announcer: live on friday, the house returns for work on the bill to reauthorize the u.s. export import bank for 10 years at 9:00 a.m. on c-span. second impeachment hearing session. barr00 p.m., william addresses the federalist society. at 1:00 eastern on c-span three, former georgia candidate for governor stacey abrams. an hour, dan

kildee discusses the latest on the impeachment inquiry, and at 8:30 a.m., ann coulter discusses daca, impeachment, and camping 2020. -- campaign 2020. >> good morning. the impeachment inquiry public hearings continue with marie yovanovitch in the witness chair. the veteran diplomat will testify but for best before the 22 lawmakers about an alleged smear campaign against her in the president's decision to recall her from that post. our coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span2, on the website, c-span.org, or you can download and listen with the free c-span radio app. we will begin this morning with your reaction to the latest on the impeachment inquiry.

democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. and text us with your city and state at (202) 748-8003. begin with the front page of the new york times, a story on many of the front pages this morning, about speaker pelosi yesterday during her weekly news conference using the word " bribery." a suggests trump may face bribery charge. from the new york times, the briberys allegations of and misdeed identified in the constitution as an impeachable offense was significant. even as miss pelosi said no final decisions have been made on whether to impeach mr. trump, it suggested democrats were moving toward a more specific set of charges.

it also indicated democrats are working to put a name to the presidents wrongdoing that would resonate with the public. here is the speaker of the house yesterday. >> on the investigation front, yesterday was a somber, prayerful day. i thought it was a successful day for truth. truth coming from the treads it in -- president and people he appointed. he appointedperson most recently to the state department. none of us have come to congress to impeach a president. we come here to do the work of the american people and make the future better for them to try to do so in the most bipartisan way grounde, find our common where we can, stand our ground where we cannot. yesterday, you heard the president speaking and very unambiguous terms, a courageous public servant. the devastating testimony corroborated evidence of bribery , uncovered in the inquiry, and

the a president -- and that the president abused power and violated his oath by threatening to withhold military aid in exchange for an investigation into his political rival. a clear attempt of the president to get himself the advantage in the 2020 election. doing so, as i said to the president, you jeopardize our national security, undermine our national security, jeopardize the integrity of our electoral system, violate your oath of office. host: the speaker of the house yesterday alleging bribery. your reaction to the latest on the impeachment inquiry this morning as we wait for the part two to get underway at 9:00 a.m. eastern time with the former u.s. ambassador to to ukraine. ukraine.ador to bob, you are up first. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. mulvaneyt is that mick already admitted publicly on tv

that there was a quid pro quo, jordan, when he was at the flat outnt hearings, denied that ever happened at all. what you going to call it? it never happened? there was a -- rules in place so that the sovereignty of a nation would not mess with for 70 years. right now, what russia is doing with ukraine is violating that the people that

don't think it's going to affect them, it is going to affect them, because it is -- there is going to be wars over this. startsia can go in and taking over a nation and destroying their sovereignty, and if russia does take it over, that will be the rebirth of the soviet union. enabling this to happen. that, we will do suffer for it. that's my comment. host: do you think mick mulvaney should be testifying, sitting out that witness table on your screen, facing the lawmakers? caller: yes, i do think you should.

ludicrous that they are trying to get the testify.ower to trump would do the same thing to a whistleblower that putin would. moving should be up testifying, and i don't know if people weren't talking -- watching television when mulvaney said get over it. you know what he was talking about. host: let me read for you and others this piece written in the opinion pages of the wall street journal by david risk in and lee lee casey.sken and they served in the white house counsel's office and justice department under reagan and george h w bush. they write the privilege for communications with the small group of senior white house

presidentshe immediate advisors, is well grounded. the office of legal counsel fully articulated it in 1971 under future chief -- future chief justice. times,ice has, and many -- let's go to stuart, a republican. what do you think? caller: good morning. what's going on, i find it to be [indiscernible] if you listen to the first part of the hearing, they talk about biden's son hunter. when they brought that up, what was going on, it was squashed, like it was no big deal, don't talk about it. yet we have people on both sides of parties that will be firm on what they believe. -- affirmed on what they believe. i have never heard something so

