c-span or online at c-span.org. or listen with the c-span radio app. watch live next week as the house intelligence committee hosts the first public impeachment committees. starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the top left met -- diplomats in , bill taylor, and george kent will testify. tomer u.s. ambassador ukraine, maria von average, will appear before the committee. follow the impeachment committee live on the c-span networks, online on c-span.org, or listen live with the c-span radio app. burgat, senior fellow at the government's project at the r street institute in washington here to look at next week's public hearings on the impeachment inquiry.

when you heard the news yesterday that the phase would switch to a public phase, what were your thoughts about your expectations for those hearings? guest: first and foremost i was surprised how quickly they are coming. this timeline is moving so fast and is surprising a lot of us who follow this on a day-to-day basis. how fast this is proceeding and how fast emigrants want to make their case publicly. host: people they were interview next week have all testified behind closed doors. what do you suppose the committee hopes to draw out to public that they did not enclosed door hearings? guest: democrats want to hear what they have heard behind closed doors. they are willing to move on this quickly because they are confident in the case they have, the testimony they have received in those depositions. republicans are hopeful that they can use the public opportunity to show confusion or

armor between the corroborating witnesses about what they remember to try and get some confusion and chunks that case. host: based on the resolution that passed last week in the full house, what is your understanding of the process of how those hearings will take place? guest: intelligence committee is going to take the lead which is different from investigations four impeachment inquiries of the past which is typically of thehe jurisdiction hub -- of the house judiciary committee. adam schiff was tapped to lead these inquiries. he is mostly able to bring this intelligence perspective to the proceedings. it is going to transition into a public setting where there is going to be more of a back and forth and the cameras are going to be on it. it is going to look more like a courtroom than what the

behind-the-scenes deposition looked like, or atypical committee hearing, but it is going to be public and for all eyes to see. host: there have been reports of republicans wanting jim jordan from oversight to sent temporarily on intelligence and mark meadows as well. what is behind their thinking? guest: they want public defenders of the president and mr. meadows and jordan are exactly that. they are forceful and smart as a whip they are not shy to get combative with witnesses and republicans by think they. host: -- casey burgat is our guest. for democrats, (202)-748-8000. .or republicans, (202)-748-8001 for independents and everyone else, (202)-748-8002.

this is in the new york post, the headline says pelosi's impeachment rules guarantee partisan circus but i wanted to democrats she says are boasting about the impeachment inquiry protections offered to trump, claiming they are the same rules for president nixon and clinton but that is a boldfaced lie. section f quietly divides by judiciary committee siblings that unless the president surrenders his executive privilege, a power even the supreme court has ruled vital to his office, he and his lawyers will be denied any ability to call or answer or -- call or question witnesses. what is this section? guest: two things come to mind. this was guaranteed to be a partisan circus no matter what happened. of're going to get a lot partisan warfare undercutting the process. democrats saying one thing,

republicans saying another. this section is important to talk about. it was passed by the judiciary committee independent of that house resolution we saw last week which set the broad procedures of the impeachment inquiry. it gives the power to the judiciary committee to basically have the president forfeit his impeachment rights if he does not comply with the investigations of any committee referenced in that impeachment resolution last week. it is basically a sign that democrats are ready to play hardball, that if the president does not comply with their congressional subpoenas and provide witnesses and documents as he has not done, they will take away some of his rights within those impeachment proceedings. host: this was language that just the judiciary discussed and approved of, this was not voted on by the full house. here is what that language says. should the president unlawfully refused to make witnesses available for testimony or

produce documents requested by the investigating committees , ined in the first section furtherance of the investigations described in this section, the chair shall have the discretion to impose appropriate remedies including denying sims -- denying specific requests by the president or his counsel, or to call or question witnesses. it seems like they are just setting it up because the president and the administration have withheld witnesses, they have withheld testimony so far. guest: exactly. it is a preemptive measure to warn the administration that as we transition into a more public phase, as we are still requesting information and documents, if you continue to stonewall, then you are setting yourself up for some denial of rights you are going to want when these proceedings begin. host: let's get to the calls. our guest is casey burgat. public hearings beginning next week.

bill is in hazelwood, missouri on our republican line. caller: i am calling from the first congressional district which is very democratically gerrymandered and i would like -- i am wondering is a member of the public, what are the procedures and what access what i have two attending the hearing as a member of the public? guest: sr as i understand right now, like most other committee hearings, these will be public hearings both in person and on television. i would recommend you show up early. these are going to be well attended by the public and everyone within the bubble. this is not a common thing so people are going to get in line early. host: i think our earlier guest from the hill reported that they are having these in the ways and means, a bigger room to accommodate a larger audience. michael is in florida on our democrats line.

