the debate and have 50 different states pull us in different directions. it is not what the structure should be. it is not interstate commerce. it is why we have an interstate commerce clause in my opinion. it is supposed to be governed in trusty traffic. there is no basically intrastate traffic oninternet. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> this morning american conservative union chair discusses the latest on the trump impeachment inquiry. then demand justice co-founder looks at the new term of the supreme court and his group's efforts to push progressive court reforms and later cleveland.com reporter seth richardson discusses how the 2020 campaign is playing out in the battleground state of ohio.

as always, we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. washington journal is next. good morning, it's monday, october seventh, 2019. the house and senate are on recess but if peter and inquiry continues this week with hearings in the house intelligence and foreign affairs committee. president trump is set to hold to bring major campaign rallies this week in minnesota and louisiana. and this morning we will begin by asking for your thoughts about what it means for the country to go through the presidential impeachment. what lessons should be learned from the efforts to impeach residents in and clinton. phone lines set up differently this morning. if you lived through the nixon

impeachment, you can call in at (202) 748-8000. if you lived through the clinton impeachment, (202) 748-8001. all others can call in at (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text message this morning. if you do so, please include your name and where you are from. that's (202) 748-8002 -- that's (202) 748-0003. you can catch up with us on social media, @cspanwj and journal@c-span.org -- and facebook.com/cspan. this is the front page story today in "the washington times," an interview with newt gingrich. gingrich advises trump to follow the clinton example. the story notes that gingrich points to the example of bill clinton, the man he helped impeach in 1998 as someone who successfully navigated that path.

clinton, he look at compartmentalized. he was very disciplined about saying that i am working on the problems of the american people and i am not going to talk about impeachment. gingrich has offered advice to mr. trump since the impeachment inquiry was -- began ." on "face the nation," where bob woodward and peter baker talked about this topic. here is a bit of what they had to say. >> peter, the conventional wisdom that most people seem to have is that looking at what that it with clinton is is a politically losing strategy to go through with an impeachment. is that model applicable here? no sitting president running for reelection has faced impeachment.

>> that's an important point. nixon and clinton were in their second terms and they were not going to face the voters again. we may find that the outcome in congress is similar to the clinton case, in which case you have an impeachment vote in the house along party lines with the opposition largely impeaching the president of another party with an acquittal or dismissal by a senate that connected to a two thirds bipartisan vote. in this case you will have a greater appeals court, the court of public opinion. november of 2020 this issue will have been teed up for the voters to decide. this will tell us about whether he deserves a second term and how the congress handled it. sharply from the introduction, nixon didn't even want to go through the vote on impeachment. he didn't want the indignity of it. >> it's an astonishing moment.

barry goldwater went the senate and republican leaders to see nixon after the smoking gun tape was released. goldwater had carl bernstein and myself up to his apartment. he got out the whiskey and then he got out his personal diary. it was august 7, a couple of days after the smoking gun tape was released. he and the republican leaders went to meet with nixon alone in the oval office and they said -- we are going to let barry goldwater be our sport -- our spokesman. nixon said -- how many votes will i have in the senate? i know i will be impeached. stunning moment when mr. ildwater said "mr. president, counted, there are four very firm votes for you. i am not one of them. the next day nixon announced that he was going to resign.

he was withdrawing from the battlefield. if you look back on it, you know, 45 years ago, he has to letting credit for not the war go on. our question this morning, asking you about your view of impeaching the president and the lessons of impeachments past. bite numbers are split a differently this morning. if you lived through the nixon impeachment effort, (202) 748-8000. if you lived through the clinton impeachment, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. we will get to your calls in just a second, but we want to show you the look at the week ahead from actio's when it comes to the impeachment inquiries going on. tuesday the house is expected to hold a hearing, intelligence and foreign affairs committees along

with the u.s. ambassador will be on capitol hill testifying on friday as the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine. the president is scheduled this to meet with secretary of state mike pompeo. having lunch today, the rallies that we talked about taking place on thursday and friday of this week. likely plenty of action on this front this week and we will get your thoughts on what is expected to be another busy week when it comes to the impeachment inquiry. ray is up first from yorktown heights, new york. good morning. >> nixon got -- caller: nixon got caught red-handed doing a crime. it's amazing that ford pardoned him and he got away with no jail time. host: what lessons should congress take from that today?

caller: what nixon did was a crime, what trump did with a phone call? i don't see that happening. .ost: that was ray ron, san diego, go ahead. caller: thanks her having me on. having lived through the nixon impeachment, clinton, and here we are again, there is one primary lesson i take away as a nobody, which is that nobody in this country is above the law. not a soul. if you are a democrat and you clinton.l to, say, if you are a republican and you feel loyalty because you voted for nixon, we cannot do that. that's the message to congress. there cannot be loyalty to the president.

there must be a uniform adherence and understanding of , of ourtitution separation of powers. we have to step back from our emotions and just understand what the truth is. we have to listen to all sides of every story. thank you for letting me talk. god bless our country. rob in new york remembers the clinton impeachment effort. good morning. when you had that clip and the guy from "the new york times" who does all these things -- host: peter baker. awful. yes, he's just i have seen him on other shows where all they do is just bash the president. i believe that the operation mockingbird, the thing with the media, the fbi and the cia, is going on stronger than ever. you watch the coverage and

everyone is bashing trump a in and day out. take us back to 1998 and the lessons from what you saw back then. the lesson? you can distract and keep congress from doing any kind of work at all by pointing fingers at each other and it's not a good look. we have so many problems in this country that are not being addressed. to get donet more and nothing will get done as long as these parties are in charge. do you agree with newt gingrich and his story from this morning going back to 1998 saying that the lesson was that bill clinton tried to compartmentalize and didn't focus on the impeachment effort every day? that donald trump should do more of that and not talk about it as much? know, i really don't

know. maybe i'm too simplistic, but it comes down to right and wrong. if the bidens did this stuff, it's wrong. if bill clinton did stuff with .his in turn, that was wrong it's not a fine line. there is a real old line between right and wrong. the media is just missing it. i don't know why. maybe it's intentional, but something is going on and we need to get to the bottom of it because independent media is the only one i trust. host: who is independent these days, rob? not,r: believe it or russia today, breitbart, blacklisted news. there are a few. , the front page of the money section takes a look at the stock market and the lessons that might be learned 1974.from 1998 and asking if the specter of impeachment will become another downer for stocks over the

coming months and if the most recent impeachment investigations of u.s. presidents offer a guide in the answer is probably not. you can see the chart there, looking back to 1998, the chart getting in december of 1997, bill clinton impeached by the house in december of 1998 and you can see the stock market as it moved along. to 1974, the chart beginning in october of 1972. it was 1974 in august when richard nixon resigned, but you can see the to stocks slumping amidst the arab oil embargo, ending their in november of 1975 at just the 91.2 mark. getting your thoughts this morning on the lessons of impeachment passed. michael, pennsylvania, lived through the impeachment effort of nixon.

go ahead. caller: thank you so much for taking my call and thank you for c-span. talking about impartial media, i love c-span, it's a great source. i lived through nixon, through watergate. i was somewhat a lot younger at the time, obviously. i was probably a teenager. was impacted me the most, i in my early 20's and what impacted me the most i think was how much time was used up covering this matter as it is today. it's like nothing else is going on in the world. the other thing -- host: you think that happened in the 70's and 1998? caller: yes, yes. it was constant. a constant drumbeat. drumbeat is the right word for media, it waswas

a media circus. i think that is the whole difference. gets on aedia particular subject, they don't echo. the media did like nixon. that is why he was impeached. the media like clinton and there was a lot of resistance from the media to impeaching clinton. so it never rose to what it could have risen too. with clinton there's a lot more than the issue with monica lewinsky. his attorney general only let the focus be on that. how do you think the media feels about president trump? caller: they hate trump to the nth degree. host: how is that -- caller: part of the media, part of the government.

they have become the establishment, the media has become an arm of the government. and i'm talking about the deep state. michael, pennsylvania this morning. getting your thoughts on impeaching a president and the lessons of impeachment passed. the topic came up last week on friday with "the national krakauer. josh here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> looking at historical examples, the support for impeachment for trump right now is significantly higher than it thefor bill clinton during impeachment trial of the 90's or for richard nixon at the beginning of the impeachment hearings that took place in the 70's. so right now, on the one hand you have a base that is sticking with trump no matter what. that is not likely to change significantly. you also have more support for

impeachment than we ever saw face.or clinton have said the reason bill clinton actually thrived lyrically, didn't hurt his party after the very germanic impeachment appearance in his case was because the public was against removing him from office for what he did. right now we are seeing between 45% to 48% of support just for removing trumps from office at this point. would not expect a lot of movement to go that much further. i don't think you will see the number increase dramatically, but look, that's a pretty high number and if you even see a small number of republican voters, that would be a very big disaster for the white house. host: getting your thoughts this morning. you lived -- having lived through impeachments, your thoughts.

connie, you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, i lived through both of those dark and bad days. living through nixon, what i remember and recall standing up for me was number one his reluctance and refusal to turn over the tapes. ,is secretary, rosemary woods erasing the tapes. then when they were released to the public, all the vulgarity that was exposed that he engaged in at the time. then on the day of his departure, when he met with his staff and the crying among his staff, the sad faces. mewas a stunning moment for as a young woman. i was very young. in my early 20's. it was just a stunning moment. didn't -- iinton, i

wasn't too impressed with what was going on with him. what stood out earning his trial -- rather, his impeachment proceedings -- was that his steadfast pronouncement that he did not have sex with monica lewinsky, now looking at both of those two situations, there is no comparison with what trump has done and is doing. he has had a very storied and colored past prior to becoming a president. his whole comportment, his lack of character, his ball garrity. his total anti-rhetoric everything american leads me to what is he still doing in america if he thinks so little

of our country? why is he here? i am for his being impeached. i think the country would fare much better without him here. that is all i have to say, thank you. host: connie in chicago this morning. phone lines, again. if you lived to the nixon inquiry and impeachment, (202) 748-8000 is the number. if you lived through the clinton impeachment, (202) 748-8001. .ll others, (202) 748-8002 we are also checking text and social media as well. this text from maggie -- host: that was maggie in michigan this morning. getting your thoughts as well, the other forms of social media. this is joe this morning --

host: just some of the comments this morning. want to hear from you on phone lines as well. --, lived through the impact nixon impeachment inquiry and resignation. go ahead. caller: this is concerning the next and impeachment only. i'm retired government, afl-cio reporting to a barbershop. we are going to go through a -- the hardback version of a fbi cia director who terrorized years prior to40 that before we make a consensus on the next and impeachment. i don't want to get involved in the other things going on. if this helps you, we are still evolving.