reprehensible to impeach the president, but we are waiting to find out something. as far as the whistleblower coming into testify, if you want to hide their identity, it's easy to do. i think that person should come in and be questioned on how they got this information, where they got it from, who they spoke with , and when they don't answer the questions, then you have to have a problem. toing a person's identity testify is an easy thing to do. they should have that person come in and to be questioned by both parties. host: what about gordon sondland's testimony and what we heard from the diplomats on wednesday, bill taylor, saying in aid of his overheard a phone call between gordon sondland and the president of the united states, and when they hung up, the aide asked what is the presidents opinion of ukraine

-- respondn refunded -- sans the lind -- sondland testified -- caller: i want to find out everything being heard. every time someone is saying something, it is secondhand information, so we have to hear from these witnesses. don'teve, firmly, if you have the person who sorted all the stuff, going with the whistleblower, if he doesn't or she doesn't testify. is amiss, now they are coming up with bribery charges. what's next? extortion, everything else. host: i'm going into leave it there stuart. as we continue to watch inside the room, you can see a lot of the court. networks have their correspondence there to do what's called stand up shot at the beginning of their broadcast

--the 7:00 a.m. eastern .our those correspondents were allowed to be in the room on wednesday, and at they did the security sweep, they did the security sweep first. you can see all of the cameras are in position this morning. those standup cameras will have to leave, or the committee -- for the committee seedings. -- proceedings. we have c-span's cameras in the rooms, seven of them in there. we are feeding out all of the different angles from the hearing to these different networks as the pool. we have been designated as the pool for these proceedings. the individual networks decide how you see the hearing. they will be directing it's like we will do as well. willoverage -- it like we do as well. our coverage on c-span2, on the website, or download the free

c-span radio app. they report reports 13 want -- 13.1 million people watched the impeachment hearing, with fox news most viewed and cnn second on wednesday's hearings. we will give you gavel-to-gavel, uninterrupted, no commentary coverage of the hearing as we did on wednesday. the hearing today as well. the phone call gordon sondland supposedly had with the president in key have that was does -- kiev that was disclosed on wednesday, david holmes will be appearing behind closed doors. he is the staffer who has said to have overheard the president asked sondland on the phone about the investigation. he will be behind closed doors first this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. eastern time. it was recorded yesterday the second aid also overheard that conversation.

yesterday on capitol hill, the house minority leader was asked about this disclosure by bill taylor, and if that would, if when gordon sondland testifies, if that would change the republicans calc elation on impeachment. listen. >> next week, you will hear directly from gordon sondland who president trump put in this position, certainly a supporter of the president and contribution he made to the inauguration fund. what his testimony change or calc elation on whether or not it was an impeachment offense if he corroborates what these other witnesses said? yesterday we heard there was a phone call overheard between sondland and the president where the president asked about investigation. you have a phone call where the president asked about an investigation, an investigation that's already going forward. most of america wants to know on.'s going

an investigation the entirety general is on. the answer is no. host: cnn reported this morning that russian spies likely intercepted the ambassadors cell phone call with the president. allen in maine independent -- maine, independent. your thoughts on the impeachment inquiry? caller: good morning and thanks for c-span. my thoughts are different than a lot of the detail going on. that impeachment is an offense against empire and emperors like emperor trump. our founders, because of their deep understanding of roman history, new that the disease of republics is empire. what we have now is clearly a person who is proud and brags of islding his business empire,

an empire thinker, psychologically, as the psychiatrists have looked at him , and they realize he acts like he'spire and emperor, and essentially and emperor. he's our first one -- an emperor. he's our first one that has acted this way, and impeachment is an ideal defense against the country becoming an empire under an emperor emperor trump. it's -- like emperor trump. host: i believe police are gathering inside 1100 longworth this morning, having a meeting about keeping the area secure for today's proceedings, security tight on capitol hill as it always is. anybody who's trying to enter the building outside of this committee room have to go through metal detectors. there are only a limited amount of seats for the public. fox news reported on wednesday that the seats were about 100 for the public and 100 for

lawmakers who don't sit on the intelligence committee, and then 150 seats reserved in the room for reporters and producers. arlene and new orleans, democratic caller. caller: good morning, c-span. i only have a few comments. one is that we don't have president trump, we have president putin. trump is nothing but a putin. if the republicans can't see it, if they can't take the dawn out their eyes and see the bigger picture. how long have they been covering up for trump? since he been in office. all of the rotten, disgusting things, as he doesn't go by our laws, he doesn't go by laws. he goes by putin laws. if they can't see that, all they are doing is messing with the border.

