself with his own statements. this is not about me, this is not about my son. there is not a shred of evidence of anything done wrong. i have said from the beginning, the constitutional process, notwithstanding what he calls it -- he calls the impeachment accrue. he taught -- a coup. he talks about how we should handle whistleblowers. he talks about civil war. he is unhinged. i worry about what he is going to do. not about me or my family. i am worried about what he will do in the next year and the presidency, as this continues to

on his watch. i am former vice president. i know what occurred in ukraine, i know what occurred in terms of china and russia, this is a president trying to get three of our most-- two of serious competitors, and not allies, to decide this election. decides who he runs against. this guy, like all bullies, is a coward. he does not want to run against me. host: the former vice president yesterday on the latest on the impeachment inquiry. we are getting your thoughts, do you think the president has committed an impeachable offense? allen and washington. you say no. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: no, the only one who has committed an offense is adam schiff with his telephone call and recording of him trying to get the russians to help him. he is on tape asking for help from the russians!

theis it he kicked out of senate? out of the house? believe thedo you president was asking for help from the ukrainian leader? caller: not as much as a share of. -- not as much as schiff. he was asking on tape, but you people don't play the tape. the whole tape of him when he is talking, supposedly, for the russian -- to the russians. he thought he was great what he thought makes no difference. he is talking to them like he is. host: alan in washington state. john in silver spring, maryland. john, good morning. you say yes. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call, greta. i am 70-year-old woman and she still doesn't know

how many children to raise, but the problem is this, the president, what he did in the white house the other day -- my children asked me, is this our president asking this way? you have to understand one thing, we are the examples around the world. we welcome things the way it should be. the problem we had this president, he is lying. he does not care. he went after 16 republicans, insulting their wives, their children, insulting everybody, and he became the president. you have to understand one thing, if that works for him, he thinks, i am going to do the same thing. i am going to go after joe biden and his son in the early stage. i'm going to insult him. i'm going to tell the american people they are corrupt. just like what he was saying about crooked hillary. remember this. i think the media will not back down by any means necessary.

they will ask the question. they will show american people that everything that this president is saying is alive. and the reality is, we as americans, we must protect our country. remember, i am 55 years old. there is one enemy when we were russia andhool, china are our enemies. we need to deal with that because those countries, they are laughing at us. you know one thing china is saying today? thank you, donald trump rate we --l investigate joe biden thank you, donald trump. host: you might be interested in "business insider," this piece, the president does not need to be prove that he committed a crime, they instead impeach on whether the president committed treason, bribery, or other this demeanors as outlined in article two, section four of the u.s.

constitution. they say by pressuring ukrainian government to investigate a political rival and using a leverage tool, trump may have violated a number of federal laws. in the article, they say illegally soliciting campaign help from a foreign government is one of the laws from 1971, the federal election campaign act of 1971, expressly says you cannot solicit campaign aide from a foreign government. they also point to bribery, the second area of potential legal liability or relates to the request to zelensky to do him a favor, after mentioning how the u.s. does a lot for ukraine. more importantly, after zelensky raised the issue of u.s. military aid, trump suggest he investigate biden. misappropriation, it was added that if trump in fact used government funds for his own his

own gain, there is a strong argument that there is a aft of taxpayer money -- theft of taxpayer money or misappropriation. dbarr rudy giuliani an and others are involved, that would raise questions of a conspiracy. -- isni has mentioned, 31 mentioned 31 times in the whistleblower complaint. is the "business insider" article. wayne in pennsylvania. you say yes. caller: very much so. listen. that was just there, he said everything i could say. i have two things i want to say. i do not know what is wrong -- i am trying to be polite -- these two callers that called in said

"trump is so great" and this and that. it scares me so bad that the people would vote for this man. this man is not entitled to be sitting there in the white house. he is not entitled to do anything there. let me say this. newspapersading the -- you just read the truth. and these people are all "you should do this" -- "everything trump says" i don't buy it. these people are out of their minds. thank you. host: we go to laura in texas. laura says no. caller: you keep saying that trump wanted ukraine to investigate biden. what he wants to investigate is that 2016 election.

originated in the ukraine. biden was mentioned later as a side remark. he you keep stating is that wanted ukraine, he wanted help from foreign countries to help with his campaign -- host: that is the accusation. did you hear the president thursday when the reporter asked him, specifically, sir, what did you want the ukraine president to do after that phone call? and he said investigate the bidens and the 2016 election. what are you referring to? itler: i am referring to how all began. there are allegations that ukraine did something with paul information to intelligence agencies and all about paul manafort. they solicited help from a

foreign country. the whole dossier came from foreign countries about trump. and trump is mad about that. he wants to get to the bottom of it, how are intelligence agencies spied on his campaign. that is what he wants to get to the bottom of. but you do not want to talk about it. you just want to talk about biden. yes, biden is in there because board fors on that dirty influence. if his name was not biden, he would not be on that board. host: laura in texas, who says no he has not committed an impeachable offense. that does it for the compensation now, but we will return to what around 9:30 a.m. eastern time. in the meantime, we will dig into the september jobs report

with the ""wall street journal's " sarah chaney. later, sabato's crystal ball managing editor kyle kondik will be here to discuss how house pushrats' impeachment could impact campaign 2020. ♪ >> today at 2:30 p.m. eastern on american history the author of "kissinger on kissinger" on president nixon's relationship with a secretary of state. >> nixon had read his books. nixon had wanted to dominate foreign policy. he needed ado that, very able, forceful national security advisor. >> at 10:00 -- >> there was little to do except

work. rugged indeed. here, in such a setting, the search for oil. the 1948t venture," film about the origins of the saudi oil company. with sony at peace and portrait gallery -- smithsonian portrait gallery. forhis -- he advocated state laws. eastern, them. book "democracy and truth," a short history. oneo one person, no institution, note one sector, king, priest, national research body would get to call all the shots. >> explore the nation's past

every weekend on c-span 3. >> the house will be in order. has been years, c-span providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country, so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span -- your unfiltered view of government. " continues.journal chaney is the economics reporter of the ""wall street journal." here to talk about your headline, "u.s. unemployment hit 50 year low." why did this happen?

guest: the u.s. jobless rate hitting a 50 year low of a 3.5% is a signal that most americans who want work can find work. it is a very positive signal for the economy. it is just one data point, though. we like to look at lots of different labor market instigators to get a full picture of what is going on. another big number to look at is the monthly job rose number, and the u.s. economy added over september, which is a pretty steady rate of growth. host: what or who gets credit for this low jobless rate? guest: it is a good question that a lot of readers are asking. to answer that. basically, the u.s. economy has been in expansion mode for about a decade, and so we would expect

, at this point, there would be some slowing. demand is still strong. when that happens, businesses need to hire workers, and that is what we are seeing. host: let's talk about the different sectors. according to the jobs report in september, where jobs were gained, most were in health care, a professional business services, where you saw 39,000, 34,000 government. transportation, 16,000. what does this say about our economy? guest: a lot of those job gains are in service sectors. health care is a big one. the services side of the economy accounts for the bulk of the u.s. economy. it is much bigger than the goods producing side, which is primarily manufacturing but also construction.

generally a positive signal. however, we did see that manufacturers cut jobs for the second month this year. it has been an ongoing trend this year, this slowdown in manufacturing. host: what is behind that? lots ofhere are different factors that influence hiring trends and production in manufacturing. global forces like oil prices. factorestment is a huge in what drives manufacturing trends, because it is such a capital-intensive industry, when will production picks up, there is more demand for manufactured goods peered we have seen oil prices have abated some, and that has influenced manufacturing some. a lot of manufacturers also cite tariffs and uncertainty.