during theported nixon hearings. thank you. host: emily is next. devils lake, north dakota. go ahead, emily. fan of c-span's "washington journal," thank you for being there for us. what i want to say right now is sot people have changed much. it is so negative online, everything you read, the comments everyone makes. during the clinton administration people were in disbelief. there were people that already had the opinion that clinton, because of the sex scandals that have come out when he was running for office that there was something there. but i remember feeling that even if clinton had been engaged in consensual sex, that he should not have been impeached. that it was entrapment. should not have been asked that question. we already know that trump has

been involved in relationships outside of his marriages. the one thing that bothers me about this whole trump thing is, i should say i did not vote for trump, but i am bothered that it has been, from day one, even before he took office, they haven't trying to find reasons to impeach him as president. we are at a point now where even if they do impeach him, i don't think it will cause them to leave office. what i am seeing online, that's where i get most of my news, is that people are being really turned off by what has been going on. not from this moment of impeachment, from the get-go. i'm an independent -- host: people were turned off by the news about it back in the not in thiscaller: way, i'm finding. you had people that were really loyal to the clintons and you had people who were really bothered by some of the sexual

things that had come out. learned about college owns, i think that turned more people against the clintons. but if you notice, i think he became popular because people thought that even if he had been involved and went outside his marriage, he should not have been in trapped. it does look to me even to this day that he was set up. even though more things have come out about him since, at the time i thought it was wrong to try to impeach a president for sexual relations outside of his marriage, that is between a husband and wife and as long as it is consensual sex, i don't know that it should be our business. but today everything is our business. people put up sex tapes and all kinds of things and we are not just quite a shock. that is why people were able to look at him and say -- we know that he has had extramarital affairs, we really don't care. so, to me it's about running the country.

and right now i am bothered by the information coming out about joe biden. do think it is something that needs to be investigated. i've also bothered by the way this impeachment is taking place where the republicans are not wrongd, and i may be about this, but it is my understanding that they cannot even call witnesses. that this is completely controlled by the democrats right now? look good. going to i read a lot of the comments on youtube and everything else and i can see that this is turning opinions. you look at the polls that cnn has done and other places and they were just so wrong during -- host: more of your calls coming up this hour, getting your view on impeaching the president and the lessons of impeachments past . stepping away for just a minute, wanted to note that today is the opening day of the new term of

the supreme court, the 2019 term of the supreme court and for a look at what is on the docket in the months ahead, we are joined by lawrence hurley. writers supreme court --respondent for he correspondent. the kavanaugh hearings got the most attention last time, but as far as the cases go it was not a very high-profile year in terms of what was on the docket. here is your story from last "supreme court tackling abortion and trump." why does it seem to be a more series of cases this year? guest: yeah, last year they seemed to be low-profile, taking up cases on the census. they mostly kept low because maybe of the public -- publicity around the kavanaugh hearings. this is kavanaugh's first full

term in the court. he came on a bit late last year. a lot of these big issues are heading their way and i think that some of them they feel like they have to take but there are others they didn't have to in they have. they took the gun case, the abortion case. more on the trump plan to protect the young dreamer immigrants. and they got a big gay-rights case they are hearing tomorrow. talk about that case, as they hit the ground running here. caller: -- guest: that's a huge case about federal employment law that bans discrimination based on sex applying to gay and transgender people. huge ramifications for a lot of people around the country. especially in states where more

than half the states don't have protections against lgbt people. that is a case where a lot of people on the gay-rights side of the issue are kind of worried about which way the court is going to go. abortion, could roe v. wade be overturned this term? caller: -- guest: no, the court has taken up a louisiana case about restrictions being placed on abortion clinics. clinton set -- the clinics say effect, twooes into of their three clinics would close. this is about abortion access, but at the same time the people watching closely are seeing if the conservative majority starts to pull back. this case is very similar to the one from texas three years ago in which the court struck down a similar law.

that was when justice anthony kennedy was on the court. he had joined the liberals in the majority. he is no longer on the court and was replaced by kavanaugh. big changes on that issue and the gay-rights issue as well. your preview of this term last week in reuters mentioned that ruth bader ginsburg health issues will be a topic watched closely. justice the 86-year-old set about her health lately? over the summer she had radiation therapy again for some cancerous growth in her pancreas. attention will be on her because 87, if it's aning vacancy on the court, president and the republican senate

have already said that they would push through an election year to create, if they went majority, which would be a big change. host: i know you are on the way to the court this morning, but before you go, speaking of changes, tell us about the rule change this year when it comes to the lawyers who make the arguments before the justices. when justices can start asking questions during the argument. can you explain what that is and why it changed? guest: the supreme court is known in recent years as -- for notjustices not being shy to ask questions almost before the lawyer can open his or her mouth.

this change means that the lawyers will have two minutes to speak for the justices ask a question on either side. it will be interesting to see if it holds true. some of the justices are very eager to ask questions. host: who in particular? who do you think this change was made for? guest: we don't really know. they haven't given us a reason. justice sotomayor is keen to have her say early on. i think sometimes the chief justice acts as a kind of traffic cop to allow lawyers to answer the questions because multiple justices are trying to answer questions -- ask questions at the same time and it may just be a way for him to get some order in proceedings. when procedural changes like this are made, is this

something the chief justice does on his own or does it go up before all the justices? sure howactually not they decide these things. i'm not sure that anyone does. it is probably just a consensus decision, though i'm sure the chief justice took the lead on it. at the supremey court means a busy day for lawrence hurley. always appreciate your time, thank you so much. are taking your phone calls this morning, talking about your view of impeaching a president. historical lessons from impeachments past. lines thisne morning. if you lived through the nixon impeachment effort, (202) 748-8000. if you lived through the clinton impeachment effort, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002.

letting you lead the discussion on that topic until about 8 a.m. this morning. yeah and been waiting in buffalo, new york, good morning. caller: good morning. so, i would just like to say well, i think what trump did was wrong and you really shouldn't be asking foreign powers to help you win an election. shouldn't do that in my opinion. you know, i think that people make mistakes. is it worth impeaching over? i don't know. that's for congress to decide, all these people with law degrees and all that. i don't have a degree. it's not really my prerogative to decide. host: you think that the impeachment of -- clinton or nixon impeachment efforts were worth it before they bid -- worth it? caller: you know, at the time,

yeah. those things made sense at the time. does the impeachment against trump make sense? i don't think it's my prerogative to say because i don't have all the facts that congress has. some of that material is classified. without all the fact is, i can't really formulate a complete opinion on the matter. i think that the fact that the issues like this have gotten so, so politicized in the country is really detrimental. the song, "this cowboys hat." we really have a lot in common despite not agreeing with anything at all. that was ian, in new york.

eddie, florida, good morning. i want to let you know years old and i don't know if i'm going to live to see the end of this, but i lived through the nixon and i was for nixon. , we all lovedou it was a shock. until the very end i defended nixon. when i read those tapes and they ime out decades later realized what an idiot i was. he was a raving maniac, believe me. we know what trump is. we know. i did not vote for trump. i did not vote for hillary. i could not vote for trump because of what he did to

president obama, trying to destroy his family. i don't care about the facts -- the sex, as the last lady said, it's between husband and wife. i want to tell you what i feel is going to happen. if he does get impeached and he , mike pence is going is goingice president to pardon him, he is going to go scot free. he will bought -- william, leslie graham, all the people line for him -- william barr, leslie graham, all the people in nixon'sm, and case, the attorney general went to jail. what did he do? he got off scott free. i don't know if i'm right. nixon.t right about

but trump is a disgrace. just a disgrace. i don't think he is a well man. i think he is self-centered. that's what have to say. thank you. in,: you can keep calling road. do, i hoped on the simon, lived through the clinton impeachment. good morning. good morning, i'm actually 75. i went through nixon and clinton. as far as i'm concerned, they were both guilty for what they were impeached for. what's going on with president trump is that there was an election in 26 in between hillary clinton and donald trump . hillary clinton lost, donald trump one. well, half the country voted for hillary clinton. half the country voted for

donald trump. he's become the president of the united states, the demo rats have been trying to impeach donald trump. they have had several investigations and have found nothing. it actually started with foreign interference. hillary clinton paid for information on donald trump. from the dossier from foreign countries. hillary clinton should be in jail. donald trump is the president. host: jim boca bakersfield, california. his memories from the 1970's --

on nixon's time. this from a discussion on impeachment at the brookings institution last week. this is senior fellow hudak on the politics of impeachment back then. [video clip] >> right now if an impeachment trial that were had today -- held today, he would be acquitted. member, in 1962 nixon won reelection by an overwhelming landslide. he got about 200 more electoral votes than donald trump in 2016. during his first and second term, richard nixon had job approval ratings that were astronomically high relative to what even this president's best approval ratings have been. to think that on election day, 1972, i was not around for it, that on election

day 1972 richard nixon would be impeached and removed from office, which but for his resignation he would have been, to think that would have happened in less than two years, people would have laughed your face. outrtheless, the tapes came and movement happened within the republican conference in the senate. granted, our politics is different now than it was in 1974, but this idea that there is nothing that can come out that will move a republican senator towards voting to convict -- voting to convict the president, i think that is foolish. susan's point is a strong one. we are not there now, but we weren't there than on the first day of the watergate hearings either. that from a panel discussion on the politics of impeachment on the brookings institute. hudak, one of the speakers

there. you can type his name in it the top of the page. having this conversation on this day, when this is the key headline when it comes to the impeachment inquiry today from "the new york times," "second person blows whistle." host: that is what most of the headlines are focusing on this morning. this week we are expecting more hearings for the impeachment inquiry. and of course we will hear from the campaign rallies, especially

in minneapolis and louisiana. is waiting in pennsylvania. remembers the clinton impeachment. good morning. caller: good morning, good morning, how you doing. listen, we all have opinions but there is only one set of facts and the fact is that hillary got 3 million more votes than trump so it wasn't half-and-half, plus trump had outside help to get elected, we all know that, that's a fact. i lived through both of them. i remember some things about dixon. i just remember i'm a base clay what sticks in my mind, the black guy, the janitor, didn't he uncover some of that? he went to the authorities with some of that. his name was will or willis. it was him from my understanding that got it rolling. there was a lot of all, i mean, he had so much support, nixon,

all over. when he ran again it was unbelievable. what happens with the crime is, you commit the crime, but then the worst part you cover it up. that is what is happening here. they are covering it up, but i thank god that we still have people in the country that believe in the constitution. i tell all the news people that i know or come in contact with, continue reporting the truth. i guy got on here and started talking about bright art news and the internet. tell the truth of what's happening and let it fall where it may. i respect you guys in the media, i really do. host: thanks, ricardo. lived through both nixon and clinton. so did joyce, california. good morning. yes, i'm 71 years old. i lived through both. impeachment is not a process that you look forward to, but i think it is a necessary thing.

i think our representatives are obligated to go through it. i think that people through the discoveredh nixon things they did not know. like they said, they thought he was almost the same. to find out everything they did, i think it was important. it still is, to follow it through. i think that the stakes are getting greater and greater. a compartmentalization people talked about with clinton. all i know is that when he was in office, i have been both republican and democrat. i am independent now. still, things continue to go in the government. i really think it is important

to keep going in all our rina's, not just one. it is important to follow through on the impeachment. it has to do with our government, our way of life. it has to do with obligations and respecting the law. all i know is that when clinton left office, our country was in better shape than it is now, from the beginning of trump's administration. that was joyce this morning. dennis, on the line for all others. good morning. caller: how are you this morning? host: doing well. entitled toyone is due process. can't have it one way on one and another way on the other side. everyone has equal justice under

the law. it's not so much the allegations as the alligator in. anyone can say anything but without proof, it doesn't mean nothing. you might as well throw it in the trash. it's ridiculous what's going on in this country. denis, georgia this morning. you can keep calling in. special phone lines as we keep showing you the other headlines about this. this ise new republic," what they say about the lessons that trump to learn from nixon today.