they have to remember who is behind trump. host: arlene's opinion in louisiana. francis and tennessee, republican. what do you think, francis? caller: good morning. -- in tennessee, republican. what do you think, francis? caller: good morning. the democrats are pleased with this trial and we should take the root of this trial and apply to every inquiry, every court action, and people say there is no one -- that the law is equal. it doesn't seem quite like it is equal to me. and one for trump everyone else. we know that's not right. anyone that listens knows it's not right. have a good day. thank you very much. host: next, independent color. hello. caller: good morning, c-span. can you hear me? host: yes we can.

good morning. caller: the investigation started because of trump. he's the one who was on the phone with his quid pro quo. things they say in the .onstitution [indiscernible] he solicited ukraine's president to investigate the bidens. why would you do that? -- finding to fine something on joe biden and his son because he has his political -- biggest political rival -- because he is his biggest political rival. we are americans first. it's not about the party. ,hen 9/11 happened [indiscernible].

they didn't care, they were attacking america. i think were losing focus. this is an inquiry. let's bring out the empathy, not byause trump was elected like tour boat, not people. make a decision from there. so far, what i'm seeing is that he should be impeached. right, she cited article two of the constitution that holds a president shall -- shall bed removed for treason, bribery, or other high crimes. caller: i called to say that hearings,in their

yesterday, the republicans were calling for the whistleblower to testify. at the same time, the people before them, they were saying it is third -- thirdhand, secondhand, that sort of thing. what would happen if the whistleblower comes in? they would be saying the same stuff and jeopardizing that person's safety. think that if they want first-hand information, they should get the president to stop blocking people who have first-hand information from coming in and telling the truth. .et's see what the truth is if the first 10 people would because having a whistleblower there will not satisfy them. it will just put them in danger and i hope anybody out there don't let this discourage you.

you are a hero and care about your country. if you see or hear something, go to the proper channels like he did. he went to the ig and the ig has the expertise to know whether it sounds like or could like be something worth investigating and pass along. a cop locked before it got to congress, but please do this. this person is a patriot, and when this is all said and done, i think he should be considered a hero. host: rudy giuliani had an interview yesterday with the guardian out of london, and the headline was rudy giuliani says trump will stay loyal to him, fromokes he has insurance the article in a telephone interview in response to a question if he was nervous that president trump might throw him under a bus in the impeachment crisis. giuliani said i'm not, but i do have very good insurance, so if he does, all my hospital bills will be paid.

giuliani's lawyer, who was also on the call interjected he's joking. >> charles in bethlehem -- charles in bethlehem, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: this impeachment, i listened to it yesterday and today. so far, that i see, he has not done nothing wrong. this is another thing from the democrats trying to get socialism started. going by the whistleblower, if somebody blamed me, i want to know who it is. ii, then, when world war hitler's did the same thing and had people ratted out and they were killed. .t's the same principle if this starts where you say something that you don't like, you get in trouble and locked up. i think it's all a sham, and i don't think the president did anything wrong. i know he's going to get elected

next year. thank you. host: all right. pennsylvania. speaker pelosi was asked yesterday about the legal rights of the whistleblower versus the legal rights of the president. take a listen. they say impeachment is a political process. [indiscernible] this was made clear yesterday by chair shift. it seems to me that he would do everything necessary to ensure the legal rights of the , to observer anonymity. i wonder if you could explain to the american people by the legal rights of the whistleblower should prevail in this political setting over those of president trump who should ordinarily

enjoy seeing his accuser. >> i will say to you, mr. republican talking, what i said to the president of the united states. when you talk about the whistleblower, you are coming into my wheelhouse. i have more experience in intelligence than anybody in congress, 25 years on the committee as top democrat. i was there with the whistleblower. the whistleblower is there to speak truth to power, and have protection for doing that. any retribution or harm coming to whistleblowers undermines our ability to hear truths about power. i will defend the rights of the whistleblower vehemently. vehemently. if the president has a case to make, does he want to speak?

