they were required to admit having a mental illness and take antipsychotic drugs. h cahalan on "the great pretender." coming up this morning on c-span, discussions on presidential impeachment on washington colonel. -- washington journal. then we had to des moines, iowa for the opening of joe biden's new field office. afterward, democratic presidential candidate andrew yang talks to voters in marshalltown, iowa. this morning on "washington author and university baltimore professor talks about her new book and how it relates to impeachment. later, a look into past presidential impeachment with fulcrum editor-in-chief david

hawkings. we will take your call and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington ♪ host: good morning. at the house is in recess and democrats continued -- expected to continue their closed-door depositions. four current white house -- order to testify, but the four expected to be a no-show today. later this month or early next month, we expect to begin the next phase of the process, open hearings. that is our starting point, do you think these public hearings will influence, sway, or any change your view on the

impeachment of president donald trump? you can give us a call at 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. if you are an independent, 202-748-8002. you are also -- we are also taking your text messages, tell us your first name and where you are texting from. 202-748-8003 or send us a tweet @cspanwj. we are also live at facebook.com/cspan. a lot to talk about over the next three hours with a heavy focus on the impeachment process and your calls and comments. want to begin with this story from the hill.com. while house democrats promised open hearings soon. here are some of the details. democratic leadership offering reassurances the public phase of the impeachment inquiry would begin soon while republican allies of the president using -- beginningnces

with the house democrat leader steny hoyer of maryland on "face the nation." he said open hearings were forthcoming, the process depends on what facts the probe uncovered the same --e republicans begin attacks. kellyanne conway assailing the house closed-door hearings. democratic leadership defended as necessary to keep witnesses from coordinating their testimony. chair of the house foreign affairs committee appeared on abc's "this week" and had this to say. [video clip] >> there will be public hearing soon, this week, we will be having the last of the witnesses come in. everything is transparent. republicans keep moving the book

-- goal post. when we are transparent, it is not good enough. the president will have every right. they cannot complain about not having open hearings and when they have open hearings, complain about that as well. week" is onethis of the shows we air on c-span radio. phone lines are open. our question with the open impeachment process about to begin, the specifics to be determined. what do you expect to learn? your view on this? daniel is joining us, good morning. independent line. caller: thank you very much. basically, i wonder when so many people call in your line and say things like i think trump is doing a good job and he is the best president, what i don't understand is you never ask them the safetythey happy

features for the british britishm petroleum blowout are being eliminated by trump and are they worried he is going to do offshore drilling all over the world? are they happy half the wetlands protected are going to be developed? are they happy pesticides that were banned are going back on the market? ask them why trump is doing a good job. you never do that. let me ask you the question we are focusing on this morning as the impeachment process continues with open hearings, do you think you will learn anything new, do you think it will sway public opinion? caller: -- a journalist and you should ask questions when people call you and say they love trump. what do they love about mr.

trump, journalist? you tell me. host: -- said last night on his show all you have to do is read the transcript of the call, you do not need never trumpers for other witnesses to say what it means or said, it is very well stated for all to see. from albuquerque, new mexico, jim, you are next. caller: good morning. whatss from the hearings, we would find is a lot of information all the way around. right now, you can see where the are kind of slanted in one leakingn based on the and what we would find is more

the truth. i remember seeing on c-span four weeks ago during volcker -- all the reporters includinging there, cnn and the rest of them and he said when -- what volcker was in regard to text regarding the quid pro quo that bill taylor was getting that information from the ukraine, who got it and that is what he was asking about. host: that he has this comment

on facebook, the truth not given to me by any newscaster, but by my own eyes, ears, sense of integrity, and common sense. i challenge gop reporters to do the same. impeachmentecial page on our website. you can count on us to carry it live also streamed on the web and c-span radio. front page of the washington post had this headline, loyalists intend to thwart the inquiry. here are some of the details from a team of reporters from the washington post. one of the acting chief of staff allies is prepared to deliver what the president wants, but failed to achieve so far in the impeachment inquiry, unquestioning loyalty from -- aistration staff

concerted defiance of congressional subpoenas in coming days. two of his subordinates will follow suit, proving their loyalty and creating a critical firewall regarding the alleged use of foreign aid to illicit a favor. are pressing for details about why the white house budget office effectively froze ukraine funds congress had appropriated. front page and inside the washington post, those available online. mark joining us from prince georges county, maryland. good morning, independent line. caller: to answer your question specifically, i think the public hearings are a good idea, but it is not that -- there are some nuances we might get out of the hearings, but the bulk of what

happened, we are already aware of. i don't think the two camps in particular are going to be swayed by public hearings because the information is largely out there. the issue is the camps have gotten behind their horse, so to speak, and there is no budging them. as much as i would like to think it would make a difference, i don't think this will go anywhere because there are democrats and republicans in those hearings and it has not swayed anybody at all thus far. host: thanks for listening on c-span radio. a couple of political headlines aheadsa today, one year as 2020 draws closer, biden tested in iowa as rivals again. 13 of the candidates on friday evening -- we carried it live on our c-span -- on our website.

-- sunday news programs. [video clip] >> the house did not vote to authorize and impeachment inquiry, just democrats did. democrats have a majority in the house, this is not as nancy pelosi pledged and promised. withemocrats voted republicans. it was on political lines because the people in the house politicals a exercise. >> will the president stop blocking officials from testifying before the house? >> you have seen a number of officials testifying. >> that is over the objection of the president. >> the president has every right executive privilege. what we have not seen is the

fullness of the 8 or 10 hours -- adam schiff is growing mushrooms in the dark in this secret process. cure what has been a flawed process where the president has not been afforded due process rights. >> i promise i will get to that. i promise i will get to that and i will specifically ask congressman jim himes about that. host: he should public -- >> he should probably be overseeing the whole process. >> will the president tell john bolton not to appear? >> ambassador bolton publicly and his lawyers said he is not sure he will appear, that has nothing to do with the president. >> what is the president calling for? >> i am not sure the president talked to ambassador boehm. we will continue to exert executive privilege where we

feel it is necessary. the houseboat does not make a difference in terms of a flawed process somehow becoming open and transparent and they should have done this from the beginning. 6 ago tuesday, nancy pelosi said we will move toward and impeachment inquiry, it took them five months to hold a vote. where is the substance? on what basis are we impeaching an elected president of the centraltates where our governing principle is the rule of law? here is the transcript, go read it everybody pretty host: that is from kellyanne conway. i expect to see more evidence of president trump's innocence, calling it sham impeachment, a comment from sherry in massachusetts. house approves the impeachment inquiry in a fiery debate that took place last week and here are some of the details.

republicans challenged speaker pelosi to hold a floor vote complaining the inquiry hasn't followed past precedent and violates the president's due .rocess rights gop lawmakers continue to call the inquiry a sham while complaining the newly unveiled rules still limit their authority, including by requiring consent of democratic chairs to subpoena witnesses. the resolution allows republican members to submit written demands for testimony and other evidence. alexandria,ext from minnesota, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to thank you for taking my call and i want to say i do believe this impeachment inquiry is a sham. i just don't believe that adam schiff, who has got no credibility at all with just about anybody would think he

should be in charge of stating that the republicans can't talk, can't ask questions, they are cut off right away with any questions they were wanting to ask, that is not fair. this should have been open to the public right from the beginning, not held downstairs in a closed room with police officers or capitol police or anything else guarding the room. this whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. view from this viewer on our twitter page, adam schiff and his cohorts fabricated the entire story. they did not expect to get caught because they never thought trump would release the actual transcript. ukraine trying to woo the president using flattery, favors, as well as deals involving coal.

wade joining us from south carolina, good morning. we will go to mike from missouri. good morning, mike. caller: good morning, steve. myself, i think i already know what happened and i know we are going to see more of trump's lying and deviousness. i thoroughly believe the republican people need to get a grip on the american language -- the english language and they need to figure out what shall supply the taxes means. that little word "shall" or they don't understand that and the other word they don't understand is "though." we will give you the missiles, but we need dirt on joe biden,

though. whatever joe biden's son did is no different than the same day donald trump was sitting bragging about the beautiful chocolate cake with the guy from china, the very same day ivanka was getting patents in china, the very same day, that whole thing is garbage. i go with the first caller this morning and i cannot believe people are proud that donald trump has turned american that weinto beggars have to give money to and i just wish the republican people would see things the way they are. host: this is a tweet from the president a few minutes ago. what i said on the phone call with the ukrainian president is perfectly stated, there is no reason to call witnesses to analyze my words and meaning, this is another democrat hoax i

have had to live with with the date -- since the day i got elected, calling it disgraceful. from kokomo, indiana. caller: thanks so very much that you took my call. i want to answer those guys complaining about president trump. i am going to vote for president trump. the only reason i am doing that is because look at the alternative. tv, -- theon the warren -- the lady, everybodydicare for and it costs about $53 trillion.

that is the reason i am voting for mr. trump. thank you very much that you took our phone call. host: you mentioned senator elizabeth warren, we covered her friday evening and this is the headline. the editorial from the wall street journal, warren has what they are calling a fantasy plan. her financing and planning ideas have no relation to reality. linda from staten island, new york, welcome to the program. caller: good day. i appreciate c-span. the issue at this point is law enforcement. more laws or any amendments from the house. i am sincerely suggesting to washington, d.c. for judicial intervention to issue an --unction of the show called so-called impeachment inquiry. i would ask congress to act and

strike down the 11th amendment clause, the immunity clause because currently minorities are judges aftero sue a court claim and no court -- group should be allowed to abuse any citizen and they are not above the law, either. it is unnerving to watch washington officials abuse their authority and witness democratic leadership obstruct a government administration while the government leadership does nothing to protect the office of the united states presidency. i pray for this country and my countrymen and women. host: thanks for the call. kevin mccarthy, the house republicans leader on "face the nation" yesterday defending the president talking about the process as it unfolds in the house of representatives. [video clip] >> i think the whistleblower

should come forward in an open hearing and bring the 6 people he talks about inside his complaint that he said talked about other issues as well. leader, are you completely turning down the opportunity to submit questions in writing, that is not sufficient? >> as an american and that everybody should know and have accountability, you are talking about the removal of the presidency. we watched adam schiff lie that he did not know to the public. >> so you are not clear on that? -- you are not open to that? i am not clear. are you open to that because it would bypass adam schiff? >> what i am open to -- when you are talking about the removal of the president of the united states undoing democracy and

what the american public voted for, i think that individual should come before the committee. he needs to answer the question, we need an openness that people understand us. is theevin mccarthy house republicans leader appearing on "face the nation." this is a text message from julius writing why don't you point out it was republicans who change the rules to have secret meetings when it benefited them and their impeachment process. send us a text message at 202-748-8003. in case you missed it yesterday in the new york times, it is also available online, on the morning of inauguration day 2017, the president tweeting an opening message to the united states, "it all begins today. forll see you at 11:00 a.m. the swearing in, the movement continues, the work begins.

the new york times has taken an extensive look at president trump's 11,000 plus tweets since taking office and the team of reporters writing the following, "then mr. trump entered office, twitter was a political tool that helped him get elected. in a digital howitzer he relished firing. he has fully integrated twitter into the fabric of his administration, reshaping the nature of the presidency. in a presidency unlike any other when mr. trump wakes to twitter, goes to bed and is comforted by how much it revolves around him, the person most singled out for praise was himself more than 2000 times. the president is tweeting more than ever, the second week of october was his busiest with 271 tweets. he has taken to twitter to demand action 1159 times on immigration and his border wall, which is a top priority, 529 times on tariffs.