that story from "the new -- the new republic" last week. this topic has been coming up a lot recently. tribune"rom "the texas festival, late last month after the impeachment inquiry was announced. this is jennifer paul merry and david jolly talking about the clinton impeachment. >> the lifeblood of --[video clip] >> the lifeblood of the clinton white house, the day that he was

impeached he had his highest approval rating ever. the lifeblood of this presidency is grievance and controversy. impeachment is not a distraction for them. it's their bread and butter. it helps them with that 40% of the country. ways to are two main think about the senate races. one, it's harder for them to win back the senate. collinsr, you put susan

on the spot, cory gardner on the spot, martha mcsally on the spot it you say -- you will be forced to do something you haven't done before, choose this guy or choose not this guy. >> the political consequences from 1998 on the clinton impeachment, on the eve of that they won the popular vote for congress across the nation. i realize that it doesn't work on popular vote that they still got it. the same happened in 2000. and they won the bush presidency. they lost to bring speakers in newt gingrich and bob livingston, that's how they got any hastert. in the senate they lost about four banksy. this could go either way but i have got to say this to all of the wrangling over the political consequences of impeachment. and i mean this. who cares about the political consequences. who cares?

this isn't in disagreement with everybody. [no audio] imagine what it would do to the country if we don't go through impeachment with this president. host: david jolly and jennifer paul merry from the "texas tribune" festival. james, louisiana, lived true the next and. good morning. -- lived through the nixon times. good morning. caller: i got drafted. teenagers going home. we had the shaw of iran and we had the american people being held hostage. i had to go in on that.

god.rices, oh the economy, jobs. there was a lot going on back then. it's not the same now. we can't pair nixon and clinton to this. were politicians. career politicians their whole life. this was a businessman. they knew how to do it. even clinton, that was foolishness from the very beginning. that they knew the ins and outs of what they were doing. trump has no idea plus one listen to no one. i get hired of people saying that this is going to cause a civil war. have faith in this country. too many people have died for

the colors to keep flying. people have been trying to keep this country down since we started. stop being scared. fear is what the russians did in the 60's on kennedy. but he stood tall and went on and had the mines planted for the bay of pigs. americans, stop being scared. david in illinois remembers the clinton impeachment. go ahead. sort of anpoint was agreement with the panel the you just showed. while the republicans about this to go on? one of the reasons i found was that they gained seats in the senate. 2000. that's a big part of the calculus as to why they think without goingive down.

and that that is going to help them in the congressional races coming up and what comes after that, they don't care as much. we will have a president pence, which would be just fine with everyone of them as well. i think there is a lot of political calculus and i think that the most important thing needs to think about is the election next year and not all of the circus that we have seen in the past month. that was david in illinois. this is david in alabama, also remembers the 10 impeachment. caller: thank you for taking my call. with the clinton impeachment, he was basically impeached on morals. you know? so. nixon, he was impeached because the situation, trying to do things that should not have been done.

caller whoad one said that this president is a .usinessman not a career politician. i remember the first instances of trump, accusing him of this and that before he even took office. and then after he has taken office, every little thing that happens gets load out of the water. people talk about, news corporation's getting this and this, like its so-called leaks, but it is not the. it is someone in there that doesn't want this man as president. the democrats didn't want him as president anyway. this was supposed to be hillary clinton's time. that is the way i see it, this man has not had the chance to be president. i do appreciate you taking my

call and i will call later. host: you can do that, certainly. it's a 30 day rule between calls. those who send tweets, text, facebook posts, nicolas writing this on facebook -- host: herbert remembers both the clinton and nixon impeachment efforts out of norwalk, ohio. good morning. all the callers calling in, i have been listening and stuff like that.

this -- for for them to sit down and let this go through your mines. you are dealing with a guy who dealing with communist countries. if you can remember what communist stood for and they still stand for it today, that's a ruling dictator. what do you think trump has been doing? just think about that for a while, ok? if he gets a hold in this country like he got in the other countries telling them what to do and how to do it in and bring setback to hear? hey, we are in trouble big-time. host: john remembers the 1970's, from michigan. your next. morning, john. i was a first-time voter in 1972 and i voted for george mcgovern. at that time i voted for him. anyways, most of our information was gathered from newspapers or

the nightly newscast. nowadays we have this influx of, you know, 24 hour news cycle. you know, to me that's the difference nowadays. we gather a lot more information than we did back then. do you trust the information being gathered these days more than back then? guess for me it is what source i get it from. i gather a lot from c-span. watch it ready much all weekend long. so yeah, it depends on which one. i believe them. at "theatch them post-," for the most part. "the new york times," that's where i met.

host: glen bernie, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i remember watching the bill clinton one. i don't think that the intent should have been impeached. they did it anyway. he was impeached for lying. he was charged on five counts of lying, four counts of obstruction of justice, one for witness tampering and i believe that the 11th one was witness intimidation. if bill clinton had gotten on tv and admitted to what he did with monica lewinsky and apologized to the american people for what it is and said that now between my wife, my daughter, and god, i think that everything would have been fine with him. i think he was a really good president. that's my opinion on what happened with bill clinton. what's happening today? i'm still edgy on it. . haven't seen all the fact

there are two different sides and i just don't trust either side. i'm going to sit back and watch c-span constantly. c-span 2, c-span3. watching your show every morning . the information i get from you guys the other means a media types. appreciate you calling in, michael. 's eve's neck. steve, what are the lessons of impeachments past. caller: sorry i didn't hear the first part of that. -- host: the lessons of impeachments past. passed. ,aller: what appears to me there's smugness and ness on boths

sides. i would include the media on the democratic side. it is seriously underlining our constitutional republic. it's not a democracy. to a cardinal in pennsylvania, my fellow citizens here, the electoral college determines who is elected to the presidency. not a popular vote. there is an amendment process that has to take place if you want to change it. and that's fine if we go through the amendment process. what i would like to say is that in all three cases, nixon, clinton, and the current situation, i don't think that anyone of them should have even come close to being impeached.

not a single one. it just doesn't rise to the level that is there that would take out any one of them. but that's only because, again, the smugness. the sanctimonious mess. sanctimoniousness. host: what should impeachment be reserved for? , serious matters . someone tried to cover will break in at a hotel, someone working in party politics, that doesn't to me rise to the occasion. anything, in both of, all of these cases, if anything should take place, they should be charged once they are out of office.

i wouldould like to say like to see us get to the point where we have no of family office that gets elected into that office by previous family members. so that includes the bushes, the clintons, the kennedys, and the trumps. host: stephen pennsylvania, our last caller in this segment. plenty more to talk about today. americane joined by conservative union chairman matt about theho will talk impeachment inquiry. and brian fallon will be here from demand justice to talk about the new term of the supreme court. we will be right back.

announcer: here is a look at books being published this week. soul," war for america's arguesan gorka that the left is trying to undermine efforts. susan rice, former national security advisor to president obama, reveals moments of her career in "tough love." inc.," -- in "unfollow," a chronicle of growing up as part of the westborough baptist church. also this week, richard dawkins explains why he became an atheist and challenges the in "outgoingions god." in "outgoing god." astrophysicist near the grass tyson answers questions that he

has received from people around the world in "letters from an astrophysicist -- letters for an astrophysicist." and an argument that the old right has exploited the internet to advance extremist views. watch for many of the authors in the near future on "tv come on tv," oni -- on "book n2span roma . >> for 40 years, c-span has been covering 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. "washington journal" continues. our desk is matt

schlapp of the american conservative union come as we begin another week with the impeachment story front and center. i wonder what you think of the historical comparisons. what are the lessons that democrats and republicans should take from the clinton impeachment and the nixon impeachment inquiry? guest: i was a young staffer for the clinton impeachment fracas. i would say two things. it is a political exercise. it is all politics are there are legal argument's wrapped around it, but in the end, -- there are legal arguments wrapped around it, but in the end, one thing we do not talk about is that the previous impeachments -- and nixon was not impeached but would have been, and probably would have been convicted. the republicans could not get the super majority vote in the senate. both clinton and nixon had just gotten reelected. so the voters did not have another chance to render an opinion on their legal wrongdoing but came to light

after the elections. with donald trump, we have an election a year away, and what makes what the democrats are doing so repulsive is, just beat him. the campaign has already started. we are watching democrats run around the country, even a few republicans, raising money, asking for votes. we are going to be voting in ohio and new hampshire soon. just beat him if you do not like him. but just because -- but the reason they are going to impeachment, they cannot beat him. democrats have said that. that is a disgusting use of the constitution. donald trump won fair and square. i know they wanted to upend the election results for three years, and it is all about a coup, anything, something to drag the man down just when fair and square. host: just a minute ago you called impeachment a political exercise. do you think that for democrats it is part of the 2020 campaign? guest: totally.

it is all a part of it, and it is all part of what is happening in the democrati party, which is that it is too politicized. go to gallup polling or any other polling, and see the leftward shift of the democrats. they are embracing this term of socialism and the policies underneath it. in the house, the squad rules. , rashida tlaib, these people lead that caucus. in nancy pelosi eventually had to bow to them. they have wanted to impeach -- as rashida tlaib uses colorful language in terms of her wanting to impeach the president. the first that they were sworn in, it was all about impeachment. why? because they believe it plays to their politics to impeach the man. there is no wrongdoing here there is no criminal statute that has been violated. this is all about taking trump down. host: you can call in, phone

lines -- ?uest: 8:30 host: it might even be more than that. guest: i need to renegotiate my contract. ,republicans, 202-748-8001 democrats, 202-748-8000 independents, 202-748-8002. is donald trump talking about impeachment too much? host: donald trump is doing the job the way donald trump wants to do it, and all these mark people, including newt gingrich, who is essentially impeached himself, he -- all these smart people, including newt gingrich, who is essentially -- who was essentially impeached himself, i

think sometimes newt gingrich is communicating to the president through the press. but what i have learned about donald trump is he does listen, number one, and number two, he is going to do this job the way he wants to do it. he has thrown away the playbook we were all taught to use, that we all learned at a young age. he does it his own way his view that he does it his own way. my view is, you insult mother, i will insult your mother better. it is a little bit of schoolyard tactics, and it is jarring to a lot of republicans and a lot of people who have seen the president have this sort of regal manor, but do you know what president -- this regal what theo you know president does behind when the cameras are off? i think it is a very fine

opinion journal. these are one of the headlines. room,impeachment war "trump does it all by himself." i wonder your view at the strategy, the messaging strategy inside the white house. do they need a war room to respond to this? guest: i have always hated that concept of a war room. what i think they need is the ability to make sure that people around the country, including their allies, know what is true and what is false with these charges. there is already rumor of a second whistleblower. i think we will have whistleblowers for 14 months. we will have people from -- conspiracy theorists used to call it the deep state. now all of us who work in government admit that there is a deep state because all of these people will come forward because they have an animus against donald trump. we will read story after story of outlandish things he supposedly did. in theson i have learned

era of trump, what they accused trump of, they already did. we will see this with ukraine. shouldts whose hands have been caught in the cookie jar, now they are accusing trump of having his hands in the cookie jar. it is insane to it i always say, a democrat was the one who actually did it. let's try to figure this out the other thing that out -- about "the new york times," moderates, independents, people who are not that partisan, they are going to c-span and other news. they will not interact with them. they have lost their voice with 50% of the american people are that is actually a bad thing for democracy. we should have places like c-span where liberals and democrats and conservatives and republicans and independents can go and just get news. i see you have "the new york times," "the washington times." let's get an idea of what

multiple voices are saying, and with these major news outlets, they have lost the ability to have any credibility on any issue, which is why this fake news concept is a real and troublesome concept. host: and the best way to do that is to let you get out of the way and let you chat with viewers. from bolingbrook, illinois, good morning. you are on with matt schlapp. caller: good morning. my big thing here is that people will believe what they want to believe, not what the facts are. here is a perfectly good example. we have a beautiful church here in my neighborhood, and it drips myrrh. some people will go in and see it and their heart is changed. people have actually been healed from it. other people go in, they looked, h,ey turn around, they go "hu

maybe it is a hoax." i have been listening to all this news, and i think people will believe what is in their hearts, no matter how big, how strong the facts are. catherine, what happened in the church? i think you cut out there. she is gone. i am a believer, so i believe in miracles, i believe in that. so let's get that out of the way. i do think people -- it is responsible for an individual to put a filter on their views. what is wrong, what is right? does it pass the smell test? i am healthy with skepticism and cynicism. the problem with these main media outlets, they are left-leaning. if you watch the sunday shows,

almost all the shows have four people that just destroy the president. but how is anybody who likes the president watching that show going to consider that fair? host: you mentioned the sunday shows. this exchange on "meet the press" is getting a lot of attention this morning. guest: only because he is in the hot seat. host: he was just about a minute of it. >> chuck, i just want the truth. >> you don't trust the american people, the fbi, the cia? >> no, i don't. absolutely not. after james comey -- >> you don't believe the fbi, the cia? >> i don't trust anybody. >> do you trust them now? dr. no, i don't trust them back then. problem, which is people have not only lost confidence in news sources they used to go to come and i have lost confidence in shows i used to go to.

