politics of presidential impeachment with david hawking's. be sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern monday morning. join the discussion. >> policy experts discussed this drinks and weaknesses of various 2020 presidential candidates climate and energy plans. that coverage begins monday at 12:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the brookings institution will hold a discussion on impeachment, foreign interference, and how best to safeguard the 2020 election. live coverage starts monday on c-span. you can also watch online at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> joining us at the table is russ feingold. good morning to you.

thank you for joining us. we were just talking about interesting times during the break, but take us back to 1998. you were just reelected for a second term. bill clinton was being impeached. what was the time then compared to now? it feels very different, the president made some serious personal mistakes, in the congressional elections he did not lose ground, he picked up some ground congressionally. everyone was largely surprised when just before the holidays the house decided to impeach president clinton. verynk we knew there was little chance that once there was a trial that he would actually be convicted. it had an unreal quality. as i was trying to indicate we took the job seriously nonetheless. this feels very different. this feels like a president who is truly out of control and has been gradually building up as a

concern over the last 2.5 years. now we are in a situation where there is, in effect, the thing they said they were looking for in watergate. a smoking gun indicating that the president does not looking -- working for the people of the united states. this has a more real and authentic quality. even when it seemed there was not a great deal to the charges against pleasant -- president clinton, fundamentally with his regard to doing anything endangering to the country, we took it seriously then. and it should be taken seriously now. host: one of the reasons we brought you on is because what you wrote in usa today. for clinton,nt justice tops politics, tell us what you're saying. guest: the founders of our country deserve our respect, they were specific about impeachment. it had been abused in parliament in england for a couple hundred years and they were afraid of too many impeachments. they made it difficult but they

did feel, because they were creating a presidency that had a fair amount of power, that they had to make it possible to terminate a presidency that was essentially acting against the interest of the united states or violating the public trust. that is exactly the approach that our country took. and they required an oath in the constitution. we hear the oath every four years, and members of congress have to take an oath. but there's a separate requirement that those who sit in the trial and impeachment in the senate have to be there, they have to vote and the oath requires you to say under oath that i will do impartial justice, so help me god. to have an invitation political battle, it's an invitation to listen to the evidence and do impartial justice. that's the way it should be taken. host: we have a half-hour with our guest, russ feingold talking about impeachment and other

issues to read the phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen. for democrats, ,202) 748-8001 for republicans for independents (202) 748-8002. of the senatember during the bill clinton impeachment, you are the only democrat to oppose the motion to dismiss the charges. does that get back to what you are saying a moment ago? why did you vote that way? guest: i really thought, even though you are not literally a juror, you are along with 99 other people who have to determine the facts and whether the law applies under the constitution. i sat down thinking this was not going to be much of a case, but to be honest, when the house managers came in and made their case i thought, and a few other democratic senators shared with me, they did fairly well in

terms of putting out the possibility that president clinton had obstructed justice. we heard those arguments, then we heard the arguments of white house lawyers, who are also very good. at that point i assume that we would then hear the evidence, or be able to examine the facts that they had been alleging. to democratic caucus decided move to dismiss the case before we heard the evidence. to me that was wrong, based my belief that there was a possibility that the evidence would support that this was an impeachable offense. and the republicans of course wanted to hear the evidence and i was only democrat to hear the evidence. we watched the depositions and by the end, i realize the president and his conduct had more to do with trying to conceal his personal behavior from his own family, rather than trying to conceal it from the federal -- the fbi and investigators. so i did not feel that there had been the intent shown to show

that he had committed obstruction of justice. but i can only make that determination after giving a fair chance to the evidence. that's exactly what needs to be done if there is going to be in impeachment trial of president trump. host: with president trump and the impeachment inquiry, the democrats have taken a lot of criticism from the other side about their process. they are making a lot of process arguments three what do you make of them? host: they are pre-much nonsense. there is nothing wrong with having an investigation, having it some -- done in the background. the other impeachment investigations that i witnessed, the nixon impeachment and the clinton attempted impeachment, there were red invest -- there were investigations and reports by special counsel. they did not have an open hearing every time they spoke to a witness. you have to do the background checking and many people safe like a grand jury situation and it's appropriate to do that. they have brought it out in the open, they had the formal