twitter is an instrument of his foreign policy, he has praised dictators more than 100 times while complaining twice as much about america's traditional allies. twitter is the trump administration's the fecteau personnel office. he has announced the departures of more than two dozen top officials, some fired by tweet. more than half of the president postings have been attacks. no other category comes close. that from the new york times. porter in raleigh, north carolina, republican line. open hearings when they come, we'll it in any way change your view? caller: no. ivanka trump is a really good president, thank you. think trump is a really good president, thank you. ofler: i just saw the clip kevin mccarthy calling adam

schiff and republicans calling .chiff pelosi every day, the president lies. another thing about the ukraine -- the business he called, he admitted it on national tv, his chief of staff had a speech saying there was a pretty quo.ble -- quid pro another thing is robert mueller. obstructions. i cannot understand why republicans don't want to believe that. i just have a gut feeling he is going to turn around and do something else. i understand you cannot indict a sitting president, but what about his children? they want to talk about the

bidens. let that go. host: rosie from texas. this text message from a viewer in michigan, if donald trump is innocent, why doesn't he cooperate with the investigations? why doesn't he show his taxes. adam schiff is the chair, he is featured this morning in the style section of the washington post. script --f's toughest joining us from fort lauderdale, florida. democrats line. you.r: good morning to hasnnot understand what taken place with this impeachment. it is only damaging the democratic party. i don't think it is a popular decision and i don't think it makes sense for what they are impeaching this man for because

he actually laid out what was said in the telephone conversation. i am saddened by this because the party is going down a slippery slope and becoming an embarrassment. that is why i cannot really see myself voting again for a democratic party. this man promises a lot of stuff and you see they are coming true. rob innother text from west virginia, why isn't biden also under investigation for his quid pro quo with his son? what is good for the goose is good for the gander. another political story from the washington post as the polls tighten in iowa and new hampshire. we are just under a year away from election day, three months from the caucuses in iowa. jackie spears from california

appeared on face the nation. the question, the timeline of these open hearings, here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> we have one more week of interviews that will take place and i am pretty confident we will move into a public hearing houseg in which the intelligence committee along with the foreign affairs committee and the oversight committees will start to place in the public because hands the information. i think the transcripts will start to be released next week and that will give the american eye on exactly what we have heard and what we have heard is growing evidence of grounds for impeachment. democrats will hold strong in terms of defending the democracy we have and the question for the gop is are they going to put donald trump ahead of our country? >> when will those public hearing start?

are you talking the week after next? you said you have more depositions this week? next week do we hear that -- see the public hearings? >> the following week is likely when we will start having hearings and once our work is completed, the investigation, then it will move to the judiciary committee. it is important to point out republicans complained about the process, but the process was very equal. they had equal number of members, almost 50 members part of these committees that could participate in depositions, they had an hour to question their side and we had an hour and 45 minutes, it was equal all the way down the road. host: jackie spear on "face the nation." that is one of the five sunday shows we air on c-span radio. a tweet from helen who commented on the new york times story. the headline should be radical

left in control of the democratic party, media academia, entertainment hounds, spies, against trump 20 47. his defense is twitter to reach americans. thank you for your calls and comments. that from the new york times and the story looking back at the 11,000 plus tweets by the president. cliff joining us from texas, republican line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. the impeachment proceedings and what we may learn, i think we already know all we need to know as to the reasons why there is an impeachment going on. i think the basic and the biggest battle getting lost in all of this is a very basic versusit is socialism

capitalism, that is what is at stake. it is our country and the values we have held dear for so long win to datet can't if they bring out abortion even after birth, open borders, attacking policeman, 52 trillion for medicare for all, i can go thet down the list on what left and the socialists -- and now they are admitting they are socialists. ago if i say socialism is on the left, now i am attacked. they are admitting it. they cannot win a debate. the only way they can put forth what they want is to have the local press, 90% on the left -- for the ones on the left and

everything -- everybody that complains about donald trump and his tweeting, i think that was why he was elected pretty host: this is from two former republican house members from the wall street journal, the headline, the clinton impeachment was fair. tensions ran high 20 years ago as we stood in the well of the senate before chief justice william rehnquist has house impeachment managers, we presented our case against president clinton. we were somber, but confident knowing we had afforded mr. clinton every due process right to defend him. process is so fundamentally unfair that justice cannot be served. house democrats led by adam schiff have conducted a sham investigation with predetermined conclusions. it will do unthinkable damage to the credibility of the house and the nation.

that this morning from inside the wall street journal. sonya from south carolina, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. simple comment, this impeachment goes on and on, i never hear one good thing of how great our president trump is and he is. it is like when he got elected, the people put him there. it is like he said in the beginning -- it came from something inside. thank you. host: president trump on sunday again reiterating his calls to reveal the name of the whistleblower behind the complaint that led to the house formal impeachment inquiry mentioning unconfirmed reports the person's identity and possible ties to the previous administration. the president continues to discredit the whistleblower, linking him to obama and john brennan and susan rice.

president telling reporters there have been stories written .bout certain individuals judy from magnolia, delaware, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i want to make it clear i am neither for or against trump or whoever is running, but i do want to say this started with benghazi trial- because of the things going on that were top-secret. . don't have twitter also, trump did not desert the kurds. the trump -- the kurds were given a heads up a year ago. i don't know what people are

saying about that, but they knew that was coming. i don't understand, they say it was a fair hearing under adam schiff and he actually ran the show and he advised people not to answer questions and if that is fair, that is not the fair i see in my world. i don't understand why they are going forward with this i don'tlower thing, think there is a whistleblower schiff made him up or it is one of his friends. looking at the flare -- fairness i am notole thing -- for or against anybody, but the whole situation seems extraordinarily unfair and it is kind of comical that mueller was

doing an investigation the last election and got all the democrats in and now they are starting another turmoil around another time of voting. i don't think that is a coincidence. rick.this is from trump hates obama because obama is everything he will never be, intelligent, classy, competent, experienced, dignified, kind, loved, respected, articulate, and so many things money cannot buy, you know it is true. send us a tweet at @cspanwj. send us a text message, make sure you do not do it while you are driving, at 202-748-8003. jesse is joining us, independent line from indiana. caller: good morning. to me, the biggest telltale sign this is completely unfair is burisma, the company hunter

biden worked for centered in ukraine and at the time, the obama administration and joe biden, their policy in the united states was we should stop using natural gas, oil, that everything should go to clean energy, solar, wind. they were doing everything they the production of coal, everything in the united thees and biden, which was tip of the spear in ukraine on our foreign policy for ukraine up advocating they ramp their production in natural gas. also saying we are not going to give you any foreign aid until you get rid of this prosecutor,

.hich is going to investigate if you are going to investigate corruption, if democrats want to show this is a bipartisan effort, what they need to do is look into that. i don't think anybody could actually look at it and say there was not some sort of isruption there if joe biden advocating a completely opposite -- completely opposite foreign policy than what we have in our domestic policy toward energy. every day i watch c-span and it seems like you all pick out an article from the new york times -- ie washington post that never hear you pick out an article that builds him up. is that because the media is so biased you cannot find one or

your staff is wanting to put the articles out there that are ones thatversus the would actually make him appear like he is doing his job? host: if you stay on the line, i will give you a couple points. what we do every day is what is being talked about and a reflection of the news. if you watched in the last half-hour, we read from the new york times, the washington post, thehill.com, the wall street journal, fox.com. we are giving a sense of across the spectrum what people are writing about and the last half-hour is an indication of tweets that have been for and against the president and having sat here during the bush white house and the obama white house, supporters of those two presidents complained they felt the media was against them. caller: i just think collectively. i love c-span. i think c-span is one of the

greatest institutions and i am saying that honestly because it gives people out here in the rural areas and people in the beltway and people in the inner cities, we all get to call in and give our opinions about what is going on. today.ia is so biased i don't care if you are talking about fox news or cnn, there is definite bias in the media. this is an outlet for people to get away from that and really have an honest discussion and look at facts. that is what i like to see. i feel like you are all -- are extremely intelligent people and you have an editorial process of what goes on and what does not and i think -- i am trying not to be critical. host: i appreciate your thoughtful comment.

the great thing about what we do every day is immediately if we put an article, we get reaction on facebook and twitter and calls like you and we welcome that. we are a very open and transparent process and the editorial process is simple. we want to share new information, what is being talked about -- open up the phone lines, hear from you, take your text messages and comments and have a discussion. we understand where you are coming from. i just want to let you know we had the same complaints under previous administrations. i just want to reinforce their is no agenda, we simply want to share with you what we are seeing in newspapers and news articles and open it to comments. caller: thank you. host: jesse from indiana, thank you. including this from donald with a text. i hope to hear from open hearings democrats have been methodical. any indication they have been

subjective will backfire and most likely claim trump victory in 2020. diane is joining us from new enterprise, pennsylvania, republican line. good morning, diane. caller: thank you for taking my call. positiveomes to presidential impact on the lives of individuals, i am going to have to give trump the blue-ribbon for achieving that in my lifetime of 57 years. i think what i am learning from this impeachment hearing is that the desperate democrats are completely void of any kind of positive policy ideas. , their their only option to grab theto try narrative and make it look like

they are actually doing something when when you look at democratsgoverned by over the past number of decades, i would not move to those places. my thing is, those people are generating mass exoduses from their states whereas republican states, red states, good tax policy states are attracting all of their disparate, disillusioned voters. the only thing i am learning from this impeachment hearing is democrats are completely void of ideas and this is the only means of competition they have. thank you very much for letting me weigh in. by the way, i don't think you are biased. you gave me a chance to speak and i appreciate it. host: at this stage at -- in the game a year out, joe biden would

be defeating trump by 12 percentage points. gopde the pole, should the keep the president or get somebody else, the president's support is growing among republicans. those saying to keep the president, 78%. someone else at 15%. roger from kansas, good, democrats line. -- ir: yes, i am calling believe democrats need to probably give up on this impeachment because i don't feel it is really being fair. mi on the line? host: you sure are, go ahead. caller: i don't believe it is being fair and i don't believe they can prosecute trump and not his at what biden said in talk when he was trying to hold the money up, he did mention

obama upon name and said if you don't believe me, call him. why wouldn't people go back and ask that question? in on this deal, too? 2, i believe a long time ago when president obama was asked -- told the ukraine leader or the russian leader he needed he will haveity -- more flexibility after he gets elected, they asked eric holder if he wanted to find out more. eric holder at that time said a president needs to have an open field where he can throw anything out there with other countries just to see what sticks. i do believe that was a fair comment for eric holder to say. host: you might be hearing construction and news -- noise, nbc is moving into the building.

we apologize for that, but that is what is going on here on 400 north capital street in d.c. want to share the npr fact check looking at comparisons between the impeachment inquiry of president nixon and president clinton and where we are today available on the website. almost 46ird time in years, the house of representatives voted to begin a formal impeachment inquiry into actions of the sitting president and despite criticisms from president trump, stephanie grisham called the resolution unfair, unconstitutional, and courseican, -- chart a similar to increase of president empson -- nixon. adam schiff of california to continue with the next phase of public hearings. most hearings have been closed-door depositions regarding democrats and republicans on three panels,

intelligence, oversight, and foreign affairs. john from new jersey, good morning. are you with us? we will go to michael in florida . good morning, michael. caller: thank you for taking my thank you for taking my call. this impeachment process i think needs to continue. we need to get at the truth and i think in this country today, that is lacking a lot. it would be nice if our children and grandchildren could see us act like adults. .et's look at the facts let people turn over the information and let's see what comes of it. that is the right thing to do. our grandchildren and children are watching what we are doing in this country and how we can stand up and lie and get away with it is beyond me. i don't know where the values

have gone in this country and i think we need to do the process. bring the facts and all the information to the public and let's see where it goes. you had a comment from one of the people about democrats are not doing nothing, i would like to remind that person there is a lot of bills in the senate that mitch mcconnell will not bring up that democrats have sent and they will not even discuss them on the floor. that has never been discussed or brought up at all. thank you very much for taking my call. you have a great day and i like your program. host: thank you for the call. more from npr and the headline is fact check. is the trumpet meet been -- trump impeachment process different from nixon and clinton? he served in the house during the clinton proceedings and voted for impeachment. he called the current plan "very consistent with how house republicans operate.