that has been a theme with several businesses. tradethe white house representative told cnn that manufacturers are getting hurt because of that policy, because the dollar is so overvalued that it is hurting their exports, and that is why you are seeing what is happening in the manufacturing industry. how do you respond to that? what do your sources tell you about that? tost: it is very difficult make any connection between an institution like the federal reserve and what happens in anyone particular sector. like i said, manufacturing is influenced by lots of factors that go beyond any sort of policy. oil prices is one. if you dig down deep in the autors and are looking at manufacturing, which accounts for a large share of overall

manufacturing, auto production is heavily tied to vehicle sales. host: we want to invite our viewers to join in about this headline, u.s. unemployment hit 50 year low. we also want to know what the economy is like in your region. if you live in the eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. you can also text us. send your first name, city, and state to (202) 748-8003. sarah chaney is our guest, the economics reporter with the ""wall street journal." what is the fed saying about their next move and how could that impact the economy? report fridayjobs left open the possibility of a fed rate cut later this month. it is unclear whether that will happen. the fed has said that it is

closely evaluating all economic data. obviously, the jobs report is an important part of that, but it is one of several reports that gives insight into inflation and jobs trends and overall what is happening in the economy. the fed has cut rates a couple of times in recent months. to help buffer the economy, they say, against global headwinds, slowing global growth, and also faltering manufacturing activity, like we talked about before. the federals what reserve chair jerome powell had to sail yesterday, at the federal reserve headquarters. he acknowledged the state of the economy and the jobs report. [video clip] >> unemployment is at a half-century low. inflation is running those two but a bit below our 2% objective. while not everyone shares

economic opportunities and the economy faces risks. overall, the economy is in a good place. our job is to keep it there as long as possible. while we believe our strategy and tools have been and remain effective, the u.s. economy, like other advanced economies around the world, is facing longer-term challenges, from low growth, low inflation, and low interest rates. while slow growth is obviously not good, you may ask what is wrong with low inflation and low-interest rates? low can be good, but when inflation and interest rates are too low, the fed and other central banks have less room to support economies during downturns. host: what is happening with inflation right now? guest: inflation has been running below the fed's 2% target for several months. earlier in the year, there were thoughts among some economists that it could be due to transitory factors, like certain

goods or services were skewing the data, and they would work themselves out, and we would be moving more up to 2%. -- below 2% is generally good for consumers, as long as it -- as we do not get into a deflationary scenario, where things start overheating. host: we go to milly in new haven, connecticut. talking about the u.s. economy. question or comment? caller: i have a question. and good morning. are able toict, we stay on unemployment for six months. in the numbers, are you just going by the unemployment numbers?

where i am living, several people have been out of work for over a year. that seems to be a problem, because every time i hear the economy is doing great, it is going great, but you talk one-on-one with others, it is not doing so great, as far as people being able to find jobs. and i have to agree with one thing -- thank god for manufacturing. notice more blue-collar workers in manufacturing, the jobs are available. however, still, we have a high rate of unemployment in the state of connecticut. guest: thanks for the question. data, often at this times, we are looking at averages. so some people's experiences and some states run above average. some will run below it. what you mentioned about people

not being able to find jobs, the average does not really show that. the long-term unemployed question is an interesting one. and long term unemployment has been coming down over the course of economic expansion. it is still elevated compared to the overall unemployment rate. that bears some exploring. host: jane's in seattle. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to clear something up. the unemployment rate for the blacks is zero, so trump is lying about that. when obama was president, trump was consistently saying that the unemployment numbers were lies. who can believe these unemployment numbers with trump, steven mnuchin, and others

manipulating the numbers. there is no way you can prove that the unemployment rate is that low. when trump was running for president, he was saying there were lies, and they are true now. and they always bring up the numbers -- when you cut taxes, the numbers will grow. taxes, hen cut allowed amnesty, which the republicans are against. in one month, we had one million jobs created here the jobs were not created -- there were jobs or people were here, legal, and they just got a social security number. why do republicans not raise the minimum wage, because these low-paying jobs -- there is no way you can prove -- could you pull up some of the comments that trump made about the unemployment rate, how it was crooked when he was running for office? use his own words against him. host: well, let's take the

question you are asking. how do they put together these numbers. who is in charge of it? does the president or the white house have any say in the monthly job reports that come from the bureau of labor statistics? guest: it is a fair question. the labor department, like you said, puts together this report. they have surveyors and work together with the census bureau. toy send these surveys out -- surveyors out to ask the employment status of americans, but what they are seeing and all those different areas. they put this report together, and it is completely done by this government agency, and they publish it every month so we can all look at this data and analyze it. host: matt in baltimore. caller: good morning.

i've been around a long time. i am 92. i am a world war ii vet. this is one of the better economic growths i've seen. first, i would like to comment. the subset of this economic growth is much more important than the overall number. thatubset is non-infrastructure jobs, manufacturing jobs, mining, ,hings that require investment are increasing at a rapid rate. is due, in reduction large part, to service jobs, which require just hire somebody, and they do it. i would like your reporter to please comment on that. host: we will have her respond. guest: thank you. we have actually seen the opposite. , the services sector

of the economy, particularly hiring, but also other measures, jobs are that services doing well. they have slowed some. manufacturing, on the other hand, which accounts for a smaller share of the economy, and economists like to debate how important it is in today's environment, it has seen some pullback due to various global forces. jane, studio city, california. caller: hi. very interesting. we are talking about unemployment hits a low, but people are working for five jobs just to survive. thead somewhere that if minimum wage had kept pace with the economy, it would be something like $35 a month -- i

mean an hour. people are begging for a lousy $15. this is a false way to gauge how the economy is doing. our streets are crumbling, our bridges are crumbling. nothing is being done. and we are talking about the unemployment rate. it is sad and pathetic. host: so does the labor department look at how many jobs people have, to her point, that people are working two or three jobs? guest: yes. the labor department looks at what is called multiple job holders. i have not looked at that statistic in recent months, so i cannot speak to it. but to the broader point of are we looking beyond just the unemployment rate, absolutely. so there are all of these different measures.

one is called the broader measure of unemployment, and it measures not just those who are who areed but those part-time and are working -- and are looking for full-time jobs. or those who are too discouraged to look for work. that rate has fallen to the lowest level since 2000. host: renea, west chester, pennsylvania. what i wanted to say is that the unemployment numbers are low because the baby boomers, most of them are retired or semi retired, which means they are retired and working a part-time job. if they lose that part-time job or whatever, they are just going to rely on their unemployment -- they are not going to rely on unemployment. they will just get another part-time job. and what the other caller said is true.

a lot of people are working multiple jobs. where i live in pennsylvania, two-bedrooms,h and $10 an hour would not pay for a closet here. and a lot of places in america. a lot of the workers in america are underpaid. the wages are stagnant. and they bring a lot of people here to work from other countries with working visas, and i do not get that. i hear the other -- all the time how people are put out of their jobs by people from overseas, and i do not understand that. host: your thoughts? guest: lots to chew on. first of all, you bring up to the boomers, which is an interesting point. we often times talk about the boomers in context with what is happening with the labor force participation rate, their share of americans working or looking for work. because the overall headline

participation rate includes baby so those ages 16 and older has been stagnating, but that is generally a good sign, because we know that baby boomers are retiring. that would put down road -- downward pressure on that rate. another thing to look at is the prime age participation rate, which largely excludes baby boomers. it is those of working age, 25 to 54, and that rate has been going up in recent years. you also brought up the topic of the cost of living and wages, which is interesting. costs for things like housing have been going up several years. outpacingny cases, wage growth. that has made it hard for a lot of americans to afford housing. host: which demographics are

benefiting from the low unemployment rate? look at versus black, versus hispanic, etc.? guest: we have seen that those who were traditionally left behind earlier on in the economic expansion has been benefiting more. saw includes, yesterday, we , like i mentioned, the underemployment rate falling to the lowest level since 2000. the unemployment rate for 3.0% -- fellfell to 3.0%, the lowest for records there. education, with less a high school dropouts, the jobless rates for that group has also been trending downwards. an important caveat is the school rate for high

dropouts is still elevated compared to those with a college degree, but it has been falling quickly, and that is a signal that employers are hiring people who they traditionally were not considering. host: the president yesterday addressed the latest jobs report. here is what he had to send. [video clip] >> the unemployment numbers just came out. they're the best numbers we have had in over 50 years. the unemployment number is down to 3.5%, so that those way, way back. we have not had numbers like this in a long time. .ages are up by almost 3% it has been a fantastic increase for everybody out there working. we are very happy about those numbers. the stock arc is substantially up, as it was yesterday. our country is doing well.

europe is not doing well. asia is doing poorly, to do it mildly. we continued to do it well. but the unemployment number just came out, 3.5% unemployment. that is a tremendous number, the lowest and over 50 years. so happy. and it will be very important -- wages are out. werei was running, wages nowhere. they were going down. people or having two or three jobs and were making less money than they were 20 years before. now, wages are up. -- of thepresent president saying wages are up 3%. september of 2019, the average our earnings are down one sent to $28.09. since september 2018, hourly earnings have increased 2.9%. can you explain more? guest: we often times look at the annual measure, the monthly

data can be volatile -- it is good to look at everything. it's an interesting question. they are still growing but they are not growing as fast as they were in previous months. 2.9% figure, the was, according to some economists, a bit disappointing, given that we were seeing up 3% wage growth for several months. oftakes the broader question why does this even matter? why should we even expect wages to be picking up? well, it matters because if wages are growing quickly, then american consumers are probably feeling good. they are likely to go out and spend at stores. and with regards to why we should expect this, we are in a

pretty tight labor market. unemployment fell to 3.5%. that employers are competing fiercely for workers, and that they would have to ramp up wages to both attract and retain employees. host: does the president get credit for the economy right now? credit orresident get blame for how the economy is when you have to look at months and years of data? guest: it is difficult to establish a connection between a president or policies and what is going economy. andave to look at the data think of it in those terms. host: what about the tax cuts the republicans past?