caller: thank you. i am a democrat. the american people need to study and evaluate the situation of the impeachment proceedings to check either the right or the left and tried to find the happy medium ground in the middle but my main concern is why if these proceedings continue on, will trump have the advantage of refusal or obstructing the process, and the representatives , jordan and collins from georgia and several others, i thehed very seriously and committee meetings they have had when representative cummings was

of -- theand head point i am making, those particular congressmen have done nothing but obstruct and break up the meeting as much as they can in reference to supporting president trump. i think the democrats were able to end a lot of these -- in these meetings were able to proceed with the meeting and make a conclusion and a proper evaluation. what we are having to deal with is that jordan was in one of the closed meetings. he came out and was leaking information on what was going on. we don't need this trash talking back and forth which has been ongoing. the democrats have had the opportunity to do a lot of things. they passed a lot of legislation in the house that has been forwarded to the senate. i think there are 400 pieces of

legislation that has not been acted upon. i hear these comments from callers coming in on the do-nothing democrats from republicans, that the democrats are not doing anything. host: we will let you go there. guest: there was a lot but i think that it is important to recognize that as we transition to this more public side that we should be conscious of what we are about to see. their case very forcefully, they are going to say the president did wrong and that anyone who is defending him is breaking their oat to the constitution. on the republican side, they are going to attack with just a moment -- with just the opposite. we should look to this is going to be a contentious process. easy thing to pass and it won't be, so we should go into that with eyes wide open and try to make the best judgment we can. by the lot has been said

president and his supporters by the lack of due process in the impeachment inquiry so far. do you think these public hearings will help clarify what is due process in an impeachment hearing? guest: this is one of the biggest pieces of confusion right now and that is relating what we know about the courtroom, a familiar process. we know a jury and trial and what rights we are supposed to have, but we have not reached the court stage of this yet. the investigation so far is in the fact gathering stage. it is happening behind closed doors. in previous proceedings, it was done by special counsel behind closed doors. begin todent will receive his rights because we are transitioning into that relative court stage where he will be able to call witnesses and be represented by counsel and be able to cross-examine witnesses once they take the stage. it's important to know that we have not reached that court

stage a matter what you have been hearing about due process, we are not there yet and next week's hearing is the first start of that where you will see the defendant be able to be represented and able to cross-examine and present evidence. host: always helpful to go back to the constitution. so little is said about impeachment. it is article one, section two, clause five. the house of representatives sell choose their speaker and other offices and have -- and will have the sole power of impeachment. we go to florida. joanne on the republican line. the republican line. caller: hi. my feelings are that there is not set -- not any such thing as a whistleblower. i think the whole thing is made up. the first thing that convinced me was when adam schiff was lying about what trump had said on the call. i heard it with my own ears. he talked about the phone call that he had with the you can't

-- the ukraine prime minister and it was totally false. it was totally different than the actual call and people need to read the transcript of the call. i believe that everything has been set up just like the russian collusion and just like the mueller report and i have heard no facts yet. all i have heard is interpretations. i think, i believe. i want to welcome president trump to florida. have a wonderful morning. host: casey burgat, tell us about what the democrats are focusing on and what they hope to establish. guest: the constitution says so precious little about what impeachment is and how it is supposed to be carried out. ofdoes give some threshold what high crimes and misdemeanors, treason and bribery, qualified to meet the threshold but even that is broad.

there have been 60 impeachment efforts in the house of representatives, 16 have been voted for but 11 of those 16 have no criminal act within their articles of impeachment, meaning they were impeached without committing a criminal act. we think of this as a criminal act, something had -- something has to be done that broke a law but it doesn't necessarily have to be true. impeachment is what the political actors in the house of representatives say is impeachable right now and democrats are trying to say that it is going to likely revolve around abuse of power, a deep commitment from the oath of office -- from the oval office and probably an obstruction of congress, obstruction of the proceedings. i am anxious to see what articles they will come out and say but they are trying to make this case fast and publicly. host: a reminder for some historical perspective, on

c-span.org/impeachment, not only current video from the current impeachment inquiry we have links to all of our coverage from the bill clinton impeachment inquiry, all of our coverage from the impeachment of a number of judges over the course of 40 years plus of c-span's history. you'll find all of that at c-span.org/impeachment. we go to pennsylvania, rosemary on the independent line. caller: when adam schiff interviewed the people, i think it was their opinion. they disagree with the president's policy. there are three branches of government and the president is entitled to determine his foreign policy. what is happening with the ig report and durham's report. we have not heard anything about that. that should tell us the ,eginnings of what happened before 2016 and 2015. host: just to let you know, we