people have lost consonants in organizations like -- have lost confidence in the fbi let's face it, they did everything they could do to help hillary clinton. only because he said now, because he knew she was going to win and he did not want her to be impaired. these intelligence communities, have been politicized. run off thed to be ship. and they should go back to doing their core emissions. in ukraine, why are they going after ron johnson when the obama administration successfully got an investigation of paul manafort opened up again. why? because paul manafort had been talking to the trump campaign, and joe biden was able to call off the investigation of this ukrainian gas company, that his son conveniently sat on the board of eared anybody involved in politics at that level -- any lawyer, some lawyer had to

improve -- had to approve all of those manifests. who would have thought that it made sense to have the president's son travel with him to countries, while joe biden was doing his official duties. wasred -- hunter biden collecting millions and billions of dollars. so what the american people see is obama and biden tried to influence the ukrainian government, and now they see trump trying to in -- trying to influence the ukrainian government he puts up the transcript. what trump did is somehow criminally impeachable, and what obiden did isn or not. what is good for the goose is good for the gander. host: caroline, texas, republican. good morning. i thought you all were talking about the impeachment of different presidents. host: that is how we started.

guest: i would love to talk about that. caller: i'm kind of old and i was alive during a lot of them. with nixon, prior to him being was --ed, you know, he me tried tom assassinate him. of course there were tapes and this and that peer to into -- who knows where they came from or who really cares? clinton, herer as you have a president that they wanted to impeach because he was having sexual whatever with everybody. kennedy, didn't he do the same thing? guest: you were aptly describing the situation. caller: he was doing whatever, whatever he was doing. but then again you had kennedy who was also doing the same

thing, but it was never publicized because at the time there was only three channels. and abc. nbc, cbs, so, i mean, you were only getting three different, you know, commentaries from three different channels. squeaky wiki from -- kille actually tried to gerald ford. is, gettingpoint impeach because of your private sexual conduct over time became less popular with the american people. i think the republicans were put into a tough position because phil clinton was so flagrant with his lying under oath as the president of the united states. it was not so much of a question of what he did in the oval office, it was his me too treatment of women that got him into hot water with these depositions. today, my guess is that the past

treatment of women he had power over would have been much more politically damaging to him then even what he did with an intern in the white house, although now i am the father of five girls, and my older girls are starting to have internships and such. i hope they go to a workplace where they are treated with respect. host: more from the sunday shows. this is congresswoman val demings, meeting this week to take more investigations and inquiries this week on the impeachment. this is her from fox news sunday yesterday. >> why is how speaker pelosi refusing to hold a formal impeachment inquiry vote? >> chris, let me say this. i would hope -- this has been a painful time, this past couple of weeks now. i would hope that the white house would cooperate with congress. and actually acknowledge the oversight that we have a

responsibility to do. requirementre is no under the because to touche and that we have a full house vote. there is no requirement under house rules that we have a full house vote. there is no precedent that we have a full house vote that really drives -- >> wait, you say there is no precedent. there have only been two times in the history, under the rules we now have -- andrew johnson in the 1860's was different -- in both the bill clinton case and the richard nixon clays, there was a clear precedent. the full house voted and authorized a full impeachment inquiry, so there is a precedent. requirement,o again, under the constitution, and no requirement under house rules that that is the procedure we follow. chris, let me say this. this past 10 days has been painful for members of the house

on both sides of the committee. obviously it has been quite painful for the senate, even though too many senators are quiet on this issue. we need to conduct a very methodical, very thorough investigation. we need to talk with all witnesses, identify or review all documents. as we begin the process of making a very, very important historical decision. so based on the information that we have, i believe that every american should be painfully concerned about what they have witnessed over the last couple weeks. matt schlapp is chair of the american conservative union peer they were talking about a full house vote on impeachment. does that matter at this point? guest: yes, because what she is saying is that she wants to deny the president of the united states to defend himself in front of the house of representatives, and to have his

allies in the republican party, any conservative, right minded democrats come if there are any left, to subpoena their own documents and their own witnesses. my guess is if they took the full house vote, and the judiciary committee, although nancy pelosi does not really trust jerry nadler. now she has to go to three committees per can you imagine going to three different courtrooms, just what she is doing to the president? she wants to deny him the ability to push back on what will be a kangaroo court. we did not do that with bill clinton because i think the republicans at the time realized that if it was perceived that the process was unfair, there would be consequences at the ballot box. i think nancy pelosi continues down this road, a road she did not want to be on at the beginning, the consequences will be devastating. i think if impeachment proceeds the way it is proceeding, the republicans are going to do very well in 2020i think the president will be reelected.

and i think the american people will look at the democratic and say you told us if you -- if we gave you the majority that you would tinker with obamacare and make sure the republicans cannot do anything with pre-existing conditions and that you would help with income inequality. they are transfixed on bringing down donald trump. it is an unhealthy focus for them. it is almost like there is a mental problem here. some people call it trump derangement syndrome. problems fixing the from your liberal perspective. ralph, independent. good morning. yes, mr. howard stern had said earlier that he talked to trump and asked him, was he mentally up for the challenge of the job. is racially trump

dividing -- mr. trump is racially dividing this nation you used a term, mr. schlapp, repulsive and unhealthy. well, to me, mr. trump's behavior is repulsive and unhealthy. last year andane said to a woman, if there -- i would be right there on the front row. that was an impeachable offense there. guest: i don't know what the senator meant by that comment, but i think that she believed that that woman would be a victim of capital punishment. everyone has a viewpoint in a democracy. you brought up howard stern's interpretation of the president's mental. that is a really interesting way to approach it.

he is doing just fine. i've met very few people in my life that are on top of things as he is. he tracks everything, he reads everything. that is a misconception, he doesn't read, he stays around in the white house and he is not engaged. he has read every article. if you ever have a chance to have a private conversation, you will go through everything he is reading, what his interpretation is. he always asks you what your interpretation is. most of the political people that staff him on the foreign trips say they cannot keep up with him, his level of energy. that is because he never touches alcohol, doesn't take drugs. he is kind of in a natural state as far as that is concerned. i marvel at his energy level and mental capacity, and i think the democrats and people in the media try to act like he is not really up to the job. it is more of the fake news. my wife worked for him for two years at his right side in the white house come of the west wing. to marveled at his ability juggle a lot of issues and to remember things from meeting to

meeting to meeting. i had president -- i have had conversations with the president or he remembers things that i cannot remember that we talked about. you don't have to like him if you don't want to like him. you have every right to do what you want to do, but nobody should be under the illusion that he is not up the job. host: and now he is on the campaign side of this. your advisory role -- is it formal or informal discussions? with presidents, it is one of the things that i think there is a sacredness of talking to the president. he is the commander in chief, the leader of the country. he reaches out for counsel and advice, and i think some people who talk to him should be careful about talking too much. and i worked with president george w. bush. they are also just people. they are vulnerable. they have times when they are mad, when they are sad, where they are more vain and they let their weaknesses come out.

when you see that, you realize it is a totality of the person, positive and negative. i have friends who worked for obama and clinton who said the same thing. there were things that they did not like, and they were other times where they were so proud to work for them. mike, democrat, good morning. youngstown, ohio. caller: how is everybody doing this mauling? guest: how are you? this gentleman that you have on, he is obviously right wing. guest: i prefer conservative. caller:, you prefer conservative. good for you. you sound like trump. thank you. caller: mike, do you have a question? this could be howard stern. is howardah, this

stern, right. you are a wise guy, too. guest: mike needs some coffee. host: indiana, a republican, good morning. this is janice. ok, i just wanted to say that i fully support president trump, and i really, really am so glad that matt is on here trying to explain what president trump is deplorables, of us i guess you would say. guest: deplorables. i am a proud deplorable. proud one,, i am a too, and i know a lot of proud deplorables. to knowresident trump that everyone in our neck of the woods supports him and we pray for the democrats, too, because they are obviously in a lot of

trouble because they just keep wanting to go down this impeachment road, and it is said. it is really sad for our country , and if you love our country, our country did you well. you would want our country to do you well. guest: thank you, janice, for your comments. what i notice as i travel the country come and really the world, and we just had a cpac in korea and we have had three in tokyo and japan. standing with the protesters in the streets in hong kong. i am going to the first cpac in brazil. this whole cpac that i oversee as a chairman is taking off around the world. the reason is because of the struggle against the green new deal, the struggle about the rabbit as well as him -- the radicalism being jammed for our schools. the whole world is watching america. freedom loving people, people

who believe in limited government and democracy are an americaeath of that reaches out to socialism. janice is saying, everyone in her woods reach out to the president. i will have everyone coming up to me and telling me how sad they are that the country is going through this. many people think it is all about donald trump. i don't mean to be disrespectful to the president. but it is not all about donald trump here there is an underlying question -- what does it mean to me american -- to be american? what are our founding principles? those of us who believe in those principles, look at what the doing as not -- these socialist values cannot be consistent with these american values. that is a real troubling thing. if you fought in a war, if you are a doing as cop, if you are e professions that the democrats

always had your back, and you see them attacking cops constantly. you see them not wanting to fund the military. it makes these people trouble. that is why you have a whole bunch of people who normally vote democrat turning to trump. you see a huge change in the country. people and not doing it with smiles on their face. people are worried. host: you said you stood in the streets of hong kong with the protesters. i wonder what you thought of last week's president trump's tweet, congratulating the people in beijing. guest: i don't like that tweet because i think they are butchers. nobody in america should be in love with the bridging -- with leadership in beijing. i understand what the president is doing, and i give him grace with the tweets he said about the north korean dictator and about the regime in beijing.