has that impacted the economy, and does it show up in the data? year, what we saw last which was the first full year, where the tax cuts went into effect was last year was by many measures a very good year for the economy. hiring was strong. upswing, andon the manufacturing was doing pretty well. some economists attribute that to what we call fiscal stimulus, i.e. the tax cuts. we have seen slower growth this year. it is hard to know whether that is because the boost from the tax cut, if there was one, is fading, or it is part of the areral process of where we in the economic expansions. host: we are asking all of you

to give us your reaction on the latest in the economy, but also what is it like where you live? david in detroit, michigan. go ahead. caller: thank you, greta. we love you in detroit, michigan. i want to thank your guest, sarah, for coming on. i feel like if i listen long enough, i will hear my question answered. technically, it was. one of the former individuals who called ask sarah, well, if we have an economy, and people are working two or three jobs, how does that factor into the finite matrix of the unemployment? because even here in detroit, where gm is on strike, you are still having industry that is impacted by the economic forces. for instance, myself. real -- i have

not really been employed, employed. i am an adjunct professor, that is part-time. hiring part-time individuals, and we are not really offering in the way of full-time, with full-time benefits. we won't even talk about jobs with a pension anymore. i last final thought is that isn though our president 3.5, we are still seeing, if you look at the numbers, sarah, we are still seeing a distraction that the economy and jobs are not being added with the same robustness of 44was at the last term , president of 44. host: do the numbers bear up to what david was saying?

-- david, you bring up an interesting point on multiple job holders. i would like to look into that number a little more, but if you look broadly at all of the different unemployment measures we talked about for demographic groups, if you look at the sector by sector job growth, you are right that there are definitely pockets of slowing, , generally, yesterday's jobs report was a pretty solid report. host: let's go to charles in tallahassee, florida. charles, good morning. caller: great, great. good morning, greta and sarah. i just want to put out three facts, and, sarah, tell me if i'm wrong. first of all, trump is

benefiting from obama's policies from this economy. what essence, -- i guess i'm trying to say is this is a benefit of what obama did in his policies for eight years. trump has benefited from it. like everything else that is good, he hijacks it. everything that is bad, he projects it on others. job growth was increasing under obama at a faster rate than what it is doing now under trump. unemployment was decreasing at a faster rate under obama. am i wrong about that? with jobd in inflation growth, you will see that everything was better, including the economy, under president obama. thank you. host: sarah chaney? guest: it is very hard to establish a connection between a president's policies and what is

happening in the economy. you bring up an interesting point, though, that if you're president, hypothetically who steps into office right after a recession, of course the economy is doing poorly then. as opposed to if you stepped into office five years into an expansion. host: mike. houston, texas. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: here is an economic principle i would like to share, your pay raise in regard to the minimum wage, your payraise comes effective when you are. when your skills go beyond -- which is good. and you are 20 years old, you are learning the fundamentals of getting to work on time, working with others, at whatever age. but entry-level people don't $40,000, $50,000 a

year because they are working part-time and full-time. they are going to school. it is a natural extension their payraise will be effective when they develop their skills. second point, new mexico's annual revenue, state revenue, is way up. way up because of manufacturing jobs, specifically in the oil and gas sector. that is directly attributable to donald trump. .rump deserves that credit and income is up under trump, it just is. and the new normal was the phrase under obama, the people were not actually making more money, they were just literally at flat line income. up,facturing jobs are way and that means more oil and gas. lowerou have prices on oil and gas, it affects the poorest americans the most area host: any thoughts -- americans the most. host: any thoughts?

guest: lots of interesting thoughts there. in particular what i can speak to is unemployment and job trends by age group. it is interesting that team labor force-- teen participation has been on a downward trend for a couple of decades, especially during the summers. is the teen summer job even alive anymore, given the fact so many teens nowadays are taking summer classes during those months where you might have typically had summer jobs at a fast food restaurant or something like that? host: to our calling michigan. caller: good morning. we appreciate c-span. i support president trump. i am a real democrat, but we have such a great economy in michigan.

we believe in taxing automation robots, artificial intelligence, and so forth. we also believe in national capitalism to create real wealth. here in west michigan, we have millions of dollars worth of oil and so forth. we will become like north dakota with our booming economy, so thank you for your learnable program. good luck in washington, d.c., and at c-span. host: what are you and other economic reporters watching for in the weeks and months on the economy? guest: we will definitely be watching for any signs of slowdown or pickups and resilience. economies overseas, like the asia,one, and parts of have been slowing.

given how interconnected the remains toomy is, it be seen to what effect the u.s. will all of those factors, the slowing global growth, ricochet back to the u.s. we will be watching a lot of different metrics to see how that plays out. and you fracturing is a really important one because the sector so globally exposed. if you are a manufacturer, you are both exporting and importing different products, so tariffs are definitely something that impact a lot of manufacturers and has a lot of economists iffs in the trade war have been underpinning some of what is happening overseas and in the u.s., so we will be watching to see how all of this shakes out. host: you can follow sarah chaney's reporting if you go to the wall street journal at.

host: next, we will talk to university of virginia sabato's crystal ball's management and how impeachment could impact election 2020. announcer: saturday night on book tv at 11:00 p.m. eastern -- >> if we don't tell our own stories, others will tell them for us. and they won't have the same care and concern that we do. and what happens? this is an important thing for all of us. i am a privacy advocate. -- it was very hard actually harder to tell this story, to tell my story that it was to come forward and actually risk my freedom and potentially my life to tell the world about everything that was going on. announcer: former national

security agency contractor edward snowden talks about exposing the u.s. government's mass surveillance program and going into mass exile in his book "permanent record." sunday, live at noon eastern, in-depth with emily klein. >> this is the hottest summer on record. we have never had so little arctic sea ice. we are losing huge slots in the amazon. we have lost much of the great barrier reef. these are the major features of our planet. the arctic, the amazon, the great barrier reef. and we are, as my friend says, breaking them. announcer: she talks about her books, which include "on fire: the burning case for degree new deal," "and the shock doctrine." join the conversation live with and phone calls, tweets, facebook messages.

on afterwards, in his latest book "deceiving the sky," columnist bill gerdes talk about anna's efforts to become economic and global superpower. he is interviewed by the former secretary of state for mobile affairs. >> everyone is looking at the chinese economic threat. as you mentioned, the white house was very successful in highlighting this threat. they issued a report with the title called "china's economic aggression," and there was a huge policy fight with the bureaucrats, saying, we cannot say economic aggression. when you read the report, you understand why. announcer: watch booktv every weekend on c-span2. "nnouncer: "washington journal continues. host: at our table this morning, kyle kondik, the managing editor at university of virginia's sabato's crystal ball. have you seen this inquiry

impacting the campaign yet on the federal level, presidential level, and down the ticket? guest: we are really just at the start of the process, so we have to look at it more. we have seen democrats have coalesced around the idea of impeaching the president. previously, support for impeachment was low, in part because i think there was a small but significant number of democrats taking their cues from policy leadership by not supporting removing the president. the speaker pelosi and parties coalesced around the idea, you have seen almost every democratic member of the house, not every single one, but almost every single one, coalesced around this effort. i think the base has gotten the message that it is time to move ahead on impeachment. you have seen immigrants becoming more supportive of impeachment. independent -- you have seen democrats becoming more supportive of impeachment. independents has been a mix.