it republican lawmakers had been allowed equal time for questioning. they will be allowed to request subpoenas and witnesses for the open hearings. those would have to be approved by democrats. a mix of closed and open phases closed-door interviews in grand jury proceedings that were not open to congress until later. the nixon investigation was different, it started as a criminal investigation into the watergate break-in. on the npr website, a comparison to what we are seeing today, what we saw in 1973, 1974 with the impeachment inquiry and impeachment and senate trial of president bill clinton. joe from virginia, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for listening. i would like to first say i do support president trump.

that does not mean i agree with everything he says. -- it is aemocrats form of sedition they are doing in a roundabout way. i have read about the federalist papers and everything and they before.up sedition i think they know they can't win in 2020. they will do anything they can .o upset our democracy i also believe i have never seen more people that talk about not .anting to be haters to me, they show signs of nothing but hate and discontent for president trump. i am up eight, retired navy 20 years, served on the uss minister on the iran --

the presidentke or not, a patriot supports his president. host: mick mulvaney aids trying details on what --expect or not to expect front page of the washington ames, democrats must convince divided nation the public impeachment hearings against the president expected to be a gamble. next to that is senator warren's promise. islands get serious for medicare for all plan with a price tag of anywhere from 20 to $50 trillion and congressman jim clyburn is asked about another presidential democratic candidate yesterday on the sunday shows, pete buttigieg moving ahead in the polls. here is what he had to say. [video clip]

>> a local south carolina paper obtained a memo from inside the buttigieg campaign detailing a focus group with black voters, some of whom did not like he was living with his husband and the report concluded "being gay was a barrier for these voters." it is his struggle with black voters in your state of south carolina because he is gay? that is a generational issue. i know of a lot of people my age feel that way. i will say this, my own grandson, who is -- i think is 25 years old, that guy is a big buttigieg guy and he does it because he believes in the guy, not because he is gay. >> for older african-americans, it is an issue? >> i am sorry? >> are you saying for older african-americans, it is an issue. >> yes, it is. i am not going to sit here and

tell you otherwise, but i think everybody knows that is an issue . i am saying it is an issue not the way it used to be, my own grandson is very much for him, he is a paid staff are working on the campaign. he does not care what anybody my age says. clyburn.gressman the president with this tweet a short while ago saying the whistleblower gave false information and dealt with corrupt politician schiff. he must be brought forward to testify. where is the second whistleblower? he disappeared after i release the transcript. where is this information? the president is clearly responding to the story -- the headline we showed you a moment ago from the washington post and here are the details. an attorney for the whistleblower, who filed a complaint about president trump's apparent efforts to

pressure ukraine for information he could use against his political rivals saying republicans on the house intelligence committee could submit questions directly to his client instead of going through the democratic majority. in recent days, the president and his allies ramped up efforts to expose the whistleblower's identity, amplifying theories regarding the motives. now see no need for the testimony, citing ample evidence that supports the whistleblower claims. from new jersey, republican line, good morning. patrice? we will go to marie from frederick, maryland. caller: i honestly feel like the

and a nationagenda divided cannot stand. i love listening to the different callers with a variety of opinions, but we have to remember what else this country and why we love this country and what we can do if we could any find any issues we agree on. on. hopefully after we get through this process and i say that with quotes because i cannot figure out if there is any legitimacy. i think a lot of people are like iy very confounded am. i think eventually the truth will prevail. we should all love america and previous callers alluded to the fact we are dealing with a radical -- but theyig problems,

can be solved and also, just one last point, for good reading, i go to everything, i look at all tv shows, if you want really great articles for your show because you guys are so great at being objective, i like looking at the american thinker, the gateway pundit. i also look at the opposite side, say the times, the washington times, the washington examiner, there is so much out there and it would behoove you all to pick from some of the other sites so people can see less of the same media outlets. thank you so much and in god we trust. host: from the christian science monitor, the weekly magazine, a generation of latino act of this has reshaped politics in california, will the nation

follow? donna from georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, you are on the air. caller: i would like to say that i hear all these people talking about they don't believe in the shouldment inquiry, why we not inquire about donald trump? over his whole presidency. he proves it every day to us in there to be our president, he is in there to divide our country and he has done that very well. he also speaks to people in his rallies as if i am the god, not the president. he is not god and he is not above the law.

why doesn't everybody look at havepart that he does not there thatpeople in usually a president has as cabinet members. he does not have any enforcement other than people he chose to stand in a few minutes while he gets his agenda passed. why don't people look at that? it is outrageous -- he does it right to our face and we are supposed to believe otherwise? host: speaking of georgia, former president jimmy carter back in church yesterday for sunday services in plains, georgia. "e former president he is absolutely and completely at ease with death, suffering from a second fall, he turned 95 last --th, he told church towers

churchgoers yesterday i assumed naturally i was going to die quickly -- when he was diagnosed with brain cancer. i did not ask god to let me live, but to give me a proper attitude towards death. i found i was absolutely and completely at ease with death. from northar carolina, republican line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i disagree with impeachment. haseems like everything been going to the point of one thing after another from our supreme court nominee and that was shot down and the gentleman think really -- i and truly we need to change some

change some things as far as the house and senate to a time limit, the same as the president has to fall under like two terms, we have people in there that need to be blood,ut and some fresh if you understand. host: this is from keith in tennessee, if democrats cannot findthis stick, they will another reason. brian from southgate, michigan, you get the last word in this hour, will these open hearings in any way sway your view? caller: i will take them honestly, look at them, but i don't see it happening, the whole thing is a total lie and scam as far as i am concerned, the other lady that called a couple minutes ago, donald trump's multiple lies, that is all nancy pelosi does and the

democrats, lied, nancy comes out and says nobody came to washington to impeach the president. i am sorry, but i am right here in debbie dingell's district tlaib is above me, she looks stupid when she says nobody came to washington to do that. not y's above the law, even the president. you don't have to look any further than talib. she multiple times, everybody knows, her whole problem with president trump is i.c.e. and getting the people -- these different relatives and whoever up there, she's been on tv saying her community's been terrorized by i.c.e. and everything. terrorized by enforcing the law? she's saying she wants all her constituents. she took an oath of office as

well to protect and defend the constitution and the laws of the land, and she is actively harboring fugitives from the law . that is the law. host: i'll leave it there. thank you for your calls, text messages, and tweets, as well as your comments on facebook page. just past 8:00 here in washington, d.c. we are going to continue in just a moment. the book is titled "how to read the constitution and why", joining us here at the table is kimberly wehle to talk about the impeachment process. she teaches at the university of baltimore law school. later, the editor in chief of the fulcrum, david hawkings, talking about the history of impeachment past and present. lessons we can learn moving forward. you are listening to "washington journal." it is monday morning, november 4, back in a moment. ♪

>> here's a look at some books being published this week. in triggered, donald trump jr. argues left is using political correctness to silence conservatives. in the witches are umcoming, "new york times" opinion writer lindsey west exams the response to the me too movement. people's political and social beliefs are superseding reality in loser think. and in desk 88, democratic senator sherrod brown of ohio exams of work of eight progressive senators who preceded him. also being doubled pubbled this week, financial times columnist and cnn analyst suggests that tech companies are signaling the public in don't be evil. in sam houston thal mow adventures, a history of america's war for texas. cbs sunday morning correspondent explores the lives of historical figures in the fields of politics, science, and entertainment. and there are two books from the national review editors being

released next week. in the case for nationalism, rich lowry argues that nationalism play as vital role in maintaining american democratcy. and richard brook-hieser provides history of the united states through 13 documents, including the constitution and declaration of independence in give me liberty. look for these titles in bookstores this coming week and watch for many of the authors in the near future. n book tv, on c-span2. >> on faith-based, 126 million people were exposed to russian man national park plays attempts in the 2016 election. 20 million people on instagram. 10 million tweets on twitter to six million followers. we know russia attacked voting systems in all 50 states. we know they targeted misinformation at specific people. we know that 27% of voting-age americans saw russian misinformation in the final weeks leading up to the election. that's what we know. what we don't know is what effect, if any, any of this had

on the election, on the 2018 mid terms. what effect it will have in 2020, and not just in the united states, but liberal democracies around the world. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators, on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome kimberly wehle, she is a former associate counsel assistant independent counsel to ken starr and out with a book "how to read the constitution and why." teaches at the university of baltimore law school. good monday morning. thanks for being with us. geoff: thanks. host: begin with the work you did with ken starr and the difference we are seeing today. geoff: ken star what's called an independent counsel under statute. had he a grand jury. he actually gathered fact information from witnesses, documents, etc., pursuant to grand jury process. we don't have that right now. congress has to act as its own investigators, gathering facts in addition to actually making the political judgment with

respect to what to do about the facts. host: the question is why? geoff: why? that statute expired. robert mueller was appointed as a special prosecutor, special counsel pursuant to a regulation that replaced it. we don't have anything in place, a statute requiring or allowing for an independent counsel. of course robert mueller's term expired before this information about the ukrainian narrative came about. it's possible that bill barr, the attorney general, could have appointed a new special prosecutor to investigate this process, as we know the determination was made inside the department of justice that the whistleblower complaint shouldn't even go to congress. it stopped there within the justice department. congress found out about it and then picked up the ball to actually figure out the facts as to what happened. host: from your standpoint, what are the big -- one of the big criticisms we are getting from the republicans and president there have been closed door hearings. has that been a fair process?

geoff: yeah. the closed door hearings are not a new thing with respect to these kinds of impeachment processes. people talk a lot about due process. as i say in the book, due process in theory is about government arbitrarily acting against regular people. so criminal defendants. can't throw them in jail without a process. in the grand jury process, people that could end up in jail don't get their lawyers in the grand jury. cross-examine to and call witnesses. the most protections you would get you don't get what the president has already gotten in connection with this process. that is people within his party have been able to attend these closed door hearings. have been able to cross exam witnesses. we'll also see not only are we going to have open hearings about the democrats have announced the transcripts of the closed hearings are going to be made public. it had to be done that way in order to have an orderly, unfolding of the actual facts

because as we indicated there is not a special prosecutor, independent counsel like ken starr handing pages and pages of volumes, here congress, here's the facts. congress has to gather them. it's the best practices to do that quietly. host: your book focuses a lot on impeachment. based on what you know today, realizing there have not been public hearings, do you think what the president is alleged to have done is a high crime and misdemeanor? geoff: i think there is certainly -- guest: i think there is an argument for that. because high crime and misdemeanors is about abusing the power of the office not a crime. the president is there as i talk about in the book on behalf of the we the people, that person in that office is supposed to exercise that massive power for the benefit of the public. the narrative seems to be from the summary of the call transcript, from mic mulvaney's confrontation in a press

conference. some of the witness that is we have heard from in their public testimony that the president used, attempted to use his office to get some kind of benefit for himself. politically. asking the ukrainians to investigate a political rival. that would be an abuse of office. that's something i think the framers would take very, very seriously. yes, i think we are in a red flag area when it comes to this conduct constitutionally. host: we heard from the acting white house chief of staff who told reporters and critics. president in his words, to get over it. republicans have been very critical of the process. now based on what we saw yesterday on the sunday programs, republican senators beginning to shift that by saying, ok, even if he did do what he's accused of doing, it is not a high crime and misdemeanor. we are not going to vote to convict him. guest: three ways to approach this. one is as a lawyer the facts aren't what you say they are. as you indicated, that test is not the response.