he is trying to negotiate with them. i can see exactly what he is doing, and there are times when he is trying to butter them up. i just don't like those tweets as much as when he is trying to rip them apart. i would love nothing more for that economic relationship to get to a better place. i am a free trader, but by the same token, when you see what they are doing, i was in the in hong kong. they are getting beaten with billy clubs and their freedoms are being taken away step-by-step. jean wants to whip them from the streets which is a long-standing democracy and bring them onto the chinese mainland so they can disappear forever. this is a critical juncture for the state of the human condition for the future of this communist regime. , and friends in taiwan and japan are worried sick about what is going to

happen with china. china has to understand that if you spread its domination and really become the superpower it is trying to become that america will stop them. in hong kong say go back and tell president trump much we admire him because for the first time in 30 years there is an american president taking the beijing regime head-on. discussions with north korea broke down which is the news today should there be a third at summit between the chairman kim? the president has avoided conflict and trying to delay north korea denuclearizing. iran would've gotten a nuclear weapon but they just try to delay and pray and hope something happens like a regime change or something else.

now you have north korea, are they nuclear eyes or not nuclear nuclearoized or not? to makeo do something sure a regime cannot hit our friends and allies, hawaii, these important outposts with a nuclear weapon. he has no other choice now. the person leading the negotiations for the american government used to be on the board at ecu and is very capable. i trust them to make the decisions. and mike pompeo, i have complete confidence. they will make the right decisions. don't be deceived. they were given the status quo, which is a very dangerous status quo. they have to try to change that. it doesn't mean that president

trump really likes little rocket man or wants to hang out with rodman, but heis is willing to do the things other presidents wouldn't do to try to change the status quo. he is doing that in every key area. himong kong, i would love to be talking about how these democracy protesters deserve our support. host: did you tell him that? guest: i don't talk about what i talk to the president about but i believe he understands they have an affinity towards him. he is trying to figure out a way to get to a better place. host: germantown tennessee, peter, were walking, good morning. caller: i agree 100% your guest commentary and i have two comments. -- the firste thing is i have been reading the

lord of the rings again, host: great book. caller: one of the characters who was very dislike of all, it reminds me of adam schiff. this goes to how contrived the whole thing is. rush limbaugh and mark live in have pointed it out that this has been planned. the deceit and is desembler.similar -- --has all been contrived deceiter andl the desembler. he had this meeting where the whistleblower complaint was changed and they said they would accept a secondhand

whistleblower instead of a first and no one knows that. get to your second point. talk aboutnt to this. host: you had some full speck of c-span. caller: i have high regard to c-span but the host last week when someone brought up the fact the why haven't you talked about biden on camera saying he would hold up the billion dollars unless you give my son the position? c-span said, yes while we have covered that a year ago. that is like saying not covering it at all. c-span should have had that out. host: i am not sure you are referring to.

severalactually played times so that people can see what he said. caller: let me jump in and thank you for your comments and nice complement. let me jump in and thank you for your comments and nice couple meant. this is been outlined in several recent publications. they did that using government power to try to hurt a republican operative and eventually hurt donald trump. number two, i am not so sure joe biden did something to get hunter biden a position but i think hunter biden was on the board of the gas company and he whispered in his dad's ear there was an investigation that was hostile or at least joe biden figured out with his son on the board, an investigation into that board could be bad for him and called off the dogs. what joe biden should have done was ask his son to resign from

the board and allow the investigation to go forward. at that point, he could have more credibly said we can start over with a new investigation. they just called off the investigation. when it comes to adam schiff, there are two proms he has. he ran around the country for two and half years -- there are two problems he has. he ran around the country for saying hehalf years had evidence of russian collusion and even robert mueller had to say there was no collusion. there was no alilance -- evidence of collusion. he said he had it but can someone asking to share it? he went on television over and over again and then in this recent one he said he hadn't had communications with the whistleblower for a month. was communicating and coordinating and

strategizing with the whistleblower. it is what the democrats do. remember diane feinstein with the charge against brett kavanaugh and set i put it in my desk drawer and forgot about it for a month and just so happened to bring it out on the cusp of the hearing so that brett kavanaugh and his allies could not prepare for the charges? same thing with adam schiff. he knew it was coming and didn't give anyone a heads up because he did not want to allow the president or the allies to see this was all about. it was a coordinated political attack. host: what do you think he should have done before the whistleblower process was complete? guest: if you are the chairman of the committee and a true whistleblower comes forward, why wouldn't you tell the republican ranking member? is a bipartisan committee. you immediately go to the minority and say we have this whistleblower statute or you look at the statute and see where the person is supposed to go with that, should it go to

the fbi rig? ig?he fbi or the the whole idea of a whistleblower is that it is nonpartisan. it is not political. go. need a safe place to i believe in whistleblower but the sad thing is we need strong whistleblower statutes because i have seen wrongdoing and sometimes you are in a vulnerable position where you can't tell anybody because you fear reprisals. instead this person, a registered democrat who hates trump, goes to his friend or political ally to say what is the best way to take time down -- trump down with the information? they don't have any information. trump put out the transcript. this person wasn't listening in on the phone conversation. the only thing this person could have is other information that

they don't write -- don't have the right to have it. a big mistake. host: the second whistleblower that we started hearing about. guest: you will have more after this. we will have 14 months of this from leaks of the bowels of our democracy. get ready. host: isaac in baltimore, independent. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question -- my first comment is bob mueller said nothing about collusion or the only said he wasn't investigating collusion because it wasn't an actual crime but he said that the whole probe was investigating conspiracy. they found -- guest: they found no conspiracy. caller: the second question

leads to my comment. my first question is -- is there anything that this president could do that you would find wrong? guest: yes. --ler: my second question is do you then believe that it is ok for a sitting president to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival not once or twice? why didn't you attack barack obama when he re-investigated paul manafort? is that wrong? is -- i am aroblem melodi millennial. guest: i am in shock -- you are a political. caller: the only thing we can compare it to is nazi-ism.

--n it off power went in host: we got your point. guest: is a proud german american, i am offended by your point. ofis much more indicative what is going on with the democrats and socialism. government power. i want individuals to run their lives. doant the government to national security very well and back off the other questions. so what was appropriate for whatk obama and i -- so was appropriate for barack obama, as to reopen the investigation. we know joe biden called the heernor of ukraine because was stupid enough to put it in a speech that was all over the place that he threatened the ukrainian government with a billion dollars of aid. if it is incorrect for members

of the presidents administration to leverage the government of ukraine to do things that is wrong. why isn't it wrong for them. it is only one -- wrong when donald trump does it and he was transparent and gave you the transcript. this is the placidity that a lot of supporters and republicans and independents -- that is why they look at the coverage of these issues they don't see fundamental fairness. in michigan, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. we open theat impeachment hearings and have the vote and have the impeachment hearings in the house -- with this give mr. trump the right to bring up his reasons for the investigation into the democratic party? the reason why nancy

pelosi is not having a vote to open up a formal inquiry is that would empower the minority in the house of representatives, the republicans, to also have subpoena power to bring in their own information so that both sides can go before the judiciary committee, which would usually be the committee they would go to if she had confidence in the chairman and it would be much more balanced. clinton was able to do that but the problem was what was he going to be able to do? it was about his lying and impropriety. -- in this case, the republicans have damming information but nancy pelosi does not want the public to see it. host: last call. a democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. host: just one or two because we are running out of time. caller: number one, the main thing is the molar investigation

-- robert mueller investigation. i don't know why the democrats hang their hat on that because the republicans control the house, senate, and the presidency. theonly reason investigation got started was because donald trump fired the director of the fbi. his attorney general recusing himself -- there was nothing else to do but. prompt the -- but prompt the investigation. democrats didn't start it but they just hung their hat on because robert miller was a republican. the whole thing was started by the republican party. the thing about him going all touting world -- thetic norms president of the united states

right on television asked a communist country to investigate a political rival. that is wrong. last minute hearing. callers are really going hard on barack obama and joe biden and i think they should go lighter. i am a proud member of the republican party. we have made stupid decisions to get special counsels. bill clinton had to do a tawdry thing to get special counsel. specialans have picked counsel's on themselves many times. we should not have done it. we wasted 2.5 years and millions of dollars and we found these were baseless charges.

president trump a lot of life sucked out of his residency and that was a shame. what happened between jeff sessions and rod rosenstein will go down in the history of politics in some the most bungling of decisions. all it did was give the democrats a bloodlust. they don't have a crime they are impeaching but the impeachment is to find any crime. give me something, anything to rip this guy down. if we don't do that, he might win again. host: where is the next cpac? guest: in atlanta georgia in 10 days and in brazil. nationwide cpac will be the last four days of february in 2020, which will be the unofficial start to the whole year long process to reelect donald trump. host: that will be at national harbor? and c-span is always

there and we appreciate your coverage. host: always appreciate your time. joins usbrian fallon for the new term of the supreme court and later the bus to her of battle -- tour of battleground states. we are joined by seth richardson. it stick around for that discussion in 45 minutes. >> here is look at books being published. soul, war for america's former deputy terry assistant to president trump argues the

president has reenergized the country and the left is trying to undermine his efforts. susan rice, former u.n. ambassador and security visor to president obama talks about her time in tough love. contention -- in theonicles growing up baptist church. also being published, richard dawkins explains why he became an atheist and challenges the world's religions and outgoing god. fox news correspondent -- answer on the cosmos that he has seen. and an antisocial, the new yorker reporter says the alt-right has exploited the internet to provoke extremist views.

look for these in bookstores this coming week and watch for the authors in the near future on book tv on c-span two. communicators,he the fcc commissioner michael o'rielly on the appeals ruling that the agency can repeal net neutrality but cannot block state laws. >> what you are going to see is a number of states tried to act and do certain things i disagree with and you'll probably see others that jump into the debate that having 50 states plus in not what directions is the structure should be and is not interstate commerce and why we have an interstate commerce that wend not something are supposed to be structuring in peer my analysis and the architecture there is no interstate traffic on the internet. tonight aton 8:00 --

8:00 on c-span two. journal"ngton continues. host: we are joined by brian fallon to discuss progressive efforts at court reform. we recognize you from your justice work in the barack obama administration. springwe launched in the of 2018 to try to enliven the aggressive grassroots and awaken them to the crisis we believe is recurring in the -- occurring in the federal judiciary. probably the longest legacy that donald trump will have will be his lasting imprint that he left in terms of the judges he has nominated. he has confirmed 150 federal judges, including two supreme court justices quite famously. it is not just the number of the judges at the historic nature of

how ideology clean extreme -- how ideologically extreme they seem. point is we can win at the ballot box at 2020 and defeat donald trump and win back the senate and yet all of the priorities may well be facing certain power because we have a judiciary that is hostile to the progressive ideas because trump will have any -- so many trump style judges that will be with us. host: how you activate the grassroots and how are you funded? lobby andtry to oppose some of trump's most extreme judicial nominees. we were highly involved in the cavanaugh fight last year. we are active right now in trying to defeat some of his more extreme lower court judicial appointees like stephen manatt she who is a lawyer --

and we are also in the democratic politics for the purposes to try to ensure there is conversation about the judiciary and the courts within the democratic natural primary -- presidential primary. linton --or hillary hillary clinton after antonin a's death where the republicans refused to name. we want to make sure that doesn't happen again. we are showing up at presidential halls and asking candidates about who they would nominate to the bench and what types of perform proposals they would entertain to structurally reform the supreme court and we want to make sure this is a topic that gets a lot of attention and discussion on the

left throughout the 2020 election. host: how do you do your work and pay for it? guest: we have an education and civic engagement arm that is a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c) four that engages in lobbying to get senators to oppose some of trump's judicial nominees. we are funded by a variety of donations and a lot of foundations. host: you can join the conversation. we are talking about manned justice -- demand justice. is (202)nt to chat, it 748-8001 four republicans, (202) 748-8000 four democrats. -- plenty to talk about with

the opening of the supreme court 2019 term. we are going to talk with john, a democrat. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: doing well. guest: i am glad you have someone who is as smart as you on. the question i have for brian is mcconnell pullh the garbage that he pulls and he is not held accountable for what he did? go, can you you describe that? caller: by holding the seat open until trump came president so he can fill it with somebody who should not be sitting on their and then brett kavanaugh got up there and everybody just, for some strange reason, loved this that camethe things

out of what he did and nobody heed about and ever but celebrated this man? has been a complete lack of accountability on the republican side in terms of the flouting of norms and abuse of process with the trump judicial nominees. the good thing is, we are starting to see some accountability and consequences attached to that. if you look at the brett kavanaugh book that happened a year ago yesterday, you have a bunch of senate republicans for whom their support for brett kavanaugh is going to be a huge clinical liability. and sheis susan collins famously gave her floor speech where she announced her support for brett kavanaugh and then in the days right after that, there was $4 million raised into an account that will go towards supporting her opponent.