republicans were sort of opposed to impeachment prior to basically the ukraine story. in terms of the political impact, i think it is hard to see, but i think for democrats, it is reassuring to some degree that they come out more forcefully for impeachment, and public opinion has moved, particularly amongst democrats. if that did not happen, it would be assigned the democrats are still going too fast, but they are getting positive signs from polling. host: what did you make of it when those nine freshmen had won districts president trump had won and came together on the ukraine story and said they were for impeachment now? guest: felt it was not a good idea. the speaker works with vulnerable members in mind, which is a smart way to run a caucus, because if you don't

look out for your most vulnerable members, you may not be speaker and a couple of years. we have seen a number of national security-oriented democrats, from moderates, which leads me to believe they suggest there was something different about this ukraine story that was different and was more warranted for impeachment, or rather, it would have been easier to sell impeachment to the public than over the mueller report. host: react to this headline -- "politico," september 25 "democrats fear impeachment blowback 2020, some think idc spectacle will play into trump's election strategy." guest: there is some risk involved. we always bring up clinton's impeachment and richard nixon probably would have been impeached had he not resigned, but it is not comparable to those instances because we are seeing impeachment pursued in advance of a one term president

trying to win a second term, whereas axon and clinton were both in their second elected terms. they could not run again, so it was a different calculation. publics a part of the who believe the public should ultimately decide this in november 2020. i think what democrats would say he is given the gravity of what the president is doing, namely trying to get foreign assistance in his own political goals, that at in and of itself is a threat to the election itself, at least indirectly, and that may be sort of pushing their hands on impeachment. host: "atlantic" headline -- "the risks of impeachment are overblown." guest: it might be in particularly because you have seen public move on impeachment, but that said, if you look at the polls in general, i think there is still a small,

significant number, of the people who don't approve of the president but not necessarily removing him either. if you look at the general electoral map and you think back to 2016, the president was able to win despite not winning the popular vote. his approval rating is only in the low 40's and disapproval is over 40. even with the president's demographic advantages in the swing states, he is losing the national popular vote by high single digits, he is not going to win. if they look more like impeachment polling numbers, or maybe it is favored by only a few points, then it is a trickier question as to whether the democrats can win or the president gets reelected. i think there is some tricky ground here, but we have to remember there are new developments coming out of the story all the time. there may be a new one coming out while we speak on the air. it has been a fire hose of news. i think what democrats are hopeful for his this inquiry

allows them to dig up more, and also there is more to dig up, which based on recent reporting, it seems i get may be the case. host: how have you seen -- what were the numbers before this ukraine story on impeachment and how have you seen them change? guest: different polls have different answers. let me bring up one quinnipiac national poll. they pulled impeachment recently and found 57% opposed, 37% support. pretty stark difference. then they came back earlier this week and it was 47%-40 7% tied. 7% tied. -- 47%-40 some polls suggest impeachment is not overwhelmingly favored but outright favored. sawhat quinnipiac poll, you democrats consolidating around impeachment and removal around the president. use all republicans overwhelmingly opposed but maybe not as much as before. and independents were slightly

opposed but different polls say different things on that. 538, the politics website, they started and impeachment polling average. i looked at it before i came in here. they basically found it was roughly tied in terms of whether people wanted to impeach or remove the president or to let him stay in office. host: what if it gets about 50%? guest: if we start to see more consolidation around removal -- look, to actually remove the president, you will need 20 republican senators. it is not even clear to me that every single democratic senator today would vote to convict president, if there were a trial in the senate. however, if public opinion starts to move, that would probably mean that a larger and larger slice, not just of independents, but republicans would come out in favor of impeachment, and politicians can read polls. so that would help republicans

believe if they don't move to impeach, then that very well could cost them the white house in 2020. what we are talking about here get to aublicans point where they feel like donald trump does not give them their best chance to win the white house in 2020? are they better off nominating someone else? there are two pieces of the structure of impeachment and removal. trial,val in the senate first of all, you need two thirds vote to convict. there is also a separate vote that would bar removed president for running for reelection. i believe that is just a majority vote. there was actually an interesting op-ed in "politico" magazine recently that suggested maybe the senate could remove the president but allow him to run for reelection. so he would not be able to use the white house for personal benefit, but he could run for reelection of people wanted to vote him back in. it is difficult to imagine a

republican defeating this president and a republican primary, no matter what happens. i bring this up to say i don't know the answers, but just to see the moving pieces that are potentially a part of it. if the republican base stays solid, then that will be a message to republican leadership to stay solid for the president, and then it becomes difficult to remove him. host: let's get our viewers involved in the conversation. the impeachment inquiry impact on election 2020. the publicans, (202)-748-8001. -- republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. what are the president's numbers right now in general election matchup? guest: generally speaking, reading democrat -- in the leading democrats, joe biden usually does better, but he is losing nationally to bernie sanders, kamala harris, elizabeth warren.

numbers,per blowout although, some polls are indicative of that and some are mixed. i would say those polls are not really predictive at this point. look, i think they are suggestive of what you might expect. president's approval rating is stuck in the low 40's. we have to remember that the president won in 2016 in large part because he was able to win a larger share of voters who held an unfavorable view of trump and hillary clinton. trump and clinton were both really unpopular. according to the national exit poll, 1/5 of the electorate had a negative view of them. according to the exit poll, trump won 47% to 30%. as much as we talk about trump's base super solid, and his people will never go against him -- i think that is true for a lot who voted for him -- but i don't think it is true for every

single person who voted for the president. take it with a grain of salt because the polls are not necessarily predictive this early on, but the president for instance, infor fox news polls, the president may be low 40 in terms of approval, but against democrats, he is running below that. in those polls, there are a small number who are not ready to say they support him yet. generally speaking, the approval number is a good proxy for what then comment president would expect to get. this president needs to raise his approval, but it is not even clear at this point every single person the approves of him is ready to vote for him. that is a challenge. the president has assets. we saw earlier this week republican national committee with the president doing a great job fundraising. the president was outgunned in 2016 in terms of resources. he may have an advantage in 2020

and the earlier part of the process, when democrats are spending all the money on the primary. so he is going to be able to run a more robust campaign than he did before, but i also wonder about the actual campaign effects of that money, are clearly in a presidential race where people are already so motivated. they already know generally how they feel about the president. i think money makes a difference down the ballot when the candidates are not quite as well-known. host: you saw elizabeth warren bring in some big money in this last quarter. go -- sanders just let just discharge from the hospital after suffering a heart attack, and joe biden is part of this ukraine story. this: so the big story of calendar year, if you go back to january, a lot of it has been stable. joe biden has been the polling leader at about 30%.

he got a spike when he announced and it faded. --seems like pete buttigieg i feel like when pete buttigieg rose, beto o'rourke dropped, but both are pulling in single digits generally. harris spiked at a point but she has fallen off. elizabeth warren started at 4% or 5% at the start of the year, and now she is 20% or higher, to the point where i think it is fair to look at her as a co-front runner with bernie sanders and third at this point. the other thing that is great for warren and bad for biden is biden's supporters are african-american, and he does really well amongst african-american respondents in polls as opposed to white voters and even other nonwhite voters, iowa and new hampshire, in the early contest, both of those states are merely white. we will be leading off with

states not favorable to biden. hillary clinton had a similar coalition. she was nearly blown out in new hampshire, but it did not interiorly affect her, but biden is also not nearly as strong as clinton was this time four years ago. new: let's go to dominic york. independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you? i am going to get to two points. number one, they have been impeaching the president since day one. i wish you were hearing that adam schiff read a transcript of a phone call to the intelligence guy that was subpoenaed. that was alive. they are doing everything to destroy this president because they do not want him to win again. there is no way he could lose. you are talking about giving obama credit. obama having to do with the tax cuts and job cuts.

i remember [indiscernible] listen, you want to stay in mexico, god bless you. couple of things that he brings up i want you to respond to. he says, where would the president lose? guest: well, i think that if in fact the president does not win reelection, in terms of pattern of support, he would probably do worse in suburbs and big cities than he did in 2016, and probably would lose a little bit, not a ton, off of his imposing margins in the landrban midwest and part areas, which were so important to him. i would not be so confident if i were the caller and the president winning again, that i think it is basically a 50-50 proposition. i do think the president is helped by the fact that we did

get another good economic report yesterday, and that we are in a time of general peace and prosperity. normally, you would think in a time of peace and prosperity, you would have a president with an approval rating over 50%, and they would be more clearly favored for reelection. a lot of people will say, the president could do all this stuff, he never pays a price for it. i would argue he does because his approval rating does not have to be as low as it is. if you look at midterm, the democrats did not have to win 40 seats in the house. yes, historically, the president's party struggles in the midterm, but i think that was a negative reaction to the way the president behaves in office. certainly it is hard to argue the president is losing support over the ukraine story because his approval rating, while generally weak, is not visibly bad, not like george w. bush at the end of his presidency.