wrote a story yesterday that that ig report will likely come out in the next week or so. you can find that from the hill. senators push for deal on impeachment trial rules to avoid a political brawl. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell was asked yesterday how long a senate trial would take and whether president trump would be convicted and removed from office. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> how long it goes on depends on how long the senate wants to spend on it. i will say i'm pretty sure how it is likely to end if it were today. i don't think there is any question it would not lead to a removal. the question is, how long does the senate want to take? how long do the presidential candidates want to be here on the floor of the senate instead of in iowa or new hampshire and all of these related issues that may be going on at the same

time. hows difficult to ascertain long this takes. i would be surprised if it two't end the way the previous ones did with the president not being removed from office. host: how difficult is it for republican leadership in the senate not to give away or say things that may prejudice and -- and eventual trial of president trump? guest: that applies to democratic senators who may be potential jurors. i am so pathetic to the argument that they like all of us should wait for the evidence to become public. even members of the senate are not privy to the emperor -- information that has been deposed -- behind closed doors. we are all using a lot of speculation, we are using leaks, public testimonies that are starting to drip out. we do not have the full picture. i don't think the committees investigating this have the full

picture by evidence of them still asking witnesses and asking for documents. this is the consequence of moving so fast. if you look back at nixon, the watergate break-ins were done in july of 72 and it was not until july 74, two full years later that the public hearings started to happen. january 94n it was that the special prosecutor started his operation and it was not until december 98 and clinton was actually impeached. right now we are three months out. a very compressed timeline. host: back to calls. from minnesota on our democrats line. caller: good morning. is, is it really legal for the president to andhold all his documents other things that should be

available in any investigation? question we are about to see a ton of lawsuits in the supreme court likely get involved to excite -- to itemize exactly what the prerogatives of congress are relative to the executive branch, particularly when he has an ability to invoke executive privilege. right now there was a famous court case going on were someone within the executive branch was subpoenaed by congress but he was directed by the executive branch not to testify. he is literally asking do i listen to congress or to the president and surprisingly, that has not been decided, so clearly we are waiting for court cases, waiting for a back and forth of negotiations between the two branches and it signals that a lot of this and previous efforts were done sometimes by the court and sometimes when it got to the final stages but a lot of this is done by norms of what is expected between the two branches but nothing is set in

stone so a lot of us are looking for clarity. host: you pointed out the pace of this impeachment inquiry could outpace results from the court. the impeachment inquiry could certainly wrap up before any decision by the court, that alone even a hearing in court on the issues of executive privilege. guest: even the courts right now are moving fast relative to other court cases and house democrats have decided they might not necessarily need that to be decided for them to make a strong case. they are moving on with or without that. i think they would like to get the hearing as soon as possible assuming it is one that provides information but they are moving on under the assumption that they won't. host: our next caller on the independent line in texas. caller: i am calling to say let the facts flow. what isfacts show us there that is what -- that is from the testimony of the

witnesses have given. i have independent and friends from all walks of life and they don't wait for the many of these diehard trumpeters are saying i won't listen to the facts, but you have to listen. this is trying to preserve our constitution. unlawful acts, corrupt conduct, abuse of power. this could go on. independents have to realize that we have to be open and listen to those facts. republican saying that they are not going to listen to anything, that is already a sign that the republic is in jeopardy.

a president can be impeached and removed for his or her -- for his or her actions even if they are consistent with presidential duties. the oath of office for a while with the emoluments clause. americans and do what is right. for our country, not ourselves but for our children. host: casey burgat. guest: you are obviously well informed. i agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that the facts should reign supreme and we are about ready to transition into a phase where those facts are going to become available to all americans. i am not going to be naive enough to say that everyone from both extinct -- both extremes are going to accept them equally

but at least they will be presented before us and they will have to make their case and members of congress face the unfortunate duty of deciding whether that warrants impeachment and ultimately removal. that is the path we are on right now. pittsburgh texts this to us. why doesn't trump testify himself in an open hearing? guest: i think his lawyers would not love that. everything i understand says he has that prerogative if his lawyers allow it and the house wants to hear from him. that is the right of someone facing a charge like this but i cannot imagine the president taking the stand within the house or senate. host: where would that come? but that come in a house hearing or an eventual senate trial? guest: it could come at any point. i can't even get my head around him showing up and taking the