he saw a rally yesterday in portland, maine by activists were still upset a year later for her support for brett kavanaugh. also for cory gardner in colorado and even mitch mcconnell in kentucky. he is in a hospitable environment. you are seeing a lot of money flow in -- grassroots donations to his opponent in large part because the country is fed up with his cynical approach to politics. a lot of candidates on the republican side, mitch mcconnell may become a referendum question they face and his support as majority leader may be a liability in their campaigns. host: in maine your group dropped a new ad. how much are you spending on television advertising the cycle? it is: it is -- guest: unclear. in may we will spend $6 million candidate who says that

post brett kavanaugh vote she cannot run anymore as the moderate she said herself to be. a couple of months ago, in maine, she hosted a fundraiser with leaders of the federal society, which is an outside special interest group that helps create the pipeline of judicial candidates that donald trump has been putting forward and leonard leo hosted fundraiser for susan collins one year after she supported brett kavanaugh for the supreme court vacancy. that is an un-tidiness to which is not sitting well with maine voters. this term, there is an abortion case the supreme court cited to take up last week.

susan collins, when she decided to vote for brett kavanaugh, she said she was confident he would uphold roe v. wade. now she has a lot riding on how brett kavanaugh rules in the upcoming case with this louisiana abortion law. host: is the supreme court a winning issue? he wanted to put it in the ballot and he wins in 2016 and now you're talking about the cavanaugh hearings, the said didn't flip after the brett kavanaugh hearings. guest: you did see a huge backlash between suburban, college-educated women. the constituency was not well represented in the states where they happen to have senate races in 2018 but in a lot of house districts, the backlash contribute into the gender gap in support for democrats for

house. you will see the map in 2020 that the voting constituency will loom large in states like colorado where cory gardner is on the ballot and in maine. is no doubtre republicans had the upper hand when it came to motivating their voters based on the supreme court as an issue. exit polls who said that supreme court was an issue, donald trump won them by 15 points. that is what we are trying to correct. the republicans have had a good head start and have been mobilizing, especially evangelical voters on their side. been efforts to get roe v. wade overturned. on the left, we thought of the courts as our friend and an institution to advance

progressive values and now the pendulum is swinging back. the supreme court is our topic and our guest is ryan fallon and we are talking on the opening of the 20 night teen term of the supreme court. yesterday the justices attended what is known as the red mass in washington, d.c. they most attended -- most of them attended together. the justices will be on the bench today. it is the opening date of the new term. frank is in portland, ohio, republican, you are on next. how come california, maryland, ndc that's to predict -- and d.c. gets to predict to the rest of the world how we live? think what the caller

is referring to is there are a few cases that are some of the more prominent ones where some of the lower court rulings have emanated out of the ninth circuit, which includes the west coast and california. the fourth circuit includes the mid-atlantic region. daca case.s the the present -- president famously tried to undo the daca policy and there have been consistent rulings at the lower court level saying that the president's decision to do that was arbitrary and showed animus toward the dreamer community, but they didn't do it the right way. the supreme court is going to the topther administrations defense of the daca. tried to overturn

this will loom large in the term and put the supreme court in the center of 2020 political season. we have the abortion case they decided to here and we talked case.the daca you have a case in the first week that will deal with lgbt protections in the worst place -- in the workplace. some people would say that the some has no right to hear because new york's he has tried to revisit a policy that it implemented to basically move a case. seemsnservative majority to want to hear it anyway and what a lot think it will be to try to constrict gun safety. you could have these all front

and center in the supreme court term and we have not gotten to the possibility that we might have a case involving the affordable care act because there is a challenge to the affordable care act emanating out of the fifth circuit that depending on the timing could reach the supreme court this term. term forinteresting court watchers and c-span viewers. michael is next from illinois, independent. good morning. caller: i have a technical question for mr. fallon. remember thati franklin roosevelt wanted to becausehe supreme court they were blocking some of the new deal. i am wondering what the technical approach would be to expand the supreme court. do you have to make a law or is

it some other process that would this situation, such that you could expand it to 15 or whatever you want number wise? they have always been political anyway so we might as well admit to it and pack the court and when you get in, do it. lastith the democrats, one point -- they are worrying about daca and attacking gun rights. i am on a razors edge of voting for warren or trump again, which i voted for him in 2016 and i don't want to vote for him, but you are forcing my hand. i would be curious about your technical analysis of this. host: brian fallon? guest: that is an interesting set of options to be waiting for 2020. the caller is right that there have been efforts taken to

change the number in the supreme court. there is nothing in the constitution that locks it in at nine. throughout history, the number of seats in the supreme court has varied -- during the civil war grew to 10, when andrew johnson became president, it shrunk to seven. it has toggled to various numbers of seats at various points in history. it can be changed by a simple act of legislation. fdr proposed, expanding the number of seats in the extreme -- supreme court. it became moot because after many years of a conservative majority upending and overturning key portions of the new deal, was the so-called switch in time that saved nine, where one justice and up with the more progressive justices instead of upholding and turning

over and roosevelt's push to expand that became a moot point. increasingly in the 2020 cycle, you are seeing democratic candidates open for changing the supreme court. for term champion limits. our group thinks that would eliminate the gaming of the system where justices turn the retirement strategically to ensure that the president of their party can nominate their successor. other candidates have expressed openness to adding seats or changing entirely rather than it be a fixed justices for life or have it be a rotating court. my group supports adding seats and we have been joined by a large number of prominent democrats and progressive organizations that are said the

same. host: how many seats do you want? tost: i think that is open discussion and we have to be open because we cannot let -- to go back to the question asked by the earlier caller -- we can't just let what happened in 2016 happen unchecked. that was a gross theft of the supreme court seat. people in our side need to get conscious of the fact that if we could have a democratic president in 2020 but if the senate remains in republican hands, there is not a chance that mitch mcconnell will give a nomination for the supreme court that the democrats put through and why would he? matter, if we want to d incentivize mitch mcconnell ntivize what-deince he did, that can't happen again. host: an op-ed in the north

mississippi journal about adding seats to the supreme court. this is what was said. rather than force the hands, republicans have worked within the institution. democrat and those who are but themay be upset last president who attempted to pack the court, it was a bad idea then and still a bad idea. those who believe in an independent judiciary will not let it happen. guest: that is completely hypocritical. the republicans were fully willing to change the number of seats and they changed it to eat. to eight because they refused to look at merrick garland. obamauring the administration, grassley wanted to decrease the number of seats

to the most important court secondary to the supreme court because he wanted barack obama not to be able to name one. level, and arizona and west virginia, they undertook steps to manipulate the number of seats and people serving on state supreme court's in those states. this is an issue where republicans have played by one set of rules consistently and democrats have looked the other way mp complacent. changeup is trying to the democrats. host: west virginia, republican, good morning. caller: thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak. and i been listening think i would like time to respond to a bunch of things i have heard. host: give us one or two. caller: he just mentioned about

the democrats being bribed but as far as appointments, you can go back to when they packed the courts, toward world war ii. this gets intot the deep state concept, where subservientrobably to various big corporation conglomerates or oligarchs owning majority of shares in control corporations and set the campaign funding for a lot of these long-standing members of both democrat and republican parties. try and remember that when trump came in, he tended to follow --ice of many experienced

which turned out to be deep state people -- in the appointments that he made. i think theuest: supreme court as a branch of government is one that escapes scrutiny from the public for a long time. you have seen low approval levels for the current president. you see historically low approval levels for congress in some polls in terms of favorability. the court has remained above the fray for many years because growing up we all learn about the court in civics lessons as political body. in the current composition with the 5-4 conservative majority that has control over the court, we are seeing it behave more and more politically. court headed to where the

is going to become an issue of controversy, much like it has in other parts of our history. you had politicians running against the supreme court because it continued to strike down acts of congress and state legislation intended to help workers and provide labor protections. you had people like teddy roosevelt running against the court fdr also. i think we are heading to that. host: a text from mark in kentucky -- how was it obama was to electn his efforts supreme court justices and trump has been successful. guest: there are some things we can control and some things we cannot. one thing the trump administration has been good at emulatehould seek to

their streamlined efficiency at identifying candidates for judicial vacancies and sending them to the hill as quickly as possible and creating a pipeline where we don't dither. there is a lot of criticism in the early years of the obama administration, the act of qualifying good nominees was slow to happen. we should not read again that in 2021 if we regain power. there are other things that were outside of his control and when donald trump took the oath of office, he inherited a hundred judicial vacancies. the reason he filled so many seats is because republicans were so successful of keeping those open during barack obama's presidency. they did it with the help of a lot of democratic politicians on capitol hill. is ae senate, there guarded process of how nominations are considered, especially for district court judges and trial court judges at

the lowest of of the federal bench. or is a process where they confirm with home state senators and the way that home state senators presumed their own way. they have this arcane custom called the blue slip, were both home state senators work to return the blue slip to indicate positive support for the nominee and only then with the committee chairman move forward with the nomination. in keeping with the bad faith approach him of the senate republicans would make a habit of not returning blue slips for people who barack obama nominated who were from red states. for six of the eight years when barack obama was president, the chairman had the power to look the other way and proceed with -- withama's nominees barack obama nominees or he could kowtow to the others like ted cruz. theall the years he was

judiciary committee spokesman, none of brock obama's nominations were taken. been reciprocated when the democrats took, the republicans have decided they don't care about senate courtesy and are not honoring blue slips anymore. so people who had kept the policy in place are made to look full and barack obama's legacy is a lot less than what it could've been in terms of judicial nominees he got confirmed. host: did used to work for chuck schumer? guest: i did. host: is he at fault? guest: i was there for six years and i would include myself in the people who got complacent about the issue of judicial nominations. was in strategy meetings where we would plan out the next

senate calendar and i was among those who would always side with devoting floor time to what i would call "showboat." we knew mitch mcconnell would filibuster a proposal on say increasing minimum wage or extending overtime benefits where we thought there was media value of bringing it up and showing the republicans would filibuster and showing the democrats were trying to get an republicans were trying to block it. in retrospect, that was a waste of time. looking at have been judicial nominations rather than the showboat's on measures that would've been important if they would have passed. rather than trying to get political advantage momentarily in the press are trying to make each mcconnell look bad for blocking a proposal that was doomed, it would've been more productive to debt -- to devoting that time to judicial nominations. host: next color, go ahead.