beginning of the inquiry and they will have open hearings. so this is nothing but an excuse , and the president is realizing that it's flimsy, saying i don't want to talk about process anymore. this has been a red herring. guest: steve scalise, the gop majority with was asked about democrats tactics. we will show a short clip and come back. [video clip] >> when we talk about the vote it's important to note, when you see that not only that every single republican reject the soviet style impeachment process, but we were joined by democrats who could not stand it anymore. if you look at where we are right now, we are at an important point in history. clearly there are people that we serve with that do not like the result of the 2016 election. that's their prerogative. but the country next year will be deciding who our president is going to be. it should not be nancy pelosi in a small group of people that she selects daegis to determine who

will be our president. if you look at the resolution they talk about fairness. if they really think that they can tell people it's fair that only the chairman gets to decide who the witnesses are, and they give us an opportunity to call witnesses, but if the chair says they don't like the witnesses the witnesses don't come forward. they allow the president to have legal counsel in the room, unless the chair decides that they don't want the president's legal counsel in the room. that's never happened before. with the clinton impeachment, with the nixon impeachment, republican and democrat alike, both sides could call witnesses. the president's legal counsel was in the room not at the discretion of the chair but because it's fair. so when you look at the soviet style process, it shows that they don't really want to get to the truth. they want to remove a sitting president. in fact the author of the articles of impeachment says if they do not impeach the

president, he will get reelected. that's not why we have impeachment. alexander hamilton made it very clear, his concern, when they were trying to promote the constitution was that he did not want to see impeachment used for political purposes. yes that -- yet that is what is happened today. it's a sham, it should not have happened, it's a tainted process that adam schiff has been conducting that nadler might one day conduct. the house deserves better, the people of this country deserve better, we should be tackling real problems. guest: -- host: he calls it a soviet style process, what do you call it? guest: anyone who looks at the facts and suggest that this is just politics is not thinking about the interest of this country domestically or internationally. the president has engaged in extremely inappropriate conduct at a minimum. the idea that it's only politics to look at the fact that he was talking on the phone with the president of the ukraine and

withholding aid in return for he -- a promised investigation of joe biden and his son is something other than just politics. if the house was not investigating this and considering impeachment, they would be dropping their responsibilities. speakers did not want -- the speakers did not want to go this way. but the facts became so overwhelming, regardless of politics, that they had no choice. they are doing the right thing. and it's only the beginning of the process. impeachment is like an indictment. in the senate you have the overwhelming burden of two thirds of the members of the senate to actually convict someone and remove them from office. this process is perfectly reasonable, and there are many other stages where there will be input for those who want to defend the president. host: let's go to the calls.

tj on the independent line. caller: i'm calling to see how can we shorten this impeachment process and come to a fair decision to all political parties, independence, democrats, and republicans. i think realistically probably the fastest the house could do their investigation and provide the opportunity for the president's counsel in the president's defense would probably be just before the holidays. it will probably end up very similar to 1999, where the house to the impeachment right near the end of 1998, the senate came back, we had the swearing in of the senators and we immediately went to the trial. i suspect that will be the same thing. in that case it took five weeks. the impeachment trial of president johnson took longer, a few months. this will take some time, but i think it is something that could be resolved if everyone has a

chance to have their say and look at the evidence, probably within a month or so. this any concerns that will bump into the presidential primary? guest: it will and that's a problem, that's a problem for some candidates, those in the senate are not allowed to leave to go out and campaign easily under the senate rules. it is theoretically possible. but some things are more important. under constitution, this trial has to be conducted properly. the candidates will have to get out there trial. jack, from scottsdale, arizona, on the republican line. trump won wisconsin, the people of wisconsin picked the right president.