so it has been stable, but it has also been stable and weak. it does not have to be that way, but the way that the president he hates a lot of the time i think keeps or exerts a downward pressure, when otherwise, some of the things that are going on in the country, something's the caller host: let's go to dallas texas, mary, a republican. i would like to bring up a house member that took an impeachment vote shortly after he was put in as president. i would like to know what the american people would think of that, of four years of impeachment. i will take it off air. guest: i'm not sure what is

being referred to there. the previous caller said he felt the democrats were trying to him peach the present the whole time but i feel there's the way the two system works. the two sides aggressively try to hold each other accountable. host: texas, democratic caller. gladys. >> this president has been corrupt from day one. everything he puts his hands on, it crumbles. look what he did to immigrants. he's talking about putting alligators and snakes. come on. glenn in lancaster pennsylvania republican. >> god bless donald trump he is the hardest working president we have ever had. party in the new

world order have been after him since before he was elected. fbi, the mueller as a trap trying to the fbi thatwith did not look at where the , the hillaryfrom people in the ukraine. doing besidesbi him and the cia going after a duly elected president by the american people. fascist that you c-span.ch include

we watch them live before they read the thing. it pass it to see what is in . they're all corrupt. glenn's distrust of what is happening here in washington, d.c. of the media. what is the ramification of that? guest: one thing i think the president is a genius at, is that he understands what republicans do not like. there is a phenomenon in american politics, emory universe three -- university professor has a term for it called negative partisanship there a lot of voters on both sides who basically hate the other side more than they like their own side. i think of particular for republicans, repugnance have suffered for along time going back to the nixon administration and spiro agnew, as being

extremely critical of the press and claiming with come i think some evidence over theirs, that the press has a liberal bias. and i would say particularly on issues of cultural liberalism versus cultural conservativism. i think it is fair to say that mainstream press is probably more culturally liberal. again, i think they are reasonable criticisms -- there are regional bulk criticisms here. but the republicans have gone so overboard on their criticism of the press that they essentially do not believe anything the press is reporting, even when a lot of the stuff is very much backed up. however adam schiff has handle his job and whoever the press has handled the reporting of a story about ukraine, the president was out there the other day saying he was asking on camera, foreign governments to essentially investigate bidens, witches, thick a lot of

people would say is totally inappropriate. i think a lot of people would say it is totally inappropriate. you do not need to read the whistleblower report or need to know what party the whistleblower is a part of to be able to look at that video i to be able to say, boy, we have heard from republicans including that romney that that sort of behavior is inappropriate the question is, is it impeachable and is it -- doesn't merit removal. with every other american, it is basically up to the court to decide if we have committed a crime. but the president to my thinking, and i'm not a legal scholar so maybe people would disagree with this, i do feel like a sitting president is effectively about the law. abovengress can-he is not congress is locked. so if congress decides they have committed a crime they can remove them. aen if they haven't or if court would not convict them. and vice versa, maybe the president will convict a crime but if congress does not believe

that he has or does not remove him, it effectively does not matter as long as he is in office. this is an important thing to think about as we go down this impeachment passes that the president come at me, and to a lot of people is legally of a different classification than basically any other american. which makes it an interesting process. a trial in theis upper chamber, who might feel the heat? let me take a step back and one of the trends in american politics is that everything is nationalized. a lot of kind of interesting distinctive regional voting patterns have disappeared. you see all these big urban counties moving toward the democrats even ones that were historically republican like orange county and california or maricopa county in phoenix, arizona. and a lot of other places. and a lot of rural areas and small cities are moving sort of more toward the republicans. the power of incumbency is not

nearly as invaluable to house and senate members as ease debate. and presidential results have become more predictive. in the nationalized political environment i would think impeachment is as nationalizing an event as you can have your literally putting a sitting president on trial and members of the house and senate will have to make an actual vote, potentially, as to whether they think that person should stay in office or not. votesople who have hard are the ones who are on the wrong side of presidential politics in their given state or district. an obvious person you would think of would be doug jones a democratic senator from alabama who was elected in december, 2017. jones is in a state that donald trump won by 28 points he's already an underdog to win reelection. i think he would have a hard time with the senate acquittal or conviction vote. because somebody is going to be upset however he ends up voting. to me it is reminiscent of the

brett kavanaugh vote. where a lot of democratic senators found them cells in a tough spot. ultimately, handful of democratic senators and republican states ended up losing. joe mansion ended up voting for kavanaugh and wine. in montana he voted no button up winning as well. it was not this is silly that the vote determined things, but it was a vote i think those senators would've preferred not to have had. on the republican side cory gardner from colorado. colorado is a competitive state that is clearly turning democratic party if that race is super nationalizing is bad for him and also susan collins from maine. maine is a competitive state. clinton only one by three points. but collins used to have a ton of crossover appeal to democrats. i think that has faded. it is not totally gone but has faded with the cabin a vote and a vote on impeachment would nationalize her more. a look take a look at

an ad put together by a group called republicans for the role of law for susan collins. senator collins, the president of the united states has requested foreign interference in the election of the united states to benefit himself politically. >> has asked to investigate his political phone joe biden. power. is an abuse of he will not stop unless are republicans like you stand up to say it is wrong. senator collins, stand up for the country and the rule of law. host: what you make of that at? -- that ad? guest: again, i think she would have a hard time with this vote paired maine has traditionally been more democratic but it is a great state to illustrate some of the divisions in american politics. it has two congressional and maine is one of two states along with nebraska that awards electoral's votes not just statewide but also by congressional district.

you have the coastal district with portland and if you are toward it and go to maine, it is beautiful. but a lot of places michael is a tourist are in that first congressional district. -- places you might go as a tourist are the first congressional district. the second, more working class less touristy and less liberal. that district voted for trump. from got an electoral vote maine in 2016. collins has exceeded in part because she has done well in the northern part of the state and attracted crossover support from otherwise democratic leaning voters all over the state and particularly in the first congressional district. if she her crossover support -- if she loses her crossover support she would be in trouble. i do not think that is happened yet. i think she still a small favorite to win but i think she is in the hardest election for thomas senator. senate.er time as

this vote is not something she would look forward to. host: and that says something because she always has a tough race. guest: but she is won convincingly over the years paired even in 2008, she had a good opponent and she still ended up doing quite well. we seem to focus on her. guest: there aren't that many moderates in the senate anymore. is collins a straight on the line moderate? no, she is a republican. but she is less conservative than her caucus. she is one of the few that remain. and joe mansion on the democratic side is her equivalent. host: homer ville, georgia, john, independent. >> yes i've a question involving .rocess because impeachment is such an important procedure. does the house judiciary committee through its chairman

have the right in the present rules of the house, to launch impeachment inquiry absent a full vote of the house? host: let me read from politico to answer your question. impeachment always starts from the house. a sitting speaker of the house must give her approval for impeachment proceedings to begin. they say below that, the house committees investigate and then they write articles of impeachment. if the judiciary approved committee approves articles of impeachment, the full house will vote on the charges against the president. this is why the speaker says, is not required, let's begin this process i have to have a full house vote. she is saying she starts it. she has approved this process. so goes to the committees and they begin to investigate. do you want to add something? guest: not particularly. this has been a dispute between

the republicans in the house and the democrats in the house. but as you state and i'm glad you the article there the legal machinations are tricky. eventually, if the house wants to actually impeach the president, they are going to have to vote on it. and people are going to have to go on the district -- on the record especially members from vulnerable districts. majority 218 a 435 in the house are needed to approve the articles of impeachment present by the judiciary committee. and when it comes to the impeachment vote. guest: at this point it seems clear that not every single democrat is on board of a but you do have enough to produce a majority. also expectld justin amash the former republican now independent from grand rapids to vote for impeachment. i do not know if other republican members of the house republic member's of the house would vote for

impeachment. the depending on how things go you can imagine some coming on board. at this point not that many. after the trial the senate would vote and two thirds are required or 67 of 100 senators. guest: and whomever the math the senate is 5347, that includes to independence from vermont and maine. you need 20 republicans. which they do not have now. some of mitt romney might be persuadable to convict. there may be a few others paired but at this point, i do not see a lot of senators willing to break with the white house that way. host: winslow, new jersey, democratic color. mention would like to that the full house is embodied to call for a vote in order to impeach the president. not nancy pelosi walking up to the microphone like she is eva perrone and having that done.

we do that so the other side has the opportunity to defend themselves and call for subpoena. as far as ukraine, let's see what we have here. you want the president of united states to give somebody a millions more of dollars so that ,e can have joe biden's son nancy pelosi son in 2017 he went there to and she is on a promotional video with the gas company for her son, and john kerry's son. and they are taking money out of what we are giving in tax money, they are taking it out in salary. so you know what we call that in italians, since they like to quote the mafia, i'm going to give you an offer you cannot refuse, ok. that is called money laundering. that is why the president has the right of the chief law enforcement officer of the united states of america to investigate where taxpayer money is going. and that is only the three sons. we do not know what else is going on for all these years. we do not even mention the clinton foundation.