oath to respond personally to these questions. host: let's hear from joel in maryland on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for this forum. i just want to remind everybody .hat as americans we voted the process of the elections doesn't seem fair sometimes but it is what it is. republicans have to be aware that being right about what is literally correct sometimes is not morally right. if you look at the behavior of trump and his party, weigh the evidence and look at it from the perspective of how do i want my children, how do i want my grandchildren, their morals to be judged, about that at night when you go home. you can read about what you like and don't like but to tell the truth, we will have to give an it is more than what

we think is -- as just citizens. i hope the truth comes out in the end. host: another question for you on text, why are the hearings being held in the intelligence committee instead of judiciary committee? going to be such a circus. guest: we don't know yet. we can only speculate because they have not outright said why this is happening. a few things come to mind. the intelligence committee is more used to operating behind closed doors with sensitive information and security clearances. it is an easier transition to conducting these depositions. the speaker has been very complementary of adam schiff within that house intelligence committee for how he has conducted himself in the mueller investigation and how he is able to focus the efforts of the intelligence community. this does have some foreign

thatligence, information may involve security clearances that are not available to judiciary members and staff. it may have been an easier transition with the benefit that adam schiff is a former prosecutor and a huge supporter of speaker pelosi. host: any report out of the intelligence committee, their report does not preclude the house judiciary committee from holding their own hearings. guest: right. even the resolution that was passed last week formalizing the inquiry has other committees involved. they all have their delineations of what they are investigating and they are all able to do so, just so far that the intelligence committee has been granted the right to do this publicly. host: john is in new york, democrats line. caller: good morning. i am calling because i am upset at the way congress is handling this impeachment.

not supposed to have his family in our government. only the president should be there, not his family. got $90in-law who ran -- from a rack -- a from iran. is above the law the way the congress is handling this. host: another caller brought up the potential emoluments violation. are you expecting that to come up in these hearings? guest: this is going to be an interesting part from my perspective, how much to the include in the ultimate articles of impeachment and i guarantee that summer arguing we should make it as wide as possible and have a vote on each and put republicans on the record for what they defend and what they don't. others will say we found

traction with ukraine, it is an easy case to make with testimony. i don't know but it is up to them. host: one more call. thomas is in ohio. caller: hi there. is, i really appreciate your levelheadedness and your answers today, but i am struggling to understand on the question of anonymity versus protection of a whistleblower. i believe that anonymity in this that it seems logical somebody should be able to question the original source of these charges, but i do believe in protection of whistleblowers. can you help clarify those distinctions? guest: i am chasing this answer because it is going to become an important one. both sides are going to have to answer and speak to it.

i am not an expert on this and there are experts so we should look and find them. from my understanding, the purpose of anonymity is to give protection, to give someone the legal bearing to come forward with information that does not threaten their current position or job. it is important to keep anonymity in this process in place so that a future whistleblower, future potential whistleblowers feel that same protection and don't feel that they will be outed and face recourse. i don't know where that line between anonymity and protection is. i suspect we will talk about it endlessly in the coming months. i don't have it yet. you better believe i am going to chase it down. host: you can follow that chase. eastern on c-span three, top

diplomat in the ukraine and assistant secretary george kent will testify and on u.s.y, on c-span 2, former ambassador to the ukraine, yovanovitch, will appear before the committee. impeachment inquiry live on the c-span listen liveline, or free-cre-span radio app. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] for 're making it easier you to watch coverage of the inquiry. go to our website for video on a tally d we've added from the associated press showing where each house democrat stands on the inquiry against president trump.

follow the impeachment inquiry website at cspan.org/impeachment. waft and easy way to watch unfiltered coverage at any time. > later todayent trump will present the presidential citizen's medal at a ceremony in the east end of the white house. live coverage at 6 m opinion c-span and also online at c-span.org, or listen the radio app. this weekend at 8:00 p.m. samples of our history coverage. tonight, a look at past proceedings for presidents johnson, nixon and clinton. nd friday, the american revolution. american history tv features all eastern on p.m. c-span 3.

>> next, a senate committee ooking at affordable housing and safety concerns. one of the issues deals with onsider car upon monoxide -- ctors in all in alln monoxide readers affordable housings. to his hearing will come order. today the committee will receive testimony from leaders in the community on bipartisan opportunities, to expand access to fter for theable housing improve the safety conditions within current federally assisted housing, and to we might better target some of our existing housing resources to meet unaddressed needs. welcome to our witnesses, and thank you for being here and be with us on discussion.nt join us today are ivory mathews, interim executive