does he want to send in writing, or speak to the committee about exculpatory for him, he has that right to do, nobody -- the president is not above the law. he will be held accountable and nobody should have the right to endanger whistleblowers, and that is a system i will defend. and, the american people understand that. host: that was the speaker of the house yesterday in her weekly news conference asking about the whistleblower rights. this morning, on capitol hill, thede 1100 longworth, it is committee room, one of the more ornate committee rooms on capitol hill, and is also the largest. they chose this hearing room for its size, for today's part two of the impeachment inquiry public hearings, where they will hear from the former ambassador

from the united states to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, and the washington post knows that when she sits in the witness was born to canada from parent to flood the soviet union, joined a foreign service after graduate school in 1986, and since then, she served in seven countries across the administration of six american presidents, including ambassador --armenia and because extend azikstan.xtend -- k mark sandy is the first employee to testify after owen be acting director and two other political congressionalied subpoenas to appear. he was firsthand knowledge of the requests to cancel the military aid, and he is expected to testify behind closed doors on saturday.

neven in connecticut. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. what is happening right now is the reason i'm a former republican. andved through watergate the clinton impeachment, which i objected to because i didn't believe lying about sex rose to the level of misdemeanors. feared was anys authoritarian. beginningon from the was that this was a man who didn't have the character to be president. aen president nixon had criminal bout. when it came down to the interests of the united states government, he eventually decided to put that first. and that president ford, in his place, would continue with what

was best for the country. but, what i've seen from president trump, from the time from running his businesses, refusal to release his tax returns, which given the rest of his personality, i would have expected to show everyone how wealthy he was, so his refusal bankruptcies,his the reality tv nature of his progression to the presidency, i was very concerned about his character. i remember him admitting into 2015,nd 16 earlier, maybe that turkey might be a problem because he had business interests in turkey. it might be a conflict of interest, and he kind of joked about it. i remember that. 2012, in thein

romney campaign, when he said electoral college was a disaster for democracy because he thought romney might win the personal vote -- popular vote but lose in the electoral college. i watched him contradict himself eventually,day, and when general mattis went to syria, the first syria phone call, and then i started phoneing when erdogan's call happened and he announced without consulting state or defense department that he was pulling our troops out of syria, giving erdogan a great -- green light to decimate the kurds. i'm not happy away the whole thing is being presented. i think it's a simple case of extortion, bribery, using his

position and power as president to withhold congressional aid, to an ally preventing russia from once again becoming the soviet union. host: you begin talking about the president's tax returns. there's news on that this morning as well. trumpco reports that the -- that the president's lawyers case goes to the supreme court. president rose required to turn over a -- his tax returns in manhattan. president's lawyer is asking the supreme court to weigh in on that. crystal in west palm beach, florida. a democratic color. caller: good morning. first, i would like to attend to the comments made by the general -- gentlemen from maine. i agree there's a pattern of behavior in this white house

that similarly reflects an empire and someone who things he's an emperor. i would also like to comment on the whistleblower. i think there is great risk to his personal safety. i kind of look at it like going for the person that filled -- pulled the fire alarm when there's evidence of a fire. i don't think they go back and try to find the person that .ulled the fire alarm i think there's a pattern of behavior where this person might be a risk. also, the last comment, i heard a statistic where i don't know where it came from, but i think it's relevant here. that 70% of americans do not know the difference between a fact and opinion. i think that severely is impacting our politics and judgment, and how we perceive and uphold the constitution. an aware andave

educated public, and americans need to wake up. host: when marie yovanovitch testify,o the room to she might likely get asked about her closed-door testimonies that she gave earlier, and a little from that testimony. she is asked by the democratic counsel in her closed-door testimony, nicholas mitchell, he says this to her. president trump said the former ambassador to the united states, the woman was bad news, and people she was dealing with in ukraine were bad news. i want to let you know that. this is from the presidents phone call with zelinski. the democratic counsel for the committee is quoting the president, and he says to marie yovanovitch in her closed-door testimony, do you see that? she says yes. what was your reaction? e repetitive, but i was shocked.