the facts are fairly well established. number two could be deflect. which is why we are saying out the whistleblower. that's a sideshow at this point. it's not important what the whistleblower thinks because we have the facts. the third is process. house kind of took that argument away by making -- put imposing procedural protections for the president going forward. so then the last is the so what defense. that's one i think people need to think beyond this particular presidency and ask ourselfs, are we comfortable as a country with whoever sits in that office having unlimited power to use that office to entretch their power. it could be -- entrench their power. it could be a democrat in the office. a republican that people who like trump don't like. that's really the concern. i use metaphors in the book. a job description if you are a manager of a restaurant and you don't show up every day, and you

take money from the till, and nothing happens, or you abuse the power of that position, eventually the restaurant will close. from a constitutional scholar's point of view, that's the concern. if we don't do anything about crossing lines in the office, then the office becomes too big and it will be abused in a way that hurts regular people. host: let me be very clear on one point. your former boss, ken starr, was on fox news saturday. he called this process, in his words, a sham. he said there should have been a special prosecutor. these impeachment hearings need to be in open session. but again the responsibility for a special prosecutor is not with congress. it's with the justice department, correct? guest: this moment it would be attorney general barr, like janet reno did under bill clinton. like deputy attorney general rod rosen stein did because attorney general jeff sessions resuesed him. that's the person that made that decision. bill barr decided this doesn't

warrant screw-u scrutiny, period, it appears, because the whistleblower complaint was warrant ithin the -- scrutiny period, it appears, because the whistleblower complaint was retained within the period. the facts is a thorough professional process weefment saw it with robert mueller n this instance that's not available to congress. congress as i said has to wear two hats. they have to develop the facts and do that publicly in a political setting just means a lot of rhetoric. it doesn't necessarily get to the facts themselves. and they are going to have to make the political judgment. i don't agree with judge starr that this process is a sham. i don't know how else it is feasible to have it unfold under what's clearly authorized in the constitution and that is impeachment. host: one other point, we saw house republicans storm into these closed door sessions. who is in these hearings? are republicans allowed to be in the hearings?

can they ask questions? how does that process work? guest: the people from both sides of the aisle on the particular committee, so the house intelligence committee, they can be in those closed door hearings and ask questions. host: standard procedure in the house. guest: yes. both sides of the political spectrum were able to be in there. my understanding not all republicans who had access to it decided to even go. and when they were there, they could ask questions. in terms of unfairness, to the extent to which there is unfairness, it would be not making things public, which happens both in the judicial branch and legislative branch for a lot of reasons. not allowing the president's lawyers to actually be in the room as well as i indicated that would never happen in a grand jury. but in terms of having access to both sides, we have seen that. of course, the other big difference is that nancy pelosi and the majority party decides what the rules are. in looking back at what happened

with president nixon and what happened with president clinton, it's a hard case to argue that president trump is getting less process. than those prior presidents. host: as a lawyer and somebody who understands politics, the republicans have been very critical of the process. the democrats say they are dealing with the facts. guest: as i said, i think the best case scenario for a lawyer, to defending the president is the facts didn't happen as they happened. i think americans need to look at the facts. what is out there in the public sector. that is clearly suggests that this is a problem. that the president did engage in this ask of the ukrainians. the process is an argument that they have made. i think in this moment it's not a strong argument anymore because the house intelligence committee is going to have public hearings. the republican side gets equal time, up to 45 minutes per witness torques ask questions. they can actually request that

there be subpoenas of additional witnesses, written request, explaining why they want them. the majority would have to -- committee chairman would have though authorize that. that's not inconsistent with what we saw with prior impeachment processes. host: hour guest is kimberly wehle, professor of university of baltimore law school and author of the book "how to read the constitution and why." she served as associate counsel to independent counsel ken starr during his investigation of president bill clinton. we get to your calls and comments in just a moment. want to share with you news from "the washington post." the headline, the whistleblower is willing to answer questions from the republican party. here are the details. an attorney general for the whistleblower who filed a complaint against president trump's apparent efforts to pressure ukraine for information he could use against political rivals saying sunday the republicans on the house intelligence committee could submit questions directly to his client instead of going you through the panel's democratic majority. mark zade confirming his

client's offer to the top republican of that committee to answer written questions under oath and with penalty of perjury while also protecting the individual's identity. the post goes on to write in recent days the president and his allies have ramped up efforts to expose the whistleblower's identity, amplifying theories for the person's moat tiffs. democrats who initially considered the whistleblower essential to their investigation now see no need for the individual's testimony. citing ample evidence from seen- -- that seem to support the whistleblower's claims. this pr the president, the whistleblower gave false information and dealt with corrupt politician adam schiff e must be brought forward to tefment written answers are not acceptable. where is the second whistleblower? he disappeared after i released the transcripts. does he exist? where is the information? calling it a con. a lot there. unpack it. guest: the whistleblower statute actually preceded ratification

of the constitution. it was the continental congress that decided we need to have people inside government that can let, let oversight process work by letting people know that something went wrong. that's the idea. years. is goes back 230 guest: government in the sunshine. sun shoes shine is the best disinfect yavent the whistleblower says i heard about or concerned about something that was potentially wrong. it goes through a chain of command. there is a determination made. that this is serious. that was made here. that gets passed on to the authorities in this instance, congress. it's like if you have sort of a hotline, someone, there is a murder investigation going on. someone calms in the hot line and says i heard where the body is buried. that person doesn't know personally necessarily where the body is buried, but then the police would go to where the location is and actually do the fact investigation to find out

whether that's actually accurate. in this instance there is a hand off of the information to the congress in this moment, now congress is talking to the people who actually were there and have what we call firsthand knowledge. they actually participated in the process. their information is the most accurate. it's the closest to the actual facts. that's where we need to focus right now because that gives us the most accurate information about what happened. the whistleblower handed off the baton. that person's identity right now is to out that person is dangerous not only for that person's personal life and family, but also for the process. we don't want to send a message across government employees that, listen, if you are going to exercise the legal rights under the whistleblower act, you do so at your own personal peril. the political opponents will go after you even if what you did was legal. that hurts america. that hurts the process. that person, i think in this

instance, his lawyer is worrying or her lawyer, that whistleblower, him or herself, and saying listen let's take this thing out of trying to out this person. we'll give you the facts that you are asking for but not the identity because then the focus would shift on that person and not where it should be in this moment on the person who has the highest office in the executive branch in the land and whether that office is being a-- abused for his personal gain and not the benefit of the american public. host: we'll hear from republican leader kevin mccarthy. our guest is kimberly wehle. in addition to her work at the university of baltimore school of law, she's also a contributor to cbs news serving as a legal analyst, and also the bbc, previously taught at george washington university and worked at the federal trade commission and justice department. jerry is joining us on our democrat's line from sewell, new jersey. good morning. caller: hello, good morning.

i am a registered democrat. extremely ashamed of my party. i want to give you a couple of facts. why would schiff read his own he ion of the transcript if sincerely thought there was enough in the transcript that trump released? that's number one. number two, he had all kind of information regarding the russia collusion but never, never produced it. the other thing is, too, you keep talking about the fairness of the policy. this is such a lie. such a lie. because you got to figure that they -- schiff coordinated with this whistleblower prior to the stuff coming out. how can you consider it fair or constitutional when clearly

schiff has just ran rampant with what he's doing. host: thank you for the call from new jersey. thanks. guest: jeri, don't think this is what i'm saying is a lie. i'm actually identifying what the facts are publicly about what happened in the july 25 call. and that is really the question. i agree with you that there are people in public office that maybe have done things or acted or said things in ways that weren't optimally acktrat. -- ack california that's what politicians have to do. i don't have a point of view specifically on adam schiff. the issue in this moment isn't what adam schiff did. actually it's about making sure that the person in the office of the president exercises the massive power of that in ways

that are consistent with his obligations under the constitution. adam schiff just does not have that power. that can be a concern, but it's not the really important concern in this moment. as far as the quhissle blower -- whistleblower, the process unfolded as it was supposed to unfold pursuant to a statute passed by the united states congress in which the whistleblower makes the complaint, the complaint then gets investigated by an inspector general, and that is a neutral person, basically a person that is not politically oriented. the inspector general decided that this complaint was serious enough that it had to go to the congress. the director of national intelligence was obliged under the statute to hand that to congress. that was how the process is under the law required to go.

the justice department intervened and that complaint did not go to congress. how it ultimately went to congress is not some violation of the law because it should have gone to congress to begin with. in this moment america populous through their representatives might say we don't think this rises to the level of something we should be worried about, but again the issue for all of us right now is what to do about the office of the presidency. whether we are comfortable with it having power that is not accountable. that is not accountable for. host: from your book, "how to read the constitution and why," you write the following, quote, another way to think about the separation of power is to treat the constitution like a company's employee manual. it gives each branch a job to do. the branch's job descriptions are set forth in one of the three articles of the constitution. each branch has articulated ways of stopping bad behavior. if things get out of sync with the other branches, at least in theory. guest: it's almost like a rock,

paper,cy scores situations game with no way that anyone can ever win, so to speak. each branch can check the other two branches for potential wrongdoing. if we take the power away from the congress, we take the power away from the courts, then we have a single branch that has unlimited power. as i indicated earlier, we all have jobs, we all have circumstances or some of us have jobs or been in jobs, where there are requirements to maintain the job. that's not just to be able to manage particular employees, the idea is we need to impose rules in order to keep the office opened. in this instance, the framers of the constitution did not want unlimited power in a monarch. that was absolutely clear. they broke the monarchy up into a job description with three different branches. and the idea is that each branch gets their papers graded by the

other two branches. we are seeing that happen right now with the legislative branch basically grading the papers of the executive branch. the judicial branch cannot, because essentially of an internal d.o.j. memo, banning indictment of a sitting president. so that branch is out in terms of checking the presidency. has to be done by the congress. if we think that that's a sham process, we essentially have an office with no checks and balances. i encourage people to think about the politician, whoever it is, they really don't like in america right now, maybe it's adam schiff, maybe it's donald trump, imagine that person in the office of the presidency being able to use that office to basically ask foreign powers to investigate political rivals to maximize their chances of staying in office. if that makes you uncomfortable, then you should be comfortable at least with this process unfolding. because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

it's not sort of a politically polarized question can at this moment. it has to do with the office, whether the office itself has integrity and is accountable to the american people. host: article 1, section 2, clause 5 of the u.s. constitution reads as follows, the house of representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers and shall have the soul power of impeachment. that's followed by clause 6 of the constitution, the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. for signature on that purpose shed you be on oath on affirmation when the president of the united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside. and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of 2/3 of those members of the u.s. senate present. go to ramona in clarkston, georgia. democrats line. thank you for waiting. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, kim. i'm kind of need this question answered by somebody in your

profession. i remember all the way back with . esident bush with iraq war iremember the vice president, believe, had to sell his shares to halliburton because of conflict of interest. how is trump able to have business in russia, saudi arabia , even in mar-a-lago, and then it's not against the constitution for a president to have that? host: thank you for the call. you are write about the emoluments clause. geoff: it's an anti-bribery provision, that is the framers of the constitution were worried about the president being able to be bribed by foreign leaders with gifts of the concept of emoluments at the time of framing was very broad. it doesn't have to be cash, necessarily t doesn't have to be

jewels or gold. but -- host: at that time they were more worried about france and great britain. guest: sure. france and great britain taking over as a puppet government for a burgeoning new democracy in america. it's still there. the idea is, the caller mentions, historically presidents have respected that boundary and said, listen, i am going to make it really clear to the american populous that i have no conflicts of interest. i'm only working for their interest so i voluntarily in compliance with this norm in the constitution, i voluntarily die vest myself of everything. but as the caller indicates rules are only so good as they are enforced. so we all might know the speed camera in town. and when we know the speed camera is lurking behind the bushes, we will slow down and go under 35 miles an hour. after we passed the speed camera

people speed up. even though the speed limit has not changed. the it's the ticket that geets goetz people to slow down. the idea with this particular president and the emoluments clause, if there is no enforcement of the clause, then it doesn't matter what the rule is. the enforcement of the emoluments clause of this moment would be through impeachment. through the congress, the congress has decided for whatever reason not to pull the oversight and impeachment lever with respect to the potential emoluments problem. and there are cases making their way through the courts that may or may not be the place to give the speeding ticket, so to speak. but certainly there is a good argument that this president has crossed that line and if we allow this president to cross the line, as i say in the book, we can get out our sharpy and cross the e -- sharpie and cross

the emoluments from the constitution, if we don't enforce it for this president, it's hard for the next president. host: people follow you on social media. wehle. t kim underscore host: independent line, good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: sure can. caller: i guess what's goose for the gander is good for the guse. t was ok when obama was -- the way he handled whistleblowers. if she's worried about -- i guess if she's worried about future, i guess what i'm trying to say is we should be concerned also if the f.b.i. goes up to future presidents, future presidential candidates. being a law professor it doesn't mean anything if you're going to show your bias all day long. i know exactly what's been going on. i voted for trump. voted for trump.