with millions of dollars from with millions of dollars from foreign governments. in the server. don't tell me about the president of united states. he has been accused for three years. and evidence. and kavanaugh was a disgrace. and it is the news media. the news media who does not investigate anything and puts it there in order to trash the person. and speaking of doug jones. had think what happened to roy moore. they put it out from something that happened 40 years ago. and got your democrat in there. theme tell you something, people of united states of america elected donald trump and we elected him to find out the corruption in all of them over there. like adam schiff we do not even mention him. he had whistleblower information. see ann and roger

mod. -- mod saying if you go against the intelligence committee. who are you people talking to? host: hurt your points, we're going to james and look winter, california, republican. >> i'm calling about the polling. you guys are in fantasyland. the polling. those are not accurate. we do not talk to you guys. host: let's talk about that. i think if you look at the polling from 2016, the national polling generally was decent. at the end it showed clinton leading by more certain points. i would also add that the campaign ended poorly for clinton so it may not be that surprising. she would have been may be better off if the election had been earlier.

also, and there was reporting after the election and studies after the election that some of the state level pulse did not do that great of a job because they do not take into account the widening difference amongst white voters in terms of education level and that they over sampled white voters with a four-year college degree and that made electric to see more democratic. that said, i think this idea that made the electorate seem more democratic. that said, i think this idea the president's super popular and election impeachment has no support i think that is fantasyland. even if you want to quibble with paul's, the midterm did offer a good barometer. and the midterm was a strong rejection of the president. in places that were middle-of-the-road or democratic leaning. republicans did pick up to senate seat's and that was largely in dark red states. the also won florida which i think was impressive for the republicans.

generally the midterm helps confirm the reality which is that the president is not dead in the water but he is also not popular, broadly speaking. host: dan in flint, michigan, independence. >> i agree with the woman who calls a couple calls ago. i have been watching this whole impeachment process. biased.s just so i watched cnn last night and debbie dingell the representative from detroit was on and she was a no vote on appeasement. she said she had so much pressure from tom steyer and moveon.org. she was forced to change about ts. and i believed debbie dingell is i feel she has honest i probably would not vote for her but i feel she is honest. i think she does a good job as far as the bidens, when

evidence, joe biden. host: i'm went to live there so we can focus on what you're talking about, the pressure democrats are feeling from outside groups like tom steyer, who put a lot of money behind the impeachment movement early on. guest: i think for a long time the speaker helps shield some of in more vulnerable districts from that pressure. but again, look, democrats by and large want this president out. they feel he is illegitimate. that he has committed crimes in office. again, republicans may not agree with that. andthere is also feeling the speaker expresses in the past, that we should do this in the election. but the ukraine story was different. and i think it changed some opinions. in terms of the outside pressure, the democrats were doing a good job in the sense that they were not being pushed into it by activists but the

events changed to such a point where they felt like they had to get involved. now, do the activists pushing help them get to that point? potentially. but they were resistant to that until the ukraine story. host: peter in florida, democratic collar. >> hi thanks for having me. onike to make a few comments trumpcare. what is he going to do with all this national secrets and how things are run there in the white house. that is what i'm afraid of. i'm afraid that after his term or if he gets impeached, that all this information that is released to him, we know that he is doing this for his own gain. what about afterwards? how do we protect ourselves from something like that? well not in surly legal

expert in what would happen after. guest: we do know that if the president loses in 2020, he will say that the vote was illegitimate. i feel very confident in saying that. because he basically suggested the boat was illegitimate and 26 teen in which he won. and, you know, i think you would continue to be out of office whether it is 2020 or 2021 or 20 25. i think he would continue to be a lighting rod figure as someone who got a lot of intention -- attention. what he would do with the things he knows, who knows. abouts something to think in terms of the future here, be at 2020 or 2024. host: mike in sumter, south carolina, republican. >> ma'am, how are you. what i would like to know is on these polls, and ever since the first election, they had donald trump losing.

-- thato bed that not night, they had donald trump losing. where are you getting your information from? who are you pulling? i have never been asked. i'm a black man in south carolina. i've never been asked on a pole. i've never seen them in south carolina. host: ok, let's take that. guest: a lot of things going to polling. it is a challenging industry. first, the traditional gold center polling is done through telephone calls. increasingly a lot of people just have cell phones now. various legal reasons it is more expensive to call cell phones. so there are a lot of national pollsters who do that. and they end up having to make a ton of calls just to get the requisite number of respondents, whether 500 what have you. you have posters doing work online which is where i think the future is.

and there are various ways in which they are recruited or to get into the polls. thell say that pulling at end nationally generally reflected what happened. i think that clinton had bigger leads at various points. i think there are lessons for reading polls from 2016 as well. not only were their fair number of undecideds in 2016. because again, clinton and trump had fairly poor favorability numbers. the more undecideds there are nepal, less confident we should be that it definitively will show a leader. 2016, -- unless that person is a by 15 points or 20 point break in 2016 we had gary johnson a libertarian hood some times getting 10%, jill signed the green party candidate was getting half that are less than half that. we know from polls that third-party candidates almost

toys pole better than perform on election day. you have a combination -- almost always perform better in polls than on election day. put it all together and there probably should've been more uncertainty about the polling otherwise. a lesson i take and other people should take, people in the press or those who observe politics. host: let's talk about the house races p which ones are you watching? guest: i think a lot of the races are interesting are people who are in the news. alyssa slotkin in michigan's eighth congressional district. she is one of these national security democrats who had to be pushed along on this impeachment until she decided she wanted to support it. republicans are looking for a candidate in that seat. mike bishop the former republican incumbent a lot of people want him to run and he does not seem all excited about doing it.

republicans did get, there been a number of candidate announcements over the past week in some places. washington's eighth congressional district that is kind of a classic swing district the democrats captured in 2018 after failing to capture it in previous elections. there are 31 democrats in districts that donald trump carried in 2016. the republicans need to win about 20 seats to in the house back. and those 31 trump district democrats are the ones you think they would target because, i mentioned the nationalization of politics. if the president could win reelection and he well knows district he might be able to care enough republicans to victory to win the house. another person max rose a democrat who won the district that covers staten island. conservativismof in the midst of a very liberal democratic new york city. rose came out for the

impeachment inquiry after resisting it. staten island is a place with the president is probably wholly up decently well in popularity. that is a seat i think you're trying to figure out the seats were puppet in sneads when the house, that is probably one to look at. members sticking their neck sounded impeachment he may be did not want to do that but they feel it is important enough that when it is all set and done it will benefit them. but it is an open question. host: you can go to center for politics. org for the crystal ball. kyle, thank you for the conversation. we will take a quick break. when he come back we will route turn to our question we asked you. did president trump commit an impeachable offense. didou think you 202-748-8000 if you say no 202-748-8001 this week i newsmakers we sat formerth jim greenwood

republican congressman who is forthe president and ceo biotechnology innovation organization paired we talked about drug prices and possible legislation. it aired sunday at 10 a clock a.m. and six cop p.m. eastern time. here's a bit of that interview. theou hear constantly phrase skyrocketing drug prices. it is a complete misnomer. don't take my word for it, this is what the white house just said recently. in the last 12 months, the average price of drugs in this country has diminished, is going down .7%. drug prices are not as a whole increasing. they're actually going down. the system works is some prices go up as long as appear to time when the drug is on its patent. when the patent ends it becomes a generic drug and the price drops dramatically. 90% of all the prescriptions

people take are generic. its not the case that drug prices on the whole are escalating. when you look at what the pelosi builders, it would absolutely, and this is not exaggeration. it would destroy the future of medicine. what it says is, what we are going to do is take a set of ands that cost some money have some federal bureaucracy determine what the price of those drugs is going to be. imagine yourself as an investor today. you're looking at 10 companies he might invest in all 10 of them. you know you will lose your money on nine but maybe one of the 10 will become a product that gets through the fda and gets approved. you're going to risk a lot of money in that endeavor. anticipate ifto you're lucky enough to get one approved, a bureaucrat somewhere is going to tell you with the price will be. how could you ever invest under those conditions? you cannot. you have to know at the end of

you get your productur approved you can set a price that will allow you to recover your expenses. the plosive bill does not do that. and it is so unnecessary. and it is so destructive of the hope that patients have when they consider the new sciences available. announcer: washington journal continues. host: we are back this morning. we will end on washington journal where we began. do you think president trump committed an impeachable offense. the latest on the impeachment inquiry from the associated press. the impeachment probe reaches into white house with new subpoena. democrats asking the white house for documents, all documents related to ukraine. you also have the vice president getting a subpoena from house democrats. they want from him all ukraine documents. also this morning, the business insider has the story from the new york times second intelligence official is considering filing a whistleblower complaint about trump and ukraine.