at the president would speak about me or any ambassador to me or foreign counterpart. then, at the bottom of the page, president trump says she's going to go through something. what did you understand that to mean? i didn't know what it meant, i still am. did you feel threatened? yes. do you feel you were going to be retaliated against? i don't know. she also in the closed-door testimony was asked about her for mike pompeo to publicly say he supported her. jovanovich is quoted in saying in her testimony that what i wanted was a statement that said i have full confidence or something like that to indicate i in fact and the ambassador in ukraine and i speak for the president, for the secretary of state, for our country. the council said in contrast to mr. giuliani, i didn't put it that way she was that she responds. was that what you meant?

what i meant is exactly what i just said. it wasn't necessarily indirect relation to giuliani, it was as --h in response to you from she says yes, others including the president's son. what did mr. o'hare -- missile hail say? mr. -- he would talk to secretary pompeo. if you hear back or was a statement issued? no. did you speak to the secretary directly? no. let's go to georgia and florida. republican. what do you think about the impeachment inquiry so far? caller: good morning, greta. thank you and c-span for all you do. i think nancy pelosi and the democrats keep trying to make this out -- this inquiry to make out that trump was meddling with the 2020 elections when it's clear from the transcripts he was asking the president to look into what happened in 2016.

i think that's a huge difference. i'm 62 years old and i grew up being taught and learning cheaters never prosper. you look at this whole inquiry, shift -- adam schiff, his perverted process and dishonesty, the american people are smarter than this. they can see this. they can sense it. that's why they won't prosper. there candidates in the debates are in with the media, it doesn't produce good candidates. they won't prosper. they will lose. thank you for all you do. host: thank you, george. william, independent. caller: yes. what i wanted to talk about, these people are patriots

, and it takes bravery to come and confrontf this abuse of power. about the whistleblower, to bring he or she up in front, it's ridiculous. it has no bearing on the case whatsoever. they're trying to prove if the president actually corrupted or tried to corrupt a foreign power for information on a political adversary. this is plain gangsterism. you see this every day in new york city. the basic defense is a guy calls up, knows they will rob a bank, and the gang knows because the guy knows, he makes a call, drops a dime, and all of a sudden, the defense, after they catch these people, with their crimes and try to convict them, let's see whois,

called us and dropped the dime on us to see if it was legit. anyway. host: elaine in texas, a democratic color. caller: thank you, greta. i've been watching since c-span came online. i wonder, what would people be obama and his was son-in-law and daughter-in-law were getting lynched in the white house? while everybody's talking about --eachment, trump is lying lining his pockets. i hope there will be a godfather part three, because it will end up being part 33. the white house is corrupt. mitch and his family, they are getting rich. break?s your tax what did he do for you?

he lies. all he does is lie. it's serious. is a seriousn deal. the man is not fit to be a dogcatcher. -- andt fit in those those republicans are kissing his butt. they ought to be put out. host: we go to max, a republican in michigan. your turn. caller: i wondered why this is the first whistleblower they are willing to protect. they didn't protect john kerry q or any of the other ones. they won't let the information out between adam schiff and his buddy in jail right now. in jail for murder. what's going on with all of this? how come you won't let the truth out? when are people in the media going to let the truth out? host: about what max? caller: about everything.

about the whistleblower. he's not even first-hand. he was on the plane with ed biden in ukraine. i knew who the whistle -- and i know who the whistleblower is. other people should be able to look up and figure it out too. host: the whistleblower's name has been reported in several publications. the moderators of this show are not going to say who this person is, based on those reports, because we have no verification that is actually the whistleblower, so we will refrain from citing anybody's name at this point, because there is no way to verify who the person is. there's a new poll on president trump's approval or disapproval rating, and it shows his total approval is at 39% while his total disapproval is at 58%.