caller, go ahead. mentioni would like to that you should never allow somebody to lie in your broadcast. the previous speaker died when that the whistleblower was a registered democrat. how did he know he was a registered democrat when nobody knows who he is? -- beef with that. the feedback.iate do you have a question for brian fallon?

ander: i am watching listening very carefully. he answered my question while i was waiting. thank you. host: claudia is in north carolina, a republican. good morning. caller: i wanted to say thank you for this format. i am happy to see real people calling in and giving opinions. fallon,listening to mr. i really should say that i do support president trump and i do support conservative values. much whatw pretty conservative is because we live in a country where that has been the norm. what i think is interesting or confusing is i am not sure that he is defining what he means by progressive values.

i don't mean this mean or anything, but if progressive policies are the new green deal that is really quite confusing or roe v. wade, where abortion is concerned, that it appears that children can be born and then they can -- full-term, and then they can be decided where they want them to live or not. i guess i am confused about whether or not i would go for regressive values. host: what are progressive values? guest: i want to be responsive point.caller's one area where we could agree on things is that we would disagree about progressive versus conservative values one thing we

should all mutually expect from the court are respect for precedent. there is the whole notion that gets talked about a lot and that is the idea that the justices on the supreme court should not be overturning cases in nearly willie and there should be illy-willy.n another thing that we especially whatcent years is conservatives have long cherished in court is the idea of judicial restraint. that is to say we don't want judges that legislate from the bench or who exercise too heavy a hand. if congress passes something, the justices should largely air on the side of deferring because congress is the elected branch that represents the people. under johne court

roberts has drifted away on those two precepts. in terms of respecting precedent, you've had three majority hashe 5-4 overturned its own precedents that were 25 years old or older. breyere prompted stephen to write a descent saying, if the court is going to be overturning its own precedents, what is next? that is where we got the warning that perhaps roe could be a next thing on the chopping block. was written where it said it is not about whether something has stood the test of time. we shouldn't commit ourselves to how long a precedent has been on the books or really matters is if i disagree with it.

that is a low standard for overturning precedent in the supreme court and used to get them dismissed as activists judges. now it is the conservatives who ie acting as activists judges would make the case that couldn't we just agree that the supreme court should be deferring to the elective branches of government? it should not be behaving as judicial activists? if we could agree on that, she would agree. host: on clarence thomas, couldn't they use that as thinking for the second amendment? guest: the decision that came out that antonin scalia wrote, it said that the second the members as right to bear arms but left open the possibility that there could be common sense restrictions on that fundamental right. as long as we can all agree to

live by what antonin scalia sent -- set on the opinion, we could find common ground. most of the gun safety is not going to try to relitigate whether they're trying to bear arms but the second part where it said let's focus on issues like expanded background checks, banning weapons of war, like assault weapons, because that should fit in with the carveout that antonin scalia of had about -- antonin scalia a had about safety. we are going to try to hollow out that second half and the new york case that they seem to want to hear, it could be the trojan horse opportunity where they come in and say that theoretically congress could pass gun safety legislation but we will strike down everything they might consider. they basically would hollow out

the idea that you couldn't and act common sense gun safety restrictions. people like myself could fully live within the spirit of what antonin scalia a was writing -- butnin scalia was writing, we are unsure the court will approach that in good faith. host: rodney is a democrat. good morning. caller: i just want to say a few things about the supreme court. i always thought it was a racist system. there hasn is -- never been a black men -- black woman. does the guest see a time where there may be a black lady elected to the supreme court? guest: i would hope so. one of the people on barack

obama's short list for the merrick garland appointment was a judge here in d.c. there are a number of qualified individuals right now that are not just on the federal bench, but also out there practicing as public interest lawyers. you had the head of the naacp legal defense fund who would be a terrific nominee as the next mccracken president. you have michelle alexander who wrote the book, "the new jim w."w the next democratic resident should make a priority of not gender diversity but racial diversity and not just hiring from corporate lawyer backgrounds. host: also vying to be the nominee come is or someone you're supporting in particular who is best on reforms? guest: we have not endorsed

candidate and i'm not sure that we will but we are trying to encourage as many of the candidates to speak to this issue and some have spoken more than others. pete buttigieg was the first one put out a proposal to structurally reform the supreme court to 15 and change how they are appointed. a proposal was put out to endorse term it's to 18-year terms. elizabeth warren is someone who has spoken out about the need to appoint a more worker-focused lawyers come working in labor law, to the supreme court and federal bench to counter the influence of the corporate minded judges that donald trump has appointed. those are some candidates who have spoken to this issue. virginia, they supported 18 year term limits and each resident would get to submit to and that would eliminate partisanship at least.

.ou can join us via text you can call in like a susan did, and independent. -- an independent. caller: your guest is full of it. he does not want to legislate from the bench but wants to pack supreme court. give me a break. he believes in abortion and abortion on demand. delta -- daca is an executive order, not policy. guest: let's take the issue of abortion since the caller brought it out. i think maybe we could find common ground if we stuck to what the supreme court has

already said. in the spirit of not having it act in an activist way but on her past rulings. the case that was just decided last week that they would here in louisiana shows the bad faith of the current conservative majority on the supreme court. the law that is at issue that the supreme court will hear is nearly identical to a law that texas passed by the supreme court in 2016 and a case known as "whole women's health." louisiana said that a woman has the right to get an abortion if she wants to but for the sake of her safety, we are just going to add a layer of complexity where we will this we are going to require that any physician performing an abortion has to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

when the fact-finding happened and the court case was argued in the texas instance, culminating in the supreme court's ruling in 2016, they said there was no compelling interest for the sake of the woman to insist on this. they said it was a backdoor way to force the closure of abortion clinics in texas. on that basis, by a 5-4 margin, the court struck down that law. the only thing that has changed with this louisiana abortion case is not the facts of the underlying proposal. it is just the composition of the court. kennedy has been replaced by brett kavanaugh, a more conservative, more antiabortion justice. now these red states think they will have a more friendly audience if they bring a case like this back up. that is what they have done and they have reason for confidence because last term there was a decision in the interim about whether the supreme court will let the law go into effect while they waited for the case to work up through the system. brett kavanaugh said he would

have been content to let that log go into effect and force the closure of all but one abortion clinic in louisiana even though the law at issue is flagrantly in violation of a supreme court precedent from just three years ago, 2016. people like myself have been saying that brett kavanaugh is full of it on abortion have that ruling to point to from last term. that is why a lot of us are worried this decision to take up this louisiana case this year is that the court is prepared to overturn his own precedent. host: do you think congress should overturn brett kavanaugh -- impeach brett kavanaugh? guest: i do. we had a rally yesterday to mark the one-year anniversary of his confirmation. there is a lot of basis for reopening an investigation into brett kavanaugh, but the main argument i would make is we never had the full investigation

that we ought to have had before he was confirmed in the first place. thatact that he is there, he was confirmed, makes him an illegitimate justice considering that congress, the senate purposely did not seek out documents from his time working in the white house that may have shed light on his views on these hot button issues and also we now know, based on the new york times report, the fbi was so constrained and how it did the follow-up background check that it was not allowed to do interviews of corroborating witnesses that could have corroborated the accounts of accusers like deborah ramirez. our call on the house democrats, who now have the power of the gavel on the house side, is to do the fact-finding. do the investigation that the senate republicans looked the other way on. washe fact-finding the fbi not permitted to do because of the white house's meddling and do it in a formal impeachment inquiry. host: time for just one or two more calls of brian fallon.

vermont, independent. >> thank you for taking my call. i had a question about the balance of power and the supreme court position in that, where today it seems the executive , through executive order, issue basically what are like laws. who knows if an executive order comes through that we all have to wear polkadotted underwear, the extent of that power. they seem to be able to go to war. we essentially have a king like structure. congress seems to hand too much power to the executive. , was wondering if the court which if you follow the constitution, does not really say congress can hand this power off to make laws, a.k.a. executive orders, if it would

depend on a court of the future to reverse the power and give it back to congress versus having as a convenient scapegoat during a political season to point a finger at versus having something on your own record. host: thanks for the call. guest: i have the opposite concern. i worry the judiciary has taken role in oured democracy and has the potential to undermine the will of the people, being what counts inngst -- the supreme court its current role exceeds the vision of the founders in terms of the role they intended for the judiciary to have. sideld rather air on the -- err on the side of letting the elected branches of government -- deferred to them in their wisdom.

we have elections to vote those people out rather than have a system where we have nine people that are serving for life basically ruling by judicial via. -- fiat. the current situation with the court is one that is designed by the republican party. goal for asell's long as he has been majority leader's to make government as dysfunctional as possible, to make the senate not be productive. confers an outsized role on the courts to settle disputes ngress is incapable of settling. daca case case -- will be subtle because congress cannot get its act together, which forced barack obama to undertake the daca policy in the first place. i would rather have this debated

on by congress and voted on by congress. if the people do not like what they did, you have the ability to vote them out. let's not leave these tectonic plate questions in the hands of nine unelected judges. host: the group is demand justice. brian fallon, co-founder, executive director, appreciate your time. next on the washington journal, our bus tour of the campaign 2020 battleground states continues. today we are in cleveland ohio and we will be joined on the bus next by seth richardson of cleveland.com to discuss buckeye state politics. ♪ >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from

washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> tonight on the community or -- communicators, michael o'rielly on the federal appeals court ruling that the agency can repeal net neutrality but cannot block state laws. >> you are going to see states do certain things i disagree with. you will see others jump in. having 50 states pull us in different directions, some with net neutrality in one way and others in another, is not with the structure should be. it is not interstate commerce. it is why we have in interstate commerce clause and it is not something they have expertise in. they are supposed to be covering trustee traffic.

my analysis of the architecture -- there is no basically interest -- interstate traffic on the internet. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. the c-span bus is on a tour about ground states. the tour kicked off in early september. we will travel to key battleground states. cleveland,re in ohio. we are on -- we are joined on board the bus by the politics reporter at cleveland.com. your political, newsletters called the flyover. you focus on the politics of the heartland. what are the politics of the heartland today and how much is the impeachment inquiry sinking in? >> thanks for having me and thanks for bringing the bus to cleveland. we appreciate it.

it is too early to tell how the impeachment inquiry is seeping into politics. in have some house members some districts across the upper midwest getting on board with the inquiry. emerson released a poll that showed in ohio a 50/50 split, people who supported and -- impeachment hearings and people who did not. that is just one pole. it was surprising considering how big the president one 2016. he won by a large margin. it is hard to see exactly where impeachment is, especially when you have so many issues going on. i think a lot of people that live in the heartland, live in all the states, kind of see that as a washington thing. there is a lot of disconnect between d.c. and the people who

live here. there is the appearance of that at the least. it is hard to determine that now. >> a special phone line this wening -- (202) 748-8003 will be happy to talk a guy state politics with you. phone lines as usual for the rest of the country. republicans -- (202) 748-8001. democrats -- (202) 748-8000 independents -- (202) 748-8002. seth richardson, the we -- the website is cleveland.com. what else are you focusing on in the flyover today? guest: we are focused on the issues in the heartland. we want to see -- we know the states are important. you look at wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania, ohio, iowa. the states are important as well as indiana and illinois.