this one with more direct knowledge of the phone call, according to the new york times. then the washington examiner saying that the secretary of state failed to provide ukraine documents by house subpoena deadline, which was yesterday. president trump thursday asked by a reporter, what specifically did you want out of that phone call with the ukraine later? here's how he responded. >> while i would think that if , theyere honest about it would start a major investigation into the bidens. it is a very civil answer. they should investigate the bidens. because how does a company that and all these companies, if you look at that, and likewise, china. china should start an investigation into the bidens. because what happened in china is just about as bad as what happened with ukraine. president say that zelensky if it were me, i would

recommend that they start an investigation into the bidens. because nobody has any doubt that they were not crooked that was a cricket deal 100%. he had no knowledge of energy, did not know the first thing about it. all of a sudden he is getting $50,000 a month, plus a lot of other things. nobody has any doubts. prosecutort rid of a who is a very tough prosecutor. they got rid of him. now they are trying to make it the opposite way. so if i were the president i would certainly recommend that of ukraine. [indiscernible] >> i haven't but it is something we could start thinking about. because i am sure that president xi does not like being under that kind of scrutiny were billions of dollars are taken out of his country by a guy that just got kicked out of the navy. he got kicked out of the navy,

all of a sudden he is getting billions of dollars. you know it they call that echo the call that a payoff. host: president trump early thursday morning. later in the morning the intelligence chair adam schiff, democrat of california responded 20 heard from the president. >> once again, the president of united states suggesting urging foreign countries to interfere in our present elections. an illustration that this president has learned anything from the two years of the miller investigation, it is that he feels he can do anything with impunity. the president of the united states encouraging a foreign nation to interfere in the campaign by investigating a rival is a fundamental breach of the presidential oath of office. it endangers our elections, it endangers our national security. it ought to be condemned by every member of this body, democrats and republicans alike.

host: did the president commit an impeachable offense. robert says yes and south easton, massachusetts. is that where you're coming from? robert echo ok, go ahead. >> he should not be impeached. the only people to straighten this whole thing out is the atomic cleanup veterans. john and sanht, antonio, you say no. >> yes i just want to remind everybody that operation crossfire hurricane was --dicated on the dossier steele dossier which is russian disinformation, opposition research. so i do want to hear from democrats, oh trump is trying to help get countries to interfere in the election. the biggest election interference is the steele dossier. judy in new york.

you say yes, why echo >> oh yes, he definitely has an should be impeached. my own? -- am i on? host: yes but impeached for what. >> here's the thing at what bothers me is the other side. how they get such information wrong. and run with it. held -- hel, he was withheld funds to ukraine and they're so much already in text messages. why don't they believe our own fbi and our own cia. ok tod they think it is withhold information from congress. congress works for us, the people. they should, they have not done anything wrong they should be willing to give all kinds of information to the congress to prove that they have done nothing wrong. they obstruct.

just the not president. but barr and pompeo and pence. for crying out loud, all of them need to be investigated. and the republicans that call your phone lines and say things that are so untrue and such misinformation about reality, it scares me. what is happening to our country. at least get your information correct. and maybe they should be corrected when they are saying things that are not correct. host: and that is part of the conversation with all of you. you hear something, you call up and you can talk about what you have heard from another caller or disagree or dispute. what they are having to say. stick in ann arbor. -- dicken ann arbor. you say no to impeaching the president. >> he should not be impeached. this is been going on since after he was nominated. i think the democrats are just

looking for something to impeach on. as opposed to here's an act, we are going to impeach him. this is been going on sis before he was elected. in this case, the democrats have the press on their side. the percentage unfavorable press for trump is ridiculous. host: can i ask you to respond to this business insider article. justice department veterans say trump could be accused of raking for laws in the ukraine whistleblower scandal. this is what they say. illegally soliciting campaign help from a foreign government. the most obvious way in which trench could've violated the laws is by soliciting material campaign aide from a foreign government which expressly violates the federal election campaign act of 1971. they also say bribery. the second area of potential legal liability for trump relates to his request that zelensky do him a favor after mentioning that the u.s. does a lot for ukraine. and more portly after zelensky

raises the issue of military right before trump requests he invested biden. the third area is misappropriation. if trump in fact used government funds for his own gain, then there's a very strong argument that there is a theft of taxpayer money or misappropriation. last, conspiracy. if giuliani, bar and other officials were involved in trump's efforts as a complaint alleges, that would raise questions about a potential criminal conspiracy. dix, your response to that? >> my response to that is that everything you've just described really makes the case against trump. and it makes it clearly obvious that these are impeachable offenses. that being the case, i think now is the time for the democrats to bring forth articles of impeachment. it is pre-clear cut as you just described. and then take a vote on them. they will not do it. because once they do it, then the president at his side has

the opportunity to respond. right now does is just the democrats. host: let me just get the line straight here. you called in on no. if you believe that the president has committed an impeachable offense, your line is 202-748-8000 if you say note 202-748-8001 let's not, your line is go to linda. yes he should be impeached. my reasoning is that he has gone outside the united states and is embarrassing the united states by asking help. he did that with russia and now he's doing it again. he is making us a laughingstock. i do not want that for the president. we need a president we can be proud of. host: ok another story new in the wall street journal the reporting republican senator ron johnson wisconsin, that he was told by an american diplomat in august and that the release of

u.s. aid to ukraine was contingent on an investigation desired by president trump and his allies. ron johnson said the u.s. ambassador to the european union , who is going to be testifying next week on tuesday behind closed doors, had described to him a quid pro quo bow involving a commitment by matters related u.s. elections and the status of nearly $400 million in u.s. aid related to requite ukraine that the president had ordered held up in july. he has the chair of the senate subcommittee with jurisdiction and raise the issue with trump the next day in a phone call. on august 31. member that whistleblower filed his or her complaint on august 12. a week later the white house and doj were made aware the complaint. then it went to the acting dni. told thatre that he she raised the issue of mr.

trump the next day, august 31 in a phone call, days before the senator was to meet with cranes president. flap justl, mr. crom flatly rejected the notion that he made a to ukraine contingent on up the new probe. johnson said expletive no way, i would never do that, who told you that. in california, you say no. good morning. >> thanks for taking my call. first, i do not vote for trump. but trump did say he was kinda during the swamp. and it is not surprising the swamp would fight back. especially when they're fighting for survival. anybody tot asked make stuff up on biden. he has asked that they find out the truth of whether biden is involved in corruption which is the same reason the democrats have insisted that trump be investigated for the past two and half years. and is not something the voters should know about.

before they make the decision about whether to vote for the guy. the democrats could be working with trump to get something positive done for the american people. they can agree on infrastructure maybe are reducing drug prices. they could get this you mca past which have been stonewalling because they do not want trump to get credit for anything. but they have turned themselves into a wrecking ball. i do not think that they have a clue about the damage they are doing to our democratic system any more than they had a clue about when they invoked a nuclear option then changed rules in the senate regarding confirmation of federal judges that blew up in their faces and allowed trump to get more judges confirmed at this point in his presidency than any president in history. it is just, they set a new standard for it i wonder if it has occurred to them that if the next president is a democrat that the republicans will follow

the standards and plug in the same tactics that they have employed against trump, obstruct, harass, and php are all going to pay the consequences for what they've have done not just the democrats. host: ok, mark meadows republican enough carline a member of the frame caucus. he has been in washington sitting in on the closed-door depositions being conducted by the house intelligence committee. after more than eight hours of testimony by mr. volcker, who was the u.s. envoy to ukraine who handed over these text messages that we are all learning about. this is what mr. meadows had to say about this testimony print >> what we do know is there was no quid pro quo. it came out over and over and was asked probably 20 different times. we know that in this expert witness's testimony and i would say he is probably the democrats

star witness and the most informed witness, i was certainly a day that i believe that the american people need to see the transcripts. i know that we will be talking with the committee, with chairmanship about that. chairman schiff about that. at american people can witness what we rebel to witness today, they would understand their well served by the president's decisions and i what the president has been able to ukraine over the last several years. if there were an academy award for leading the witness my democrat colleagues would've gone three oscars today. narrativeresting the they were trying to get out of the witness and hopes to be able