this started with obama, there was spying on him and the concluded with their conspiracy theory. it started with impeachment the .ay he was elected and it has been a conspiracy. a friend of mine has a friend in the pentagon who said once the , do younts start flying think the impeachment thing will go on? it will end quickly, because the democrats are going to freak out over all -- the truth always comes out in the end. so senator, you better get ready, buckle up. the democrats have big problems ahead, not the republicans. host: thanks. guest: the people who have been coming forward to tell the story of what president trump did with

regard to his conversation with the president of the ukraine are certainly not democrats, and are not part of any democratic conspiracy. even democrats in the house have been somewhat stunned by the testimony. i happen to know a couple of these people from when i was working in the state department. i'm aware of the reputation of others. these are not political operatives. they are people who were hired and worked for the trump white house and have now seen something that they could not stomach because they have devoted their lives to protecting this country and protecting the people of this country. instead what they heard was there president of the united states doing something plain shocking and against the national security interests of this country, putting himself in his political future ahead of the united states of america. that's not a conspiracy, that's just -- a terrible act. the president did win narrowly in wisconsin, what you attribute that razor thin

victory in wisconsin and forecast out of 2020 in your estate? guest: it was a trend, it was also in minnesota, michigan, pennsylvania, ohio, all across the upper midwest were suddenly the support that hillary clinton had seemed to fall, and barely the president was able to win. it was an emotion and a feeling that came, particularly in the rural areas. we are not comfortable the democratic candidate and donald trump is talking about bringing back jobs. -- managed totled produce enough support for this was not a wisconsin specific issue. i think things have shifted. we have elected a democratic governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and state treasurer in 2018. and i believe we have an excellent chance to have a democratic nominee defeat a republican nominee, whether it's president trump or someone who succeeds him. russ feingold was the

democratic senator from wisconsin from 1993 to 2011, three terms right? guest: that's right. host: let's go to betty, from virginia beach on the democrat line. caller: good morning. mr. feingold, senator feingold, you are one of my favorites. even though i live in virginia, i'm originally from connecticut and i'm going to move back there. in tom sawyer's need to impeach group and i'm for joe biden for president and very impressed with mayor pete. but now i'm glad that nancy pelosi did wait. now she has the one thing they should concentrate on, this telephone call with the ukrainian president.

i am hoping and praying that they write up the articles and vote on them before they go on the holiday break in december. i don't want them to drag it on. and when they come back in january, it will get turned over to the senate, that's my greatest wish. and i would have voted for you for president in a heartbeat. i think you're a wonderful guy and i wish you would run again. and i hope and pray that they can take back the senate as well, or they won't get anything done. that's all i have to say, god bless you and good morning to all of the people. host: thank you betty. guest: i appreciate the kind words. and i think you are right, the simplicity of the fact situation with regard to what the president did with the president of ukraine does make it a lot more likely that people will feel that the impeachment has to go forward. i remember when all of the stuff came out, just a cast of

characters and you have to figure out all of the different fact situations. even though it could have been justifiable to conclude that there was an obstruction of justice, it's hard for people to follow. this one is simple this was a phone conversation that the president knows is problematic, where people can look at it and say do i want my president of the united states to be calling up foreign leaders and asking them to dig up dirt on his political opponents or they don't get their aid? i think if every american were honest with themselves they would say this is wrong, and that's the type of thing that will allow the american people to evaluate if there should be an impeachment. this is about removing the president of the united states from office, who was duly elected, as much as i did not want that to happen, that is what happened. impeachment is serious and the american people need to understand it and be behind it.