tom in miamisburg, ohio. a democratic color. hi, tom. -- caller. hi, tom. caller: i think impeachment is too good for him. why don't they investigate the teenage girls sex scandals that he don't seem to be worried about since epstein was killed. i lived in west palm beach for quite a few years, and so did my wife. i think it's a shame he was when i lived in west palm beach and the way he is running our government. we don't have a government, and this impeachment, the republicans are mad because they are not calling the shots. jim jordan is from ohio and i think he's a disgrace for the republican party. i think it's a shame. impeachment is too good for him. his right-hand man, giuliani, he , so that the sewer rat

makes trump the sewer rat because he will drain the swamp. host: tom, i will leave it there. as you saw the staffer for the committee putting the placards, the names of the members of congress, of the house intelligence committee before as you noted,and jim jordan has been put on this committee. he was put on it by republican leadership last week ahead of the pursed public hearing -- first public hearing. this week, crawford resigned from his position so jim jordan could get one of the seats. you saw him on wednesday take his five minutes to question the diplomats. we expect he will do so today again. the format is the same with the chair and the ranking member, the top republican of the committee, adam schiff, and devin nunes respectfully, they will split 90 minutes between

the two of them. they will have counsel asked questions as well, like you saw on wednesday. ike in arkansas, independent. hi, ike. ike, good morning, are you there? caller: yes. can you hear me now? host: yes we can. go ahead. caller: just when i'm about to turn off, i heard this woman say we have 70% of the people who don't know opinion from fact. i was going to remind her we have a presidential candidate who i believe -- for years andurch heard people say i believe in truth, and my dad was a preacher, but people that believe in truth over facts, i had to call in. i'm an independent, so i've marched in courts in the 60's, and said let's vote in the streets. we elected big aethers.

i'm a republican, or independent, but i'm swinging back and forth. they're making so much money in the capital when he doesn't even take -- take a paycheck. no one is getting paid over there. i heard somebody talk about the demon rats, so let's all try to get along. i sure appreciate c-span. host: martin in new jersey, republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. the very first time i heard about this, i was surprised that phone calls were being recorded. i'm just a regular person, i'm not a lawyer, and i always thought, in my mind, that the president's phone calls or or the people that are

with him. i was shocked to find out all kinds of people are on that call that -- call. that worry me quite a bit. who knows what people are on there? i was taken back by that. the second point is this whole check tohe right away on what's his name? what about truth? we're just tying to find out what's going on with this company, burisma, so why can't we look for the truth? we still haven't found out the two things -- we still haven't found out the truth. maybe there's nothing to do. i actually like biden. i got no problem with him. he needs to come out and show

there were no issues there, and everybody could move on, but my main concern is people are presidentxious to the -- access to the president's phone calls that did not tear them directly, and this really worries me. everybody is making out the whistleblower to be this great person. back in my day, somebody like that would have not been looked upon too favorably. it's surprising how everybody seems to think -- i have a problem with that. if the whistleblower was direct and heard this thing and was concerned, let him go on tv and express it. what is he worried about? has theat about martin democrats say we don't need him to testify because we had other witnesses who have corroborated what the whistleblower first raised in his complaint? caller: i will answer that question.

i don't have an intellectual answer or political answer. i just have a regular person answer. in my humble opinion, i think , if youiff and pelosi look at his eyes, you can't tell me you look at the sky -- this guy, he looks possessed to me. host: i believe it there. the president was in louisiana campaign -- campaigning because of a special election. this is what he had to say about the impeachment. pres. trump: their lives will be exposed like the last time. [cheering] are. trump: their schemes already unraveling. you saw yesterday. when they ask these no-trump errs, what exactly would you impeach him for?