going to vote for him again. i view this whole process as against me as a voter. i take it personal. i just think that the bottom line is, these facts she talked about, she also knows about rules of discovery being a law professor. because there are several facts that are never allowed to come to light because of the way that this process has been handled. host: bobby, let me ask you this question let me ask you this question. guest was one of the special counsel's investigating president bill clinton under ken starr. is that a bias? seeing the bias i'm right now is the way that she is trying to discredit attorney general barr. that is the bias i'm seeing now. you let us: every day but we see now -- [indiscernible] and the things that you personally decide not to talk about like the criminal investigation.

she can sit there is a law professor, but the bottom line is that we see what is going on in the media. because of the things that you don't talk about. i don't want to work with democrats. all i want to do is make sure they don't get in power. [indiscernible] we all see these people every day on the news. but let's not worry about what hillary clinton did. about the fbiy and the emails and hillary clinton. but what trump did is a total scandal. because of the media and because of what you won't talk about.

talking, but you are not fooling me. i can see what is going on. host: your response. guest: if hillary clinton were this julyte house and 25 call happened with hillary clinton i would be sitting here saying exactly the same thing. i was part of the process for investigating and ultimately a report that ended up the basis for impeaching a democratic president. callers deep frustration and upset about the process. are at a moment when discussing the rule of law, discussing the constitution which is where my bias is, and maintaining the structure is perceived as bias. of theseeing the levers constitution and oversight actually being pulled here. it is being pulled against a person that we support.

it doesn't mean the levers themselves are biased. the metaphor has to do with a bridge over a russian river -- rushing river. it is over 230 years old. there are officers in blue uniforms on sundays and red uniforms on sundays. the people in the blue car think the red officers are biased and unethical and should never be on the bridge guiding traffic and vice versa. timee fighting all the about who should be governing the traffic on the bridge. the bridge itself is corroding, the grouting is falling apart. people are not paying attention to the bridge because they are so upset with the blue cops and .he red crops -- red cops when the bridge tumbles and falls, everyone goes down. youresn't matter where political party is.

the framers understood that. understood that it amass,n nature to entrench, and abuse power. there is a system to push back against those instincts. regardless of outcome and whether the president gets a system, there is that needs to make sure that the bridge is sure it up and the office does not have unlimited power. favor of the in rule of law and that is seen as an anti-trump bias, that is unfortunate. host: but the passion you have today, i can tell you we had that same passion and division during the same impeachment of bill clinton. we appreciate your calls and

comments. we go to karen on the democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for your expertise. someone that that has experience in this area has to justify the work that you've in americae callers don't get you. i have a comment and a question for you. at the end of the day, most americans will accept a liar. we have had liars in our family. a majority of people hate a cheat. i don't care if they are in the bingo hall or playing with the election. most people hate that. if you are going to cheap, you have to make a balance. make the rules fair so that we can all make our own assessments the same. that is my position with this.

say, my god, but at the end of the day, a cheat is a cheat. here is my question. if the senate could vote unanimously -- if the constitution would allow for the senate to vote unanimously. there are republicans that will absolutely vote for impeachment if they do believe it wasn't disclosed. can any of these votes be voting unanimously when their constituents do not know how they vote and it can be processed accordingly? the call to the constitution says that two thirds of the senate is required to convict. that has never happened in the history of the united states. there has never been a conviction and removal. the constitution does not say

whether that vote has to be public. anonymous than people can vote their conscience and don't have to worry about reelection. impeachment is inherently a political process. the argument would be that politicians have to be accountable for the public for firing a president. we need to be clear here. this is not about putting the president in jail. a neck seclusion order which would be under due process. life, liberty, and property. this is about a pink slip. it is about losing a job. a job that a lot of people want him to stay and. and if we don't follow the rules, we lose our job and someone replaces that position. way and ait that common sense, everyday manner, potentially we can tone down the

massive anxiety around this. we can still have that party in office with the policies that matter and accountable to the people. host: we are taking your text messages. scott from houston, texas. if joe biden did not enter the democratic race, with this investigation be occurring? guest: that's a good question. my belief is that the whistleblower complaint would have been passed along anyway. is question for impeachment whether the president of used the office of power for himself rather than for the populace. it doesn't require that there be an impact on the 2020 election. that joe biden is a political opponent creates an

for the president arguably to do this. so maybe the president wouldn't have done this. but it comes down to what was the rationale behind donald trump's actions. and in that regard, we can only speculate. host: and a text message from andrew. 26% of% -- only americans can name the three branches of government. more ignorantg about the constitution. the constitution is the supreme law of the land. republican line, good morning. if a republican rights the questions and submits them, will the whistleblower answer themselves or will their --orney write the questions the answers?

will it come from the whistleblower or the attorneys? with any legalt process, the whistleblower will provide the information and the attorney will make sure that it is written in a way that gets across what the whistleblower wants to say in a way that doesn't jeopardize the whistleblower's interests. both of them would have a role in that process. host: this came up yesterday with house republican leader kevin mccarthy in california. >> i think the whistleblower should come forward in an open hearing and put the six people he talks about inside the complaint. >> as leader, are you just completely turning down the opportunity to submit questions in writing?

is that not sufficient? as an american, you're talking about the removal of the president. adam schiff lied to the american public that he did not know who the whistleblower was. on answeringear questions through writings but if republicans submit their own questions directly because it would bypass adam schiff? when you are talking about the removal of the president of the united states, undoing democracy and undoing with the american public had voted for, that individual should become -- should come before the committee. we need an openness. host: your response? caller: witnesses that have firsthand knowledge. i saw it rain, i did not just see the wet grass in the morning.

they are not coming forward on the direction of the white house. if we are going to have every witness come forward and every witness should come forward. the people with direct information are the ones that really matter. from theitten answers whistleblower does limit the ability to cross examine that person. it isn't the equivalent of calling the whistleblower. but the lawyer is concerned that that if this person becomes public, all the focus is on that person's integrity. it that person is not an office and is not have the power of the white house like hillary clinton or other people that we may not like in politics or personally. the issue is the person that has that amount of power and whether that power is being utilized properly. lawyer for the whistleblower, i would be concerned about the identity

being outed for that person and that person's family's safety. nobody wants that person put in jeopardy. host: the whistleblower had a secondhand account. the colonel on the call corroborated the information from the whistleblower. so there seems to be a disconnect. if you are hearing it from the primary source, is the whistleblower relevant right now? that is the democrats perspective and it is absolutely right. we know the word hearsay. i heard someone say something. hearsay is admissible sometimes to it is harder to get that a jury because the jury wants to hear from the person that was there. that is where congress is focusing in terms of bringing witnesses forward. not all of those witnesses are cooperating. if members of congress want to get to what happened and have

the facts made clear, that should be the focus primarily. the whistleblower is really not the critical issue right now. host: without being too simplistic, if you heard there was a shooting and called police, you could be brought into the trial for cross examination. if you saw the shooting, you will be a more credible witness. ,uest: the person who called in once we have the person who saw the shooting, the person who called may not even be brought in. someone calls and says i heard someone was shot. the police officers follow up and find the person who allegedly committed the crime and found some eyewitnesses. do we even care if it was credible the person who made the original call, what their personal lives are and what their politics were? is why we really care about who saw the shooting and whether the defendant should be

accountable for that. the phone call becomes irrelevant and the baton has been passed off. the book is called "how to read the constitution and why." earned her law degree from the university of michigan. david is next on the democrats line. i am a registered democrat from brooklyn. i see things different from other people and i see it straight. has beenresident falsely accused three years in a row that he was a russian agent and is everything. you arrest his people. it you arrest his sons for all sort of other crimes not connected to rush out but perjury, something like that.

and you basically tortured this guy for two or three years. and now when the democrats see that robert mueller failed to deliver what they told the american people, the president wants to clear his name. he wants to know where this started. it's important to remember that the justice department and fbi prosecutors all answer to president trump. he is in charge of all of those people and his sons have not been indicted. none of that has happened. the justice department has not done the things that the caller is concerned about. as far as robert mueller, he produced multiple indictments. there are people that are in prison because of that process. some that were very close to the president of the united states.

so the question of if that was successful and important, the answer is yes. it produced a 400 plus page report. there is unequivocal evidence that the russians did interfere in the 2016 election. all of that is established. congress decided that they were not going to do anything about it. it doesn't mean the facts gathered is not serious. pin on thisa care about thee russians interfering. when we go to the polls, we want our vote to matter. to make ar vote determination over who gets the power to govern. there is concern about immigrants crossing the border physically. the idea of russian interference is people from other countries

crossing the border of our and basicallyess hijacking, to some degree, that precious privilege that we have to make the decision for ourselves. that is something robert mueller focused on. it is bipartisan. it is not about any particular president. it is about the process and the bridge of democracy. and i think we should all be grateful for his service. independents. for good morning. problem withe a schiff. has some comments that he made about having empirical proof that president bush was involved with this. and he had proof. and he said that many times.

that disappeared. problement to another that they tried to conjure up. schiff holding these meetings behind closed doors. to me, as a citizen, i don't appreciate that. any kind of investigating should be right up front. why does it have to be behind closed doors? host: we did address that issue earlier but if you want to briefly restate. host: -- guest: both republicans and democrats were in the depositions. both sides had access to the witnesses. it is best practices because , it iss no prosecutor

best practices to have the threshold digging up of the evidence done privately so that witnesses can be honest and don't tailor their testimony. they don't worry about the political elements of it. think that this might be good news for joe, going forward, we hear it will be happening, the transcripts of those conversations and depositions will be made public. and a lot of the key witnesses will come before the house intelligence committee public we to give their testimony to the american people -- publicly to the their testimony to american people. it should be transparent because this is a very sobering and serious process that we are in right now. serves asrt blair assistant to the president and works with the staff. cnn.com. headline from a white house aide refusing to testify who was on the phone call with the president of the

ukraine and president trump. the house asked him to come up today for depositions. he said he would not do so. from the houses of representatives. this is what lindsey graham said on the house floor of 1998 as he was leading the impeachment against president bill clinton. of impeachmente against richard nixon, the idea that richard nixon failed to comply with subpoenas of congress. congress was going to the oversight function to provide oversight of the president. information,r richard nixon chose not to comply and the congress said you are taking impeachment away from us. you are becoming the judge and jury. it is not your job to tell us what we need. it is your job to comply with the things we need to apply oversight over you. the day he failed that was the day he failed -- the day that he

became subject to impeachment because he took the power from congress and became the judge and jury. and the day that william jefferson clinton failed to provide truthful testimony to the congress of the united states is the day that he chose to determine the course of impeachment. he usurped that power, abuse the authority, and gave false information. that is the same as giving no information at all. actually, i think it is worse. these articles will stand the test of time. they will stand factual scrutiny that has to be done. the only way to avoid impeachment is to leave your comment cents at the door, defy the way the world works, and talk about something else. that was december 18, 1998. he is one of the president's staunchest defenders. reason tohouse is

answer subpoenas and you have heard from congressman graham 20 years ago when you are part of that inquiry. could not have put it better in terms of the message that the book makes and that i'm trying to make about the process. theays, you have to let process unfolds to have an accountable government. at this moment, we have a that congress is not going to get the subpoenas answered and that really hurts the american people. we take the power away from congress. with billhave seen clinton's impeachment and trump, that power of the office is going to shift from party to usty and it is incumbent on to maintain a limited government in the executive branch. there is law supporting

congress's position and there is no way it can function if it can't gather facts. cannot do its job that it is constitutionally authorized to do on behalf of the american people. about six or seven calls earlier, a lady asked about the the president gave and how adam schiff altered it. we did not get a straight answer, yes or no. he did or he didn't. and openly, in public television, biden says if we , you give you the money have to remove the prosecutor.