that's where i think we are finally at with this shocking thing that he did. host: any concern at the pursuit of the cases to narrow? -- too narrow? host: i think -- guest: i think people know there are all kinds of things the president has done that makes him unfit for office. he has violated the norms and rules of the presidency. he has instructed witnesses to not respect subpoenas from congress. there's a whole range of things that are part of the picture. but if you're going to have a vote on a particular article of impeachment, i think it's a good idea to focus on a particular situation that's unforgivable. that no president of the united states can be excused for. and i think that's what we have with the ukrainian story. host: there is a headline, as trump moves to bully witness,

democrat see obstruction -- democrats see obstruction. guest: there would probably be an article of impeachment on the facts of the quid pro quo, but yes, obstruction of justice as well, when i start talking about refusal to honor subpoenas, that is in the category of obstruction of obstruction of justice and has to be answered. if we don't say that donald trump can do that, what president will respect any subpoena? you destroy the balance of power and separation of power in our system that was so carefully crafted. if you don't stand up for the rule of law, we have to do that. and that's what we have to do. twice in aou lost reelection bid, do you have another senate candidacy in mind ? do you have it in you? guest: i'm not looking to run for office, but i'm eager to see things repaired after the damage that has been done.

let's go to gary, in plano, texas. like to giveld some comments to the last caller. anator feingold, what gentleman, what an american, what a patriot. this is one of the best guess to have had on your show that i can remember in many years. so let me start out by saying this. my family is from georgia, marietta georgia. newt gingrich country. we moved to plano, which is right next to frisco, republican bastion. i am a director at a hospital hear and what i see, from many people, including

republicans, and this is a 100% republican area, is the president has overstepped his bounds. going back to the mueller report. ,hen i go to the barnes & noble the line was wrapped around the store just to get this book. mine sits on my fireplace. that mueller report is unbelievable. testimony,ts, the the redact -- forget the redaction's, we are americans, and for the callers who called in and say they are republicans and they honor the flag, and our founding fathers, benjamin hamilton,alexander people who sat in rooms writing the constitution under indlelight, if you can call

to this show and talk to your children before they go to sleep at night and tell them to honor the constitution, to take your history classes seriously, and to tell the truth, republicans wake up. let me get my question. understand about the democratic party, i'm an , for every c-span archive tape of lindsey graham and all the republicans, this is for the dnc, pull up the tapes , onthe clinton impeachment the republican house floor and resolutions for impeachment, pull up the tape from the impeachment trial.

come on nancy pelosi, come on democrats, come on republicans, pull up the tape. thent the tape to reflect entire country, so they can see what we said in our congress, in closed doors,hind private, lindsey graham famously quoted that. among other republicans. we should get a response, senator feingold? guest: those tapes should come out and anyone can look at the president and say he's out of abound -- out of bounds, in exactly the way the founders thought that some one should be removed. i cannot imagine people not seeing it. saying -- this persistently working for his own interest, not the interests of the united states of america. that is something i hope more and more americans, including republicans, can be honest with themselves and say this person

is really not asking like a president. host: i want to show website, what you are familiar with, campaign for nature.org, our guest is the honorary ambassador for the campaign for nature convention on biodiversity. this campaign, why you got involved and what you see in the world and what the potential solutions are? guest: i appreciate you bringing this up, one of the problems with all of this focus on impeachment is that we are not getting to some of the absolutely critical issues that face our country and face the planets. people are aware of the climate change crisis, which was highlighted by some of the biggest protests in history, and around the world a few weeks ago. but there is a similar and related crisis that requires attention. that's what this campaign for nature is about, if the threat of extinction, the threat of a

million species potentially extinct according to leading scientists. this is the type of threat that we have. -- 30% of all30% birds in america have died, are gone. and many species that we know, bobbins and others, are actually declining dramatically. we have a crisis which is frightening from the point of view of loss of animals, loss of fish, loss of a lot of species, but it threatens humanity. our ability to eat, to be safe, to survive. it reaches the point where you lose so much of the national area -- natural area we have to do something. this is helping to promote 30% of the planets water and land be preserved by 2030, it's convective with a -- connected with a convention on biodiversity.

there's a major conference in china next october which is similar to the paris climate accord. we are hoping all of the nations in the world will commit to a serious effort to preserve this planet. if we don't, the scientists tell us it will be too late. the good news is that there are ways to reverse it. you can restore land, you can preserve forests and it will have an impact on making sure we have less climate change of a negative kind and making sure that humanity can eat and survive. host: and in washington, what specific message would you have? guest: that it's time to be aware of that issue. it's time for people to see that this is equally important in .erms of climate change and even though we have to worry about the problems with the president and the political fighting that goes on, this is something we can do together as a part of this effort. i got a hold of some of my former colleagues, it's amazing,