they stood there and were like, what? -trumpers, what exactly would you impeach him for? they stood there, and were like what? they've already failed as far as i'm concerned. [cheering] as i'mrump: in fact, getting out of the beautiful airplane, air force one, it's a beautiful plane. this just came out, big story. new remarks from top ukrainian official damages democrat's impeachment narrative. host: that was the president of louisiana. joy in bethany, oklahoma. democrat. hi, joy. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. on youtube, i heard a comment about the whistleblower, kind of an analogy which said president -- trump is ang

serial arsonist and is setting cities on fire, and republicans are asking who called the fire department. i'm lucky enough to have been able to read all of the transcripts that have been released to the public online, and it's made me take the emotion out of it, like picking sides on who said what. all these witnesses are under sondland,like gordon witnessesd the other that -- saying about what was going on with ukraine, and that president trump wanted to investigate the bidens and make it public, so gordon sondland came back and revised his statement, and michael cohen

and manafort, everyone knows how important it is not to lie under oath. americans should take the emotion out of it, take the time to read the transcripts, and that's all i wanted to say, greta. thank you for taking my call. host: you can find those transcript on our website, c-span.org, if you want to read them. article the president was referencing at the rally was this headline. new remarks from top official damages democrat's impeachment narrative. they reported that ukrainian foreign minister said yesterday the united states ambassador, gordon sondland, did not link military assistance to a request for ukraine to open up an investigation into former vice presidential candidate joe biden and his son. this contradicts what gordon sondland told lawmakers in closed-door testimony, and they

will hear from him and all of us will hear from him in public ont week when he testifies wednesday. gordon sondland testifying on november 20 along with laura cooper and david hale. our next color is from -- our next color is an independent. caller: good morning america. i oppose the impeachment inquiry. bys is yet another attempt deep state saboteurs to undermine the very foundation of democratic principles and society. some in the that american community are falling -- crap.crap greta, someone told me that you are a prostitute, without any

evidence presented in fact, how would you feel about that, number one? how are you supposed to defend yourself against such negativity? it's insane. the american people are smart and will not fall for this. host: all right, in alabama. lynn north carolina, republican. good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. caller: i think the democrats started this because they know the gig is up as far as the investigations when they come out, the dirty stuff, his people , theye biden was doing were doing surveillance on trump and his people, and they know it. they had to do this. it's all a front.

to cover up what they've done, because i don't see anything he has done that would call for him to be impeached. everybody is so angry, but take the emotion out. he has done a good job. i don't think -- i don't care if you like him. we are not voting for prom queen. what if we have done this to every president -- had done this to every president because you didn't like him? we would never get anything done. host: all right. we will take a brief break from this conversation about impeachment, because many of you saw the news yesterday and the headlines on the front pages today about the shooting at a california school. this is the front page of the wall street journal showing a father and daughter reuniting, following the shooting. two students shot to death at the southern california school.

take a look at this moment on the senate floor. richard blumenthal, it democrat of connecticut is talking about gun violence when he -- a democrat of connecticut, is talking about gun violence. >> 30,000 people are killed every year and gun deaths are rising every year, not declining -- guns everyand year, and debts arising every year. not declining. we are conflicted in the deaths -- complicit in the deaths if we fail to act. now, there isight a school shooting in santa clara -- santa clara, california. how can we turn the other way or refuse to see that shooting in real time, demanding our attention, requiring our action?

we are complicit if we fail to act. just a political responsibility. it is a moral imperative. host: we are talking about the impeachment inquiry. it's part two today at nine a clock a.m. eastern time. our coverage begins on c-span two, on the website, c-span.org, or you can download the free c-span radio app. marie yovanovitch will be in the witness chair at 1100 longworth house office. the chair in the middle, and she will be facing 22 members of the house intelligence committee. republicans, nine and they will be questioning her. schiff, first, and devin nunes, the top of publican, they

will split -- top of publican, they will split the majority of the time and the other committee members will get five questions to ask questions. let's go to robert in greenville, texas. your thoughts on this ongoing inquiry? it's ongoing.ad good, by the way. host: good morning. caller: what i'm going to say here, i hope some of the people in congress and maybe people in america are listening, all of this is going to get rolled around to manafort. everything you are seeing right here is all going to be able to walked back -- be walked back to manafort's connections since about 2011 and 2012 when he got involved with russians in disrupting ukrainian elections. it lay down the road map and that is white -- why giuliani went so much -- spend so much time going down to talk