issue?it a big host: thank you. guest: the first question has to do with adam schiff framing what the information in the summary of the call was in a way that people took issue with. agree with the underlying premise that the american people deserve accuracy from elected officials. it is no secret the president is not good at that. he says lots of things that are inaccurate. there are a lot of people in congress that say things that are inaccurate. issue is what happened on the call, not how adam schiff summarized the call. if we really want to get to the bottom of it, it is reported that there is audio tape of the call. let's hear what happened on the call.

the summary is not accurate as is released by the white house. it is not complete. a witness said there were some things removed. there areallip -- ellipses that suggest gaps in information. tape of the call could vindicate or exonerate the president. those facts should be made public and that is what people should focus on. don't listen to me, don't listen to adam schiff, don't listen to summaries from the media. go to the original source documents and that would be a fuller transcript. the hearings take place in scif, the -- the secure room in the u.s. capitol. saying,from a viewer

lindsey graham, we are awaiting the data the president provides any testimony much less fruitful testimony. send us your comments and tweets. marion joins us on the democrats line. i am 88 years old. immigrant of 63 years old. in my day, you have to have a witness. you have to have evidence. day, this should have been thrown out of court long ago. this is not fair. adam schiff needs to back this up. that's all i have to say at my age. thank you. mike joining us on the

republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of questions. mr. freak schiff, why should he resign? parody,up a parity -- a a fabrication. have made up the leaker? the president needs to know exactly who the leaker is. i think the leaker is a made up person. i really do. i think this guy has connections left and right. the guy should not be in charge of the intelligence committee. biased against trump, he needs to step down and resign. even if you buy the

premise that there was no was a blower, if there were people on the call that corroborate exactly what happened and they contend there was a quid pro quo including a member of the national security team who is an iraq war veteran and army colonel, do you believe him? caller: i tell you, i have a problem with that guy. russia.orn in host: he was born in the ukraine. caller: he was raised in the ukraine. i'm an immigrant. i'm a german immigrant. i came here when i was nine years old and i made my citizenship as a veteran. my citizenship as a veteran, and i believe ukrainians and russians cannot be trusted. -- also what i believe in you tell so many lies that lies propaganda just like -- host: he came here at the age of

three. he is a u.s. army veteran serving in iraq and now part of the national security team. you do not trust him is what you are saying? caller: i tell you what -- you have immigrants from the east more socialiews are than anything else. they have been indoctrinated into the communist system. also, what id believe, that colonel should have never even opened up his mouth if you should have served the president. look at all the generals -- you think they are going to open up their mouths? heck, no. they are serving the country. they are not supposed to be political. situationhis were the -- if the situation were reversed and this were president obama, would you feel the same? caller: obama -- sure, i do -- host: in terms of not speaking against the -- in terms of a

member of the president's staff not speaking out against the president? caller: i feel the same. i think that person needs to talk to the president, and that is how far it goes. host: all right, we will get a response. guest: there are scholars who agree that the president should have a sort of immunity that extends beyond himself and goes to members of his cabinet. the problem with that is that eventually there is a president that does some stuff that is so bad and we never find out about it. so the idea of disclosure, transparency -- we are talking a lot about that process -- fairness, letting the american people see. the idea of a whistleblower is core to that concept. the other thing i wanted to raise, which a prior caller had

asked, is the idea of quid pro quo. concernedr is very with not just ukrainian influence but russian influence. interference in the el toro process is a problem. there are two pieces of what happened july 25 -- this is based on the transcript. one was a request for favor by the president to the ukrainian president to essentially instigate an investigation into american citizens, who happen to be political rivals. that is number one. basically,is whether in exchange for that, the president said there are $390 million of aid that has been authorized by the senate, military aid, that you need to stave off a russian aggression.

the ukrainians have been trying to establish a democracy since 1991. the americans have tried to help them do that. the idea is we will not give you the money to help you retain your democracy unless you do us this favor. that is peace number two. some people would say piece number one, just making the request, is a problem. some people say pairing that with the withholding of $390 million of aid exit a problem we have to pay attention to. these are the facts. going forward for everyone, the question is do we care? not so much what happened. what happened, at least for now, is well-established in the public. host: and the house voted for impeachment proceedings against president bill clinton, taking place october 8, 1998, just a month before november midterm elections, which took place november 3 of that year. the house passing two articles

of impeachment december 19. the senate trial began january 7. the president was acquitted december -- january 12. will this calendar mirror what we are seeing in 2020? bill clinton,for there was a four-year investigation that gathered all of that factual information. i think this congress is at breakneck speed to try to me that kind of a timeline, although the key facts, as was stated so far, are already made public. i want to add one thing to that timeline -- the congress decided, with bill clinton, to release his grand jury material as well, and some of the reportl from the starr -- that was made a public prior to even a vote on whether to engage in impeachment inquiries. back to the question of process,

i think presidents on both sides of the aisle complained about the political process of impeachment. it is a kind of rough-and-tumble process we are all in. i encourage people to educate themselves -- do not listen to me but educate themselves on how our constitution is supposed to function, why it functions that way, and why the framers thought it was so important and how it has lasted this long. it is not set in stone. we are not entitled to this particular constitution going forward. it is designed to protect little people from an overbearing government. i really care about having the bridge survive into the next generation and the next generation. i hope that is a frame that, even in the midst of this energy and emotion around this, which is understandable, people can step back and see the bigger picture, which is rarely talked about in the media. host: again, the book is called

"how to read the constitution and why." kimberly wehle, thank you for being with us. guest: so happy to be here. thank you. host: we continue with david hawkings, now the editor and chief of "the fulcrum" as we look at the impeachment process both past and present. c-span television continues. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> here is a look at some books being published this week. in "triggered," donald trump, is argues that the left using political correctness to silence conservatives. and looking at the response to

the #metoo movement. in the creator of "dilbert" argues -- and democratic senator sherrod brown examines the work of eight progresses -- progressives who preceded him. in sam houston and the alamo avengers, history of america's war for texas. exploring the lives of historical figures in the andtics that in politics entertainment. and two books from the nationalist editors being released next week. one argues that -- the united states through 13 documents, including the constitution and the declaration of independence in

"give me liberty." look for these titles in bookstores and watch for many of the authors in the near future on tv on c-span 2. ♪ >> the house will be in order. >> 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. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span -- your unfiltered view of government. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back david hawkings, the editor in chief of "the fulcrum," which is what? guest: what we call the first sitertisan, nonprofit news

devoted to covering the issues of the broken democracy and all of the efforts out there to make democracy work better. host: as we look at the impeachment process, where are we today? guest: we are in the beginning of another week where it -- i guess this is week six. as we all know, the house set the ground rules last week on the party line vote. now we have another week packed with scheduled depositions. several of the witnesses, we think, will not show up. probably the most important thing that will happen this week is the house intelligence committee, mr. schiff's committee, says it will release the transcripts of many of the depositions taken so far. those are the headlines. sundayf you look at the programs, whether representative jackie speier or whether adam how thisalking about process is heading, they are saying we will have open

hearings, but not when. why? guest: i am sure they are working behind the scenes to get their ducks in a row and decide -- they are trying to make a case, with the public hearings, to the country as well as to members of the house, that their case is solid for bringing articles of impeachment. they want to do that at a strong way. there is a lot of producing behind the scenes. we are coming up on thanksgiving. we are coming up on thanksgiving. that will make it difficult -- that week will probably difficult to schedule hearings. they are trying to do two things at once, which is make their best case to the country and hurry up and do it. those things are not always in alignment. host: the house is out this week. the are closed door sessions. you think it could happen as early as next week or do you think it will wait until after thanksgiving? guest: i think it could happen as early as next week. i have not yet got a sense for who is their ideal opening

witness -- i do not know whether it is -- who they want to bring back. people have lives, attorneys -- there is lots going on. but i do think, since they have made clear -- they have made it pretty clear that they want to do what they are going to do on the house side by the end of this calendar year, which means by the week before christmas. time is of the essence. host: we have taken a look at some of the past moments during the impeachment of president bill clinton, which of course recovered as well. onresentative nancy pelosi december 19, 19 98, as the house was about to vote on the impeachment of president clinton before his trial went to the u.s. senate -- this is what she said. [video clip] majority islican not judging the present with fairness but impeaching him with a vengeance. in the investigation of the president, fundamental suppose,

which americans hold dear -- privacy, fairness, checks and balances, have been seriously violated. why? we are here today because the republicans in the house are paralyzed with hatred of president clinton. until the republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer. host: that was 20 years ago. guest: seems like only an instant. it was 20 years ago. it is fascinating. i know we will play lips today of people who are still involved in this impeachment who were also involved in that impeachment. a moment to make a note -- almost every time i am in c-span, you talk about term limits. it may look as though all of these people are still around -- in fact, this is pelosi is 1 -- of only 56 is one house numbers that have been

around from the last impeachment. that means seven out of eight have been involved in this. what we see here, just like what we saw with senator graham, then representative crist him gr-- graham in the last block, are different people than they were then did i am sure you could hand mrs. pelosi's script to any republican, and they would be happy to read it now with the name changed. host: one of those members in the house then and still now was with the president at madison square garden -- this is what representative. peter king had to say. [video clip] >> we are driving good people from government. conduct wast's

illegal, immoral, indefensible, but the fact is i do not believe it rises to the level of treason and bribery. the precedent it says is that anyone who assumes the office of the president is subject to lawsuits and then have that scrutinized by independent counsel. how many of our presidents would be have lost if this principal had prevailed in prior times of crisis? also, i would ask fellow republicans, throughout the 1980's, we saw the abuses of special counsel's by lawrence walsh against members of the reagan and bush administration. we saw people like elliot abrams brought down on the flimsiest of charges. today, somehow we are willing to apply a different standard, a different principal. that is wrong. this is a sad day for our country, a sad year for our nation, because of the conduct

of the president, but also because i believe, as republicans, we have failed to rise to our obligation. i must vote against impeachment. i rue this day. host: -- guest: fascinating. mr. king -- yes, he went to watch wrestling with the president. i guess that is an indication the president of things that mr. king will stick with him the way that he stuck with bill clinton 20 years ago. interestingly, there were 5-republicans that voted against the impeachment of bill clinton on all four counts, and there were five democrats who voted for impeaching bill clinton. of those 10 people, mr. king is the only one left. we will be watching him. but the indication is he is probably going to stick with the president. host: let's get to your phone calls. dewey.e republican line, caller: good morning.