to spin it their particular way was not rewarded. [indiscernible] >> is that true? >> i do not want get into the specifics of what was mentioned and there are so whoever's whoever'sout talking about that i'm not sure of the validity of that. i know scott and i want to make sure that we do not get into the specifics of that. commentsl you that any that would indicate there was some the various -- some nefarious purpose on behalf of the president was not backed up by the facts today. host: that was republican mark meadows thursday night. the next day all of us learned about the text messages that mr. volker turned over, that investor bow cushion over to the committee. they were released and are making the front pages of the new york times and the

washington post this morning. conversations between kurt volker, who is at this time the u.s. envoy to ukraine. and gordon sutherland the ambassador to the european union. call, july the phone 19, gordon sutherland says it looks like a potus call tomorrow. i spoke directly to the ukrainian president, get him a full briefing. he's got it. kurt volker says good. had breakfast with rudy this morning, tearing up a call monday. must have helped. what is important is porcelain skeet to say he will help investigation. -- what is important is for zelensky to say he will help investigation. fromr, goodland, heard white house, assuming president xi convinces trump he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will then knell down the visit to washington. good luck. white house trip as a backdrop cording to "new york times two weeks after president trump's , mr.to zelensky president

volker and sutherland discuss whether a statement will be issued. volker, excellent, how did you sway him. sutherland, i'm not sure if i did, i think potus really wants the deliverable. clearly lots of conversations going on. the washington post on their front page notes on september 9, 20 19th, after the whistleblower complaint has been filed, and the white house department of justice has been made aware of it, and it is in the house of the acting director of national intelligence, the washington post notes on some temper ninth, bill taylor the about certain ukraine, as i sat on the phone, i thick is crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. -- gordon sutherland, the president has been crystal clear no quid pro quo of any kind. the president has been trying to evaluate whether the president

is trying to offer the transparency promised during the campaign. i see just we stop the back-and-forth text. you say yes, the president has committed an impeachable offense. why? >> i have been listening to it and it supports my position. i am in attorney and a former federal prosecutor. i'm trying to keep my remarks close to the issue. complaint was found to be credible. by an unimpeachable source. an urgent. a number of attempts were made to block it. irrespective of that, and ask about. -- it has come out. and that telephone conversation to the extent reflected in the memo released fully supports the essence of the complaint. you had on just

recently shows further beyond any real question that there was a quid pro quo. that the president not aid -- forlly sought nate and his election by seeking to obtain negative information about biden, but he also did it in a manner in which the quid pro quo was confirmed by the text. so i do not think that there is much question but the impeachment inquiry should go forward. but at this point i think there's ample to vote in favor of articles in favor -- articles of impeachment. host: i want to as the conversation as we continue with the phone calls. fox news had this headline.

whistleblower did not disclose his contact to adam schiff's committee. the committee saying this was a large not get into contact with adam schiff but a committee aid. and that his identity was not passed along to adam schiff by this committee aid. what the wilson blower did not disclose that contact with schiff's committee to the inspector general. the inspector general for the intelligence community was on capitol hill yesterday behind closed doors testifying to lawmakers as well. the whistleblower complaint and how it was. let's go to marion potomac, maryland per you say yes >> ics. -- i say yes. because the date trump was put into office, the size of the swamp doubled immediately. he is a poster child of

corruption. and it is very ironic that he has tried to blame all this on corruption on the others. why was his conversation with the president of ukraine , in theed in the most the mostre, where confidential material is classified. know, eight out of 20 two people in the republican women committee,blican have resigned because of trump's corruption. lied.y he moved in, he and his lies have been. and also why does he stop people from appearing before congress. he continuously stops them from

testifying. host: i will leave your points there. a program know for all of you, this weekend are c-span cities tour explores the american stories. we feature the history and literary life of rapid city, south dakota on book tv and american history tv at noon eastern. today on noon eastern rapid city offerings including the author of more than president, who takes his downtown for look at the city's life-size statues of our nation's past presidents. can see we are surrounded by the miniatures of the sculptures that are displayed in downtown rapid city. downtown, their full-size have thend we chose to statues depict something about the president's they are not just stationary statues with them standing with their hands in their pockets or on their hips. but it actually shows some thing about the president's lives.

as you see them here in various poses, it tells something about their story. host: make sure to tune in this weekend to book to be an american history tv, as we travel to rapid city, south dakota. and to watch video of rapid city and all the cities we have visited and are c-span cities tour paid you can go to c-span.org/cities tour. back to our conversation, sandra in ohio, you say no. the president has not committed an impeachable offense. believe, even before he was elected. host: sandra you have to turned on the tv and talk to the phone. tvyou have to turn down the and talk through the phone. >> i was saying they have been after him when he announced his nomination. or his candidacy. corruption, our

government has been corrupted threw in before trump his hat. go back through history. i have been a voter since i was 21. i was a was a democrat. -- i was always a democrat but i did voted for whoever i wanted to see in there. but boy, they have sure gone after that man. host: are you concerned at all with that phone call the president may ukraine later. >> no i'm not. call that thehone president made to the ukraine leader. >> nine not, he is the president and he does have to deal with the other top officials of different countries.

so what is the big deal. i have been watching this and watching this. and i have heard his comments. i've heard comments from the ukraine president. and they have read the transcripts. , mean, what more do they want other than him out, and they wanted him out since the day he was elected. host: ok. we will go to bob in minnesota. you say yes, what is your argument. host: ok text messages hear from our viewers. in ohio. impeach trump,t nothing prevents the next president from shopping around the globe to try to get dirt on his next challenger. uniontown,

pennsylvania, thank you c-span in washington journal to show both sides and show both sides. >> on the impeachment i say no, president trump is being misrepresented. inr host: will go to tom bethlehem, pennsylvania. >> good morning. you should not impeach president trump. is, who is leading the impeachment trial. status adam schiff. lie aboutchiff contact with the whistleblower? yes? impeachment trial is over. you need a new person running that impeachment. or forget it. nancy pelosi to remove him. this was trump said not about getting dirt on biden.

this was about rooting out corruption. we have a treaty with foreign countries, with ukraine to do that. and of story. tom, that is what the president set on friday per however when he was asked on thursday specifically what did you want out of the phone call, he said to investigate biden. does that concern you. >> not it all. like i said, his not going after political-provide biden running his president, he is going to root out corruption and ukraine. we are giving them money. you do not want to give money to a country that is going to be corrupt. host: ok. end of story. let us in new jersey. you say yes. >> yes, i think they need to investigate and have an impeachment inquiry. lot ofoing to uncover a

the president doing what he was caught doing on that phone. we, in essence, put a lawless man into the white house. this is what you can expect. his oath says he should faithfully execute the laws of the united states of america. he has not been doing that for the bulk of his term. i read the mueller report. many people dead. but too many, unfortunate cut -- many people also dead. -- many people also did so. impeachable offenses are in the report. we did not need to wait until he got the transcript from the whistleblower. it is pretty clear that he is doing little of his actual duties as president. acted is acting as he has

the whole 70 plus years of his life. i think we need to get to the istom of what exactly he storing in this supersecret server. for national secrets, it seems to be whenever he has violated a law by talking to foreign people about our presidential race. with you me follow-up and others you may be interested . because you are touching on a story on the from pay to the washington post this morning. trumps calls with leaders have long troubled aides. that ing this morning one of his first calls with the head of state, president trump fawned over vladimir putin, telling the man who ordered interference in the 2016 election that he was a great leader and apologize profusely for not calling him sooner. he pledged to saudi officials and another call that he would help the monarchy enter the elite droop of seven aligned

with the world's leading democratic economies. he promised the president peru he would deliver a military cargo plane overnight. a logistical nightmare that set up a herculean scramble in the west wing and the pentagon. analytic call with putin, trump asked the former kgb officer for his guidance in forging a friendship north korea's kim jong-un. starting long before revelations about trump's interactions with ukraine's president rocked washington, trump's phone calls with foreign leaders work and anxiety written set of events for his aides and members of the administration. they were worried that trump would make promises he's not keep, endorse policies the united states long opposed, commit a diplomatic blunder that jeopardizes a critical alliance. robert in california, you say no. your turn. >> reminds me of charles dickens, a tale of two cities pretty of a tale of two countries. vote.r

i am former law enforcement. i never trust whistleblowers. .hey are not worth anything they tend to embellish what they believe in. they are sneaky and i don't trust them. they might be corrupt as some people say but the people that have the most influence on our election is the mexican press, the mexican media during the last election -- may have about 20 million voters that they do that and nobody complains about that. host: robert i'm going to get kevin in. we are short on time. why do you say yes? caller: the president admitted doing so. how does one ignore the fact that he admitted doing it? secondly, i think the