17 democrats and republicans, people like senator mel martinez and others, they were happy to -- ton to a letter from preserve 30% of the planet. part of it is that we, as americans and people love the planet. we love animals and nature and we have to recommit ourselves to that and work on that in a positive way. and at the same time we have to deal with some divisive issues that we are dealing with. we have a caller from our republican line in texas. rememberumber one, i right after the inauguration when president trump was sworn in. iwent surfing news channels, came across one, it was within half an hour that some person on that channel made the comment that it's time to impeach.

so where did that come from? if it did not start then, when did it start, the cannot be said that it's not political. the man had not been in office for 30 minutes and i saw it myself. nott: of course that would be a valid thing to just say you are going to impeach no matter what. and you see it has been many years, the president is getting near the end of his first term and there has not been a serious attempt to impeach him until now . so i think what you're seeing is that cooler heads prevailed, and people realize that impeachment is a serious step and there has to be something that justifies it. you should try to avoid impeachment if you can, we cannot have people just elected and say ok let's impeach them. i agree, that's not right. but what has happened now is that it's clear that this 's general dishonesty, which was frightful and emmons

traded early when he lied about having a larger crowd than obama, it's using illicit ways -- he has lied and used illicit ways to influence foreign leaders. that's an overwhelming ground to remove him from office. a legitimate impeachment have bipartisan support in every case? do you favor letting the court settled the emoluments clause issue? guest: you cannot have conviction without bipartisan support. it would be impossible with republican geordie and of some republicans don't decide to support the idea of convicting the president it cannot happen. the founders, even though they did not like political parties, the weight still works is that it is essentially impossible -- the way it still works is that it's essentially impossible to have one removed unless it is bipartisan. we all know this will not lead to the removal unless there is an impartial trial where people conclude he has done some and

that requires his removal from office. less call -- last call. caller: one thing i am not hearing that democrats emphasizes that if trump is not impeached, this is implicitly giving trump licensed to amp up his efforts to involve other nations in our political process . this should be a major factor that comes forward and the impeachment proceedings. if donald trump is not explicitly stopped, he will not stop. the next day he will be on the phone with other foreign leaders to exploit whatever means he could to sway the election in his favor. guest: i couldn't agree more. it's essential that the house impeach is the president based on these facts. even if we know there is a possibility that this won't be taken seriously and the senate will not convict, it will make a difference, if the historical record shows that this is the third president in american

history to be impeached by the house. if we don't do it we are saying go ahead, review subpoenas, call up foreign leaders and ask up -- ask for stuff for yourself and your political future. it is critical the house does this, and maybe the senate will end up doing its job as well and give this a serious look. but i could not agree with you more, this has to be done. host: as we wrap up, i did want to bring out this story, a new study says that rising seas threatens the time -- three times as many people as thought, not so much because of the sea levels but because of the estimates of people living on low ground. so final thoughts about the environment and what you are trying to achieve with your organization? guest: this involves land and water. a lot of the emphasis is about the oceans, not only the warming of the ocean but overfishing and the things you are describing. this is a global task. it will be big and involve financing from people like

weisse, whose contribute in a billion dollars to this cause and developed nations are finally realizing that if we just help others, it's not going to hurt them, it's going to hurt us. it will make it hard for it to survive and hard for people who live by the oceans to live where they want to live. a senator feingold, from wisconsin from 1993 to 2011, currently the honorary ambassador to th withshington journal, live news that impact you. coming up monday morning, a discussion of impeachment and the constitution. we will talk about the politics of presidential impeachments with david hawking.

be sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern monday morning. join the discussion. >> talking to reporters outside of the white house earlier, president trump was asked about the impeachment inquiry and the 2020 presidential election. >> yes, go ahead. the whistleblower gave a very inaccurate report. i don't know if it's true or susan rice, which means obama. he was like a big anti-trump