i greatly appreciate you taking my call. i am a trump supporter, but i go into all of these types of situations open-minded. number one, i am american and i put that above trump. i am trying to figure out why, if impeachment is needed, i understand that, but this man, since the day he came down the escalators, has been bombarded and, i would say, viciously attacked, ever since the day he took office. going throughare now, as a country, is overshadowing the fact that what biden has been accused of was going on while he was our vice president. you. thank guest: i think there is some dispute over whether -- surely,

was president biden's son paid handsomely and generously to be on the board of this company, so in that sense, hunter biden did benefit. to i think it is open significant dispute whether the vice president benefited financially from anything that may have happened with ukraine. on the question of president tomp and his being subject significant criticism since the day he can down the escalator, that is true, for sure. i am not sure that if you go back and watch almost any president of either party, if you look at the footage of their treatment by the press -- it is comparable, i would say. timee found, in my covering washington, which goes back, kind of incredibly to me, to the bush 41 administration, the end of the reagan

administration -- residents of both parties get excoriated daily by the mainstream media as well as by the nonmainstream media as well as by the public. host: betsy joining us from memphis, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. -- if you, asis un-american american, can support somebody that supports a child molester, gets on national tv, mimics people with disabilities, if you can support , what kind ofthat america are you? if you support somebody like that, not only is he not fit to the president, you are not fit to be an american. thank you. said is whatt you

you hear from the president's critics all the time, every day. i think it is safe to predict -- every president changes the culture in some way, not necessarily by the policies they pursue but by the personality that they present to the public. approach totrump's discourse will change the culture for some time. it will change probably what our children believe is appropriate. that having been said, we are talking today about the bill clinton impeachment -- there was plenty of evidence that mr. clinton's behavior did likewise. that his behavior changed what children thought was appropriate in terms of dealing with sexual mores, in terms of what could be viewed as being honest. i would say this is the nature of the presidency -- presidents

of both parties, especially those with forceful personalities, and bill clinton had a forceful personality, and theirdonald trump -- daily presentation to the country really permeates the culture in ways that i think we will see for some time. host: this is the fourth time that the house of representatives has taken the impeachment process, in the case of andrew johnson, which was -- or was not impeached. richard nixon. the second time was with bill clinton. december of 1998. after the house voted on impeachment, here's what he told his supporters from the rose garden. [video clip] >> this is something i've felt strongly all my life -- we must stop the politics of personal destruction. [applause] we must get rid of the poisonous

,enom of excessive partisanship obsessive animosity, and uncontrolled anger. that is not what america deserves. that is not what america is about. we are doing well now. we are a good and decent country. but we have significant challenges we have to face. right, we haveit to have some atmosphere of decency and civility, some presumption of good faith, some balance in bringing judgment against those who are in different parties. we have important work to do. we need a constructive debate that has all the different voices in this country heard in the halls of congress.

i want the american people to know today that i am still committed to working with people of good faith and good will, of both parties, to do what is best for ouri want the country. to bring our nation together, to lift our people up, to move us all forward together. it is what i have tried to do for six years. it is what i intend to do for two more, until the last hour of the last day of my term. 19,: that from december 1990 eight. you are smiling. what are you hearing? guest: i am hearing a very different tonality from -- and then from what we have heard from the current president. as i said, he had eight forceful personality. one of his great clinical skills was he recalibrated himself quite dramatically from moment to moment. he knew, in this moment, he was in his best clinical interests to sound a bit contrite, sound a

aboutunded, and to talk his aspirations, which i think everybody who is watching this morning and everybody who is probably within shouting distance of where we are sitting now, would agree he did not get what he wished for, that we have not had a politics of moderation and less bellicose partisanship. but it was the right tone for him to strike at that time. and it served him politically well, in the short term. 7:06 this morning, donald trump with this suite -- what i said on the phone call with the ukrainian president was perfectly stated. this is just another democratic hoax that i've had to live with since the day i was elected and before, calling it disgraceful. pennsylvania,m democrat line. caller: good morning.

question theed to thence of power balance of power that exists and has existed for maybe 50 years. i think the sheer size and power now of the executive branch and the weakness of congress, in they are trying to be reelected every two years. made trued of impeachment kind of impossible. if the two parties were together -- if the house and senate were not divided, i think it would be a little more realistic, that impeachment could work. but now, it just seems like an empty gesture. i would like to hear your comments on that. reallyyou make a important point about the rise of the executive authority over the last 50 years, really.

to hammerident wants the world as a nail, right? they see claiming as much power for themselves as possible as what they want to do. they are in a balance of power against the executive and the judiciary. but each successive president, in modern times, has tried to push what is possible more and more. it, barackush did obama did it, and now donald trump is trying to do it. your connection to that and impeachment is important, because what we are seeing even this week, as i said almost offhand at the start, several of the people who have been asked to testify this week, before the intelligence committee, they are not going to show up. in recent weeks, we have seen several people who have been told to not testify come to congress anyway and testify.

now this week, it seems as though that trend is reversing itself, and most of the people who have been someone who currently or previously worked for the administration will obey the president's command, dictates, that they not show up. some of this will be fought in the courts. there is one lawsuit about this that will not really tickets next important turn until december, which could mess up the timing of the democrats in terms of how much more evidence they want to collect and how public they want to go with this case before they learn which witnesses will or will not be made to testify. the important thing is that the president's main defense, his principal defense, other than his rhetorical defense on istter and in these rallies, to try and slow or stop the investigation at every turn.

that is a huge use of muscular executive power. host: lots of tweets and comments as well as x messages coming in. this from patrick saying sexual assault is a crime, it is not cultural to -- we go to christopher. good morning2 caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i have a problem with the mueller probe. he is supposed to be bipartisan, anythingd not have with the mueller -- uranium deal. saying --is same with ukraine. we have joe biden's son with his hand in the cookie jar, but oh,

no, it's president trump. it is ludicrous what people are believing on this. what are your thoughts? host: thank you. guest: first of all, i do not think we know about a uranium deal. what you referred to as the relatively -- if there was more to it and it was more exposed about it, you can be darn sure -- i hope you would be,arn sure, you may not given the distress of the media, but the media would be on that, if there were more to it. reporters would be on to it. and if there were a crime at work, prosecutors would be on to it, especially -- reporters would be --

especially prosecutors for this justice department. host: another comment. again, send your tweets to @cspanwj. this saying very strange how they set up this impeachment committee a few weeks before that whistleblower came forward. do you find that little strange? guest: no. the select midi -- the permanent select midi on intelligence was not set up before the whistleblowers showed up. it is permanently part of the congressional structure. bey are supposed to conducting these depositions as of the house vote last week, they have gone of a bit more power and a little bit more -- they have circumscribed what doing.e supposed to be

they are supposed to be conducting depositions behind closed doors that holding public hearings, then releasing a public report which would go to a different committee, the judiciary committee, which in modern times has been the committee that decides on which articles of impeachment to the draft and send on to the full house. host: the president has been busy tweeting this morning. the new york times pointing out he has sent out more than 11,000 tweets since taking over. this from the president. on our i'll go referring to the economy and the stock market -- record high. spend your money well. rochester, minnesota on the republican line. susan, good morning. becausei am concerned we don't necessarily have a fair process regarding due process. there should be open hearings with attorneys on both sides including the republicans having the right to call witnesses and subpoena. that hasn't happened. they said it will. i will believe it when i

see it. thing.the same we should also investigate biden. thank you. host: it will be interesting -- i will be interested to have you call back. guest: -- i will be interested to have you called back when those things happen. to see whether these process issues you are concerned about, it seems as though the vote last will address almost all of those concerns. the transcripts will become public, there will be public hearings, republicans will be input to call witnesses. we will see if your concerns are switched. -- our assuaged. republicans have tried to underscore the perception that what is happening behind closed doors is an undemocratic process. it is not.

all the republicans on the services committee, the other committees are entitled to attend those hearings and question the witnesses. 100 of thehing like 200 members of the republican conference have entree into these rooms. so they are allowed to participate now. host: you can text your comments to 202-748-8003 also on twitter@cspanwj. we have the following, we are -- alexanderamin's van and men's military service gives him credibility, but this comes a mere week after the same people lambasted army major tulsi gabbard as a russian asset. i guess what we are seeing here is that the politics and the

sharp divisions between democrats and republicans. looking at it through their own prisms. guest: absolutely. there does seem, in a way that is different, somewhat different from what we saw 20 years ago. , in thehe end -- yes end, the impeachment of bill clinton was partisan. initially there was some bipartisanship, you have heard the statistic that there were, , there weres vote 31 democrats who joined the republicans to vote to begin the formal impeachment proceedings against bill clinton. that is more than we saw last week, which was zero members of the minority party. -- in theere were 5 end, five members on each side crossed party lines on impeachment. in the senate trial, 10 republicans voted against both

-- sorry, five republicans who voted against both articles of impeachment, 10 who voted against on the one. at this point we have not seen the denmark nation that even similar slivers of bipartisanship are looming ahead, and that is because we live in such a full arrest country. the president of -- such a polarized country. the president's treat is one of -- trys to try tell draw to draw some interest to his side, including some democrats who think the economy is doing well. after the bill clinton impeachment trial he was riding a pretty good economy and much higher approval ratings throughout the process than the president is riding now. host: the website is fulcrum.. our guest is david hawkings.

we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. jim is joining us from north oxford, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. i am very much concerned about this. i have read all the documents. my field is words and numbers. representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. impeachment is not a one step, it is a phase. i think that the phases have been ruined because they did one without a vote. the inquiry started, and now, the inquiry is supposed to go on with the rest of the republicans equally participating.

out,ld also like to point i have a very serious problem with words when it comes to both the press, the president, the supporters,nd the and that is the word "transcript." i read the document two or three times. it says specifically in the last paragraph of the first page, that this is not a transcript, it is a memorandum. host: thank you for the call. guest: i.s.u me are talking about the ukraine call -- i assume you are talking about the ukraine call. to go back about what you said about impeachment, that there is a lot of criticism that the house democrats have taken the process so far down the road without publicity, without public proceedings. their defense, which maybe you have heard, this is their defense. they say -- in some ways, all

impeachments are similar and in some ways they are not. during bill clinton's time and watergate a lot of the investigatory work, the bulk of it, the fact-finding,, was done by prosecutors. in the case of watergate, it was a special prosecutor. in the case of clinton, the independent counsel kenneth starr. they did much of the fact-finding and turned over what they had learned to the house. then it was the house that went public and considered those facts and moved the impeachment article. different this time. what the house of representatives is working with here is not the work of a prosecutor, not really working with the mueller report. they are working with their own fact-finding, which is they would say, appropriately done behind closed doors. when doing fact-finding, you should do off-camera than go

public when you have your ducks in a row. host: joining us from seminole, florida on the democrats line. good morning, alan? guest: good morning. i think what we are observing here is kind of sad. caller: it is a reminder of how how emoved we are -- unremoved from our cheapens the dust from our cheapens the origins. it is amazing to see the the put all their chips on the front is -- it is amazing to see the g.o.p. put all their chips on .his president to hang their political lives on a president that lies consistently and does the most egregious, apart things right before our very eyes, it is really amazing to see that. very sad.

host: thank you, alan. guest: it has surprised many of us that the house republicans and the republicans generally have stayed in such lockstep with the president, not only because of what they say, that they don't agree with his tone, with his approach to governance. also true that he is not pursued and -- he has not pursued an entirely conservative agenda. it is fascinating that they are now sticking with him. tribalisml rule with and a polarized state of things is that one side gets locked in on a message, the tribe rallies behind that message and they stick with it. it is what happened with clinton, in comparison to 20

years ago, it is absolutely what happened with the republicans, really with both sides, on the clinton matter. even after the voters punish the republicans at the polls in 1998, they gave the republicans -- the republicans lost seats, the first time since the deal, when the party opposing the president had lost seats in the midterm election. yet they stuck with them. resign, buth had to they still stuck with the policies. host: from marty, this is a tweet saying -- democrats say the impeachment process is a political process so don't be surprised when the republicans get political. representative elijah cummings bused away this year. he was on the house floor in 1998 with this -- the framers of

the constitution did not entrust this house with the power to impeach the president of the united states in order to establish this body as a court of personal morality. impeachment was supposed to be a constitutional shield, not a moral or political sword. for all of these reasons, we should step back from this edge of this dangerous cliff. serious crimes have committed that this congress needs to address. every morning, children go to school and sit in overcrowded classrooms and deteriorating and crumbling facilities, and congress turns a blind eye. that is a serious crime. every afternoon, people find themselves lacking access to afford will health care. trying to figure out how to afford the prescription drugs they need. people are suffering and even dying, even as we debate today.