illinois being very democrats, indiana be very republican. you have a good cross-section of midwest.- of the log of these issues -- a them are the same as the national issues. one of the biggest is the general motors strike, affecting several states. you have workers striking. chicago futures could go on strike soon. one of the bigger issues facing the president is farmers being upset. you look at the renewable fuel standards in iowa. someone in wisconsin said small dairy farmers would have to consolidate or get bigger, which is kind of throwing in the towel. they are saying there is not a way to survive if you're small. you have farmers who are upset. we dove issues that maybe not see nationally -- water quality being a big one.

and algae blooms. you have the largest freshwater source in america and it is not something necessarily talked eu of the green new deal. jobs in the economy are probably number one. then of course health care. everybody is talking but health care. host: there are three issues you bring up -- gm strikes, water quality. how much attention do you think they will get in the debate? guest: i went to the debates in detroit. part of the reason the democrats said they wanted to go to all these places and have these debates -- they sold it as we are going back to the voters and we had this disconnect in 2016. in detroit, it seems like they missed an opportunity to talk about some of those issues that

are not necessarily hyper local issues. they might seem that way, but you talk about great lakes water quality. in detroit, they did not mention the great lakes once, neither moderators or candidates. you have these voters who live along greatly -- great lakes states. it is a large margin. i do not know if impeachment is going to take center stage because it is the national conversation. i would not expect a whole lot of discussion about it. it could get some play, but very minimal play. detroit is noe in talk about water quality. you had the flint water crisis a short ways away. there talk about manufacturing -- there was a little bit of it, but less from where the debate is being held. i do not know if they are going to shift their focus to some of

that have thesues national bend to them. it surprises me they are not doing that. host: why westerville, ohio as opposed to columbus or cleveland or dayton? guest: i thought it was a curious choice. they say they want to go to the suburbs, or democrats have seen big gains. that is true for places like westerville. i found it interesting that they decided to go to westerville itself instead of going to columbus, cleveland, dayton, cincinnati. that is where your democratic base is. this is a democratic debate. it might make more sense to have a general election debate in a place like that, although the infrastructure is questionable -- one road in, one road out. you have all these democratic voters in northeast ohio and columbus, even in cincinnati, a place that has been

traditionally red as far as big cities go. interesting.t i think they want to show they are going to the suburbs, that they are not taking the suburban voters who came to them in 2018 for granted. is a typical suburban place where you did see that shift. host: seth richardson is on the c-span bus in cleveland. we will take viewers to todd in dayton, ohio on the phone this morning. go ahead. caller: i had a comment on with the sanctuary -- it is not called a sanctuary city. it is called a welcoming city. i do not know how democrats are going to do well in dayton because they do run completely the city of dayton. there is not one republican commissioner. there is nothing down there. i would like to know what you

guys think about dayton and the city of dayton. we had the greatest aquifer. we have a great aquifer underneath us, so we need to protect that. go ahead. host: thanks for the call. seth richardson, water issues in dayton. guest: that is a great question, especially talking about the importance of dayton altogether. dayton is an important place in ohio. if you run well in montgomery county, odds are you will do well in the rest of the state. it is a bellwether, so to speak, especially with it being so big and outside the traditional. big cities. issuesve had some water they have the dayton shooting, the tornadoes that ripped through there. you look at 2016 and you had a place like montgomery county

that was fairly supportive of donald trump, but you've also seen the city that has been kicked in the teeth over the .ast year between the tornadoes they had a kkk rally that a lot of people protested. that was the same weekend. you had aquifer issues and the mass shooting in oregon. when bads wonder things happen -- does it shift voters' opinion? will they remember it in a year? i assume they will, but i do not know how it plays. i know you did see anger toward mike to wine, a republican. he had a chance to do something during the vigil for the victims of the shooting. there are a lot of of hot button political issues in dayton. the mayor is a democrat with some clear higher aspirations. she has been out there at the

forefront of the democratic party talking about them as well and keeping them fresh in voters' minds. today, the governor will be releasing his gun reforms in response to the dayton shooting. we will see how that plays. there is a lot of mix of issues and i'm glad the first question was about dayton. it is an important part of the state area -- state. mason, ohio -- tom is there. has everybody forgotten our constitution, what we stand for? life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. if we forget that, we forget everything. we have murdered over 60 million babies. liberty -- the pursuit of happiness -- if you put them together, you will realize that

first amendment and second amendment are paramount. property is part of the problem people forget. we must remember life begins at conception. if it was not for conception, we would not have life. host: seth richardson on the abortion issue and how it is playing in buckeye state politics. you can look no further for talk -- then 2018 for how it plays. you had a tight election between the to wine, who one, and democratic candidate. all of a sudden, the brett kavanaugh hearing happened and abortion becomes a big issue not just in ohio but nationwide because of the possibility for roe v. wade to be overturned with a conservative majority on the supreme court. a lot of people think kavanaugh overat pushed republicans

the edge in 2018. everybody was kind of -- even until present day -- were kind of thinking democrats had a shot at taking the governor's race. that obviously did not happen and i would -- i suspect that abortion played a big part in that. the antiabortion people are very active in politics. you have a lot organizations that really get their members out, especially when there is some kind of abortion issue, maybe not necessarily on the ballot, but that is being played out in politics. host: from oregon come outline for democrats. that itleprompter right is boring, oregon that you are from? caller: no. portland, oregon. thanks for letting us have our opinions. question is for the last guest you had on, but maybe i

can give another question too. away withns if we do our checks and balances and our government and we have a president that does not comply with the house as a watchman for democracy, that denies them and stonewalls the house the right to have information for and facts are supreme court partisan judges? i guess in god we trust. why can't we find our rep -- fine our representatives for every time they line? -- youw whow ill know who will be lying the most. guest: i guess if we fined representatives every time they lied, they might rack up a bill. there is a way you can.

that is basically to vote. is basically the check and balance on everything. ohio, this is mike in warren, ohio. morning, fellow ohioans and fellow americans. tim ryan of the 13th district, who is i think it is safe to say running a failed presidential campaign, how are voters, mealy democrat voters -- mainly democrat voters, how did they feel about him being on the campaign trail when gm has just opioiddown and all the problems and things are going on? alienating any of the people there, in your opinion? does he have any chance? he is probably building up his

warchest and running for vice president. is there any chance that is going to happen or that he gets a sweet cabinet position? host: thanks for the question. is a bit of an enigma to me. i covered him in iowa. he is a good campaigner. i want to give him credit for that. he wins his races and democrats basically begged him to run for governor in 2018. yes floated the idea of running for any number of positions over the years and did not bite until this year when he decided -- he ran against nancy pelosi for democratic leader, but that was the first time and now he is running for president. as far as the presidential race is concerned, i think people are open to the idea of him testing

the waters. it is a big field. had a pretty abysmal first two debates, ended up by tulsiosterized gabbard and bernie sanders. one had the taliban-elf -- al qaeda gaffe. bernie saying that he wrote the bill. i think people view it as he did not make the third debate. that was sort of the end of any real hope he had the presidential race. he is not going to be on the debate stage in his own home state. i do not think he is necessarily alienating voters in his district. he is very popular there. he has lost some of the vote share as that district has swung to the right.

one of the reasons donald trump probably one the state is that traditionally blue area your youngstown swung pretty hard to the right. it did not vote for him, but the margin was not near the margin has been in past years. how he mightesting play for another position. maybe he runs for governor in 2022. i do not see vice president as a likely option just because you do have so many democrats with higher national profiles. what does tim ryan bring to a ticket? it has to be a specific set of circumstances where he becomes the vice president. especially because if you can get a bigger name, why wouldn't you do that? in theory, it would boost the popularity of the ticket. i think he could be a valuable surrogate because of lordstown

closing down. president donald trump was in youngstown in 2017 right after i got to cleveland.com. he came in and said do not sell your house is. we are going to reopen the factories. those factories are going to have jobs. then one of the largest employers in the area closed down. a lot of people lose their jobs and there does not seem to be a great solution in sight. they have toyed with selling the factory to an electric truck maker, but the electric truck maker -- a lot of it hinges on if they get this government contract and even if they do about 2000 peopleut who lost their jobs versus possibly bringing 400 people back in. i think there is a message that makes him a powerful surrogate in some respects. i think it cabinet position is not necessarily out of question. the only issue is that you might lose a house seat if you have a special election there.

, redistrictingnd is going to happen in 2020 and i would imagine that the mahoney valley district, with the rules passed in 2018, is going to make that seat much more competitive. i could see him angling for a secretary of labor. that would make sense. just a couple minutes left with seth richardson of cleveland.com. kimberly is in ohio. caller: good morning and thank you for allowing each of us americans to be able to voice our opinions and views. is, withon for seth the debate coming up in ohio, what are the chances that we could limit some of their comments by not being able to bash each other, not being able to put this one down for their actions or put our president down for the actions that he has

andn or their views of him allow each of them to tell us just what they can do and what they are bringing to the table? i am sure i speak for a lot of people. we are tired of everybody putting each other down. tell us what you can do and why our vote should go to you rather than telling me about how bad this other person is. what are the chances we could actually have a debate where they could talk about each other and sell themselves to each of us rather than putting this other person down? if they lack such substance amongst themselves that their character or jobs they have done not -- what is the word i want to use? host: got your point. let seth richardson jump in. guest: i do not know we are going to get any kind of nice debate anytime in the near future, but you do see some

candidates trying that on stage. pete buttigieg has gone out of his way to not attack other people. i think a lot of that would be taking care of -- taken care of if the debate stages were smaller. when you put 10 cut 12 people on a debate stage, it does not seem like a whole lot of constructive discussion. you're trying to get 10 people and you limit yourself to what you can talk about. i think that would solve some problems. get the real to check is the ballot box. the other way, if you wanted to get them to have a more civil discussion amongst each other, is to call the campaign and say if you keep attacking someone on this stage, i will not vote for you. i will actively campaign against you. that is the one thing that , not havingrue

supporters, not been elected. host: if you want a daily dose of heartland politics, sign-up for the flyover at cleveland.com. seth richardson is the lead political reporter, the author of the flyover, joining us from ohio. we appreciate your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: we also want to thank our cable partners, spectrum and partners, spectrum and cleveland state university, for hosting the c-span bus. to learn more about the bus and its schedule, visit c-span.org /community or follow our travels on twitter. we will be back here tomorrow morning. it is 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. under on 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. >> the new term of the supreme court begins today. justices would hear cases on employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, the trump

administration winding down the daca program. the court will release audio of this week's oral arguments friday, which we will bring you on the c-span networks after they are released. and a look at today's life events here on c-span. coming up in 30 minutes, the discussion on using the national vote on popular elections hosted by the hill. at noon eastern, a look at the d.c. circuit court of appeals decision to uphold the repeal of the obama administration's net neutrality rule. later today, former cia director david petraeus will talk about cyber threats and the role of nato. this evening, canadian party leaders, including prime minister justin trudeau, will take part in a two hour debate live at 7:00 eastern on c-span.

host: back at our desk is matt schlapp of the american conservative union, as we begin another week with the impeachment story front and center. i wonder what you think of the historical comparisons. what are the lessons that democrats and republicans should take from the clinton impeachment and the nixon impeachment inquiry? guest: i was a young staffer for the clinton impeachment fracas. i would say two things. it is a political exercise. it is all politics. argumentslegal wrapped around it, but in the end, one thing we do not talk about is that the previous impeachments -- and nixon was not impeached but would have been, and probably would have been convicted. the republicans could not get the super majority vote in the senate. both clinton and nixon had just gotten reelected. so the voters did not have another chance to render an opinion on their legal