that is a serious crime. and every evening, people sit at their dinner tables wondering how they will afford a college education for their children. whether they need or even if they will be able to get a second job. that is a serious offense. we should be leaving personal and moral -- to the court, a branch of government where they properly belong, and we should be doing the job we were elected to do. the wisdom of history, not the passions of this moment, must guide our actions. host: that is now-late congressman elijah cummings from 20 years ago. guest: this was the same rationale many democrats were using this year for saying we should not pursue impeachment, that we should pursue our agenda. we are newly in the majority, we have the ability to make policy,

have the ability to change the debate about policy easing our half of congress to advance policies that we like. and we should be focusing on that rather than on the president's misconduct. that was sort of what mrs. pelosi was pursuing, the strategy she was pursuing for a while. they have obviously since changed their mind. that is mostoups affected by this are the presidential candidates, the democratic presidential candidates, including a group of senators who now are going to have a really hard time getting their own policy messages heard the way they would. , if of them those senators, the timing works out the way it probably will, will be stuck in washington acting as jurors in an impeachment trial in the months and weeks before the iowa caucuses on the third of

february and the new hampshire primary on 11th of february. host: who set the timing of that? guest: that would be mitch mcconnell, majority leader of the senate. [laughter] he would take the lead in setting the ground rules for the impeachment trial. host: could you imagine he would potentially do it in early february? guest: yes. i think he would not wait to do it in early february. if the house were to produce articles of impeachment by the end of this year, my guess is that he would try to take this up and dispose of it as quickly as he possibly could. samethere would be the deliberations that happened 20 years ago between the republicans and democrats on what the ground rules for the trial would be. they change from time to time. the clinton trial was the first trial since that andrew johnson trial in the 1860's, there was no nixon trial because nixon

resigned before he was impeached. so they would have to do that and the democrats would want presumably to have a full opportunity to present their cases. republicans would want to get this over with as quickly as possible. even if they do it in early january, that is crucial iowa caucus and new hampshire primary time. host: a question, why are people who are defying subpoenas -- why aren't they being jailed and fine? guest: congress's ability to enforce subpoenas is difficult to short-handed somewhat, it is tough for the house. the house of representatives doesn't really have much of a law enforcement arm. they have never really put the capitol police to work going out and arresting people. even if they did, it is a little bit difficult to confine them,

there is no jail in the capitol police station that i am aware of. host: bob joining us from kingswood, texas on the republican line. caller: good morning. obviously,ervative, but i think there is some sunshine here, some light at the end of the tunnel. i totally agree with elijah cummings, was he said. and i agree with what you showed that nancy pelosi said. there is a lot of. bigger and better things the country should be doing right now. i think youngs, have shown in your evidence i think you do try to be, more balanced than a lot of people who come on television. the pundits, certainly. i appreciate that. i do want to challenge you, i don't want to say it wrong, but you did say something earlier where you said, well, all presidents get excoriated or challenged by the press.

i don't believe that is the case necessarily for donald trump. is probably hard evidence to show that the majority of the mainstream media brutalize this guy. they don't just go after policy or certain issues, they will go after whether or not he tied his shoes, what he said about a certain -- something on a sports event, whatever. it is brutal. the majority of the mainstream media, the new york times, the washington post, most of your left,bc, cbs, they lean and cnn produces only left material. msnbc, on the left material. the new york times and washington post, similar. i take your issue, i think this president never -- from the main publishers other than fox or the wall street journal -- he is tortured.

again, i think you have been fair and honest. so what do you really think, truthfully, about the mainstream media. things.et me say two one is, thank you for sizing me up as somebody who tries to be fair. i would say that the president has certainly, because of his way of communicating -- we mentioned a fascinating aggregation in the new york --es of all of his tweets his decision to communicate the way he has, using twitter to comment on so many aspects of the culture and of, as you say, sports, colin kaepernick, the oscars -- he has weighed in on a lot of issues besides politics. and that is fair game. the white house said early on that would shoot -- that we should view his twitter feed. and the media has.

in that sense, we have been fair to pursue his tweeting as an essential part of his presidency. another thing i would say is that, you make a point about the networks -- the other side would say that donald trump is only president because those same networks and him so much airtime during the campaign. that he made for great television. he was entertaining. he got ratings. hit drew eyeballs. he drew advertising. revenues. they made a lot of money by airing him as much as they did. host: our guest is david hawkings. another comment from one of our viewers on twitter -- the whistleblower is less important than someone who was actually on the call. the people on the call will not show up at set for colonel ndman. the g.o.p. has been attacking his arrest city a tax on his

nationality. in my opinion, this shows they are afraid of the truth. guest: you are right, cornel vindman is the only person on the call who has testified. a couple of people who were supposed to appear this week were on the call. it has been fascinating for me -- i figured colonel showing up in his uniform would have been insulated from the kind of attacks he has faced. back to our theme of the day, which is, polarization is really, really intense. things you would have thought , norms weer times would have predicted seem to get knocked down day after day. host: can they force secretary of state mike pompeo who was also on the call to testify? guest: they could subpoena him. they could make a big deal.

everouse has not really proved that it can actually -- not in modern times -- that it can actually get somebody physically into the witness chair who doesn't want to show up. host: next caller is from hyattsville, maryland on the democrats line. good morning. you are on the air, please go ahead. caller: i am a democrat. life. been one all my but i would like to go back to when president roosevelt was the president. i am 90 years old. how he supplied food to the hungry. the man was for people, not the self. i look at this president today. he is more for self. he has a daughter in the white house as his advisor. do she know anything about business and government? then, there is the deal with russia.

russia is an american enemy. we have always known that the . . why would he bring them in into the white house? i have never seen another president do that. host: thank you for the call. guest: you are right. your memory is wonderfully long and rich. the closest comparison most people would make was president kennedy's decision to make his younger brother the attorney general. that would be the closest example. there were lots of debates among lawyers after the election about whether the president would be allowed to do this. norm-bustinga decision of his to do this. he has clearly gotten away with as he is clearly doing it, ivanka trump and jared kushner, his son-in-law, are working in the white house everyday.

able to do that with minimal criticism. it was probably something that emboldened him to take more older and boulder -- bolder and bolder actions. host: the president with this tweet, three words, read the transcript. guest: it is not a transcript. it is labeled as such. what we are talking about here is the transcript on the july 25 ukraine call. host: they are notes on the call. guest: the notes are detailed notes. there has been further reporting that there were words that were taken out. transcript.verbatim one of the things you can actually do is do this simple math on your calculator and see the number of words spoken.

the number of words in the transcript are not nearly as many words as the president has had in many calls per minute for which there have been transcripts made. missing.are words it is a fascinating strategy for the president to say, read the transcript, transcript or not, and call it perfect. that is his line -- this is a perfect call and don't pay attention to what the other people are saying that exposes him for doing a proper things. host: next from pemberton, new jersey, line for republicans. good morning. caller: thank you. i do agree that i see a need for term limits in congress. on both sides, the house of representatives and the senate. them on focus on the agenda and not on job security. i think that is the reason why we're seeing such a political

divide. they are protecting a president who can ruin their careers if they don't support him. i also believe there should be also a term limit on the supreme court, may be 10 years or 15 years at the most. host: thank you, philip. guest: philip, thank you. as i said before, this comes up most every time i am on, and it is something i have thought about a lot, in part because i am sort of the exception that is the rule. term limits on reporters. most of the people who were reporters with me when i first started covering congress are gone. just 13% of today's house was around for clinton's impeachment and only 15 of the senators who were members of the senate during the clinton impeachment trial are still in office. that is only 21 years ago. to me, that is pretty strong evidence that the system of government -- of governing and

elections and have, of political ambition and remorse for congressman who get to congress is not working very well. it is true that mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer, the majority leader and the minority leader 15.two of those there is one republican left who voted to acquit bill clinton who is still in office, susan collins of maine. we will be paying close attention to her. host: this is a treat over the humor -- a tweet over the humor: "read that sharpie-edited transcript of the republican line, good morning, glenn. caller: good morning. we are watching through the mueller probe. he delivered yellow cake uranium to russia. we watched james clapper and --ion gps, and jim's brennan

getbrennan tried to trump impeached through the mueller trap. it is all reverse psychology. we watched hunter biden getting billions of dollars from china and ukraine. we watched this press, which you are a part of, whitewash everything and go after trump for doing his job. we have a treaty with the ukraine to go after the corruption. our taxpayer dollars, that don't matter to the press, they just want a story so that they can make money off the backs of the people. host: we will get a response. glenn'sz point -- to point? guest: i will address that

point. the trump presidency has been a boon to the press. helped boostdidacy revenue and ratings for the tv, cable news networks. those ratings were pretty strong in the news division. subscriptions to news organizations which are probably can't stand, like the new york times and the washington post are surging. there has been a rise in conservative media outlets. been --presidency has there has been plenty to cover. he has given us plenty to cover, so it is not that we need to fabricate things to make money. host: robert joining us from florida on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing today. ? host: good, thank you. go ahead. caller: republicans want to just

-- we sped it up, we held a houseboat. now there are a couple of others -- we held the house vote. there are a couple of things you need to do before we can hold the public hearings. and republicans are not letting us do our job. i was just wondering why do you think that is? why don't you think republicans are letting us do our jobs? host: thank you. guest: so impeachment or not, this is still a divided government. yes, the democrats control the house. they have majority power and can produce most any legislation they want. it is still the case that republicans control the senate. there is still a filibuster on legislation. there is not a filibuster anymore on judicial nominations for executive nominations, which

is where the senate is spending so much time moving the president's judicial nominations clip.ghout a record president trump, impeachment or not, he is delivering for the conservatives who voted for him in a very, very big way by getting his judicial picks on the court. something like one quarter of the judicial seats on the court of appeals, the dozen quarts that it just below the supreme court -- that fit just below the supreme court, by the end of this week he will have filled a quarter of those seats. the democrats can only do so much, and to be honest, the have not are not -- really been making too much of their majority power to advance legislation. host: what do you expect this week? guest: i think the big story this week will be the release of the transcripts. what we have seen so far. -- remember, what he

of heard from what happened behind closed doors so far has been from the members themselves, and they say there is a lot more out there that we can't say. host: the people can follow you davidhawking's. from the fulcrum, thank you so much for being with us. you can check it all out on our website at c-span.org. thank you for joining us this monday. we are back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time, for :00 to to those of -- 4:00 you on the west coast. have a great morning. ♪ announcer: at c-span.org, we are making it easier for you to

watch c-span's coverage of the impeachment inquiry and the administration's response. if you miss any live coverage, go to our impeachment inquiry page, at c-span.org/impeachment for video on demand,. we have added a tally from the associated press showing where each house democrats stands on the inquiry against president trump. follow the impeachment inquiry on our webpage at c-span.org/impeachment, your fast and easy way to watch c-span's unfiltered coverage anytime. a look at one of the headlines in the wall street journal today. 4 trump administration officials scheduled to testify in the impeachment investigation are not expected to appear. they include national security council lawyer john eisenberg and an advisor to acting chief of staff mick mulvaney. on c-span, several presidential campaign events are on the

schedule, including from a vice president joe biden opening a cap in office with his wife jill biden in iowa. then, andrew young being with supporters yesterday in marshalltown. at noon, we will be at the atlantic council for a discussion about energy policy and the 2010 campaign. and later, a look at potential threats to the 2020 election at eastern. live this evening, president trump will be holding a campaign rally in lexington, kentucky. will take you there live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. a reminder, you can watch all our programs online at c-span.org, or listen to them on the free c-span radio app. joe, former vice president biden talking to supporters in des moines on saturday. [crowd cheering] [applause]