to manafort during this whole ukrainian set up. host: where did you learn that? caller: i've heard that through the news. that he has been visiting manafort in jail at the same ukrainewas conducting manipulations. he has visited with him. the lawyers that represented manafort are connected to these two thugs working for giuliani. it's all connected back. the information that gave these guys the ability to go in and corrupt ukraine are being used right now for manafort -- through manafort's connections in this whole process of trying to get ukraine to do the dirty work for president trump. longs going to be, in the run, when they connect the dots, history will show this all stems from manafort. host: robert in texas.

more testimony coming up next week for the house intelligence committee. on tuesday, they will hold an open hearing against -- with jennifer williams, an aide to president pentz -- vice president pence. following them in the afternoon, volker, and a national security council eight will be testifying. on wednesday -- our coverage of tuesday is live at 9:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span3. , or then3, c-span.org free c-span radio app. on wednesday, our coverage starts at nine a clock a.m. eastern time with the eu ambassador, gordon sondland, the a.m. eastern time with the people ambassador, gordon sondland.

thursday, 9:00 a.m. eastern time, scheduled to testify is fiona hale, a senior director for europe and russia. stephanie in new york, a democratic color. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to touch on a point that i feel like we will hear a lot today in the impeachment inquiry, the republicans calling on so hard on what their whistleblower is. their whole defenses we only have hearsay, but you don't hear jim jordan or any of them asking to hear from people with first-hand accounts like mick mulvaney or secretary pompeo who refused to show up. there whole defense on hearsay is trying to distract the american people from the fact that two american diplomats sat down and told them the truth and they didn't like it. i want to make that quick point before the next half of the inquiry starts today. host: that begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern time, one hour. pam in michigan, a republican caller. hi, pam. , whyr: my question is

isn't anybody asking themselves, if you know everything you say undo is leaked to the media, why would you implicate yourself on a conference call? knowing that everything you say and do is leaked to the media. to extortlieve he try anything or bribe anybody. even the dumbest person in the world would not put themselves in that position. brandy -- it was pam in michigan. republican. our last caller there. this conversation continues. we will hear from two guests on the impeachment inquiry and other news of the day. first up, chief deputy web, dan kildee of michigan, and later, author and syndicated columnist, ann coulter will be here.

we will be right back. ♪ >> saturday at 10:30 a.m. eastern on american history tv, authors explore the role of men in the women's suffrage movement. >> they marched as a group of 89 in and top hats and bowlers the second annual suffrage parade, may, 1911. mocked, pilloried, every sort of insult hurled. they embrace this. it galvanizes them. they are no longer offering just their names. they are really ready for work. >> 2:00, a pulitzer prize-winning photographer on

his 50 year career in photography. >> monica lewinsky business, he said, i do not think there is any fancy way to say i have sinned. the writing in newsweek. having print on my photos. all of a sudden you have context. eastern, thep.m. 1969 film, apollo 12, pinpoint for science. >> i don't know what happened. everything in the world dropped out. >> fuel-cell lights. >> fuel-cell disconnect. >> overload. >> 1, 2. >> 8:00 the presidency, they look at the work of a pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist from the university of virginia, which has just acquired the collection. past onour nation's american history tv every

weekend on c-span three. washington journal continues. >> welcome back. , what is deputy whip your reaction to what you heard on wednesday. it was a stunning day to see two career, in one case a diplomat, other, a well practiced career professional and national security depict actions by the president so totally betraying our national interest in order to secure political help from a foreign government. just to see that unfold in front

of us made me very sad. no one should have glee about what is going on. there was that one moment where ambassador taylor revealed there had been a call overheard. it is important we get more evidence around that before drawing too much of a conclusion. it is a point that ought to be pursued. the idea that the president would have a phone call and ask about investigations and have the person on the other end of the call determined the president was more interested in the investigation of the bidens then he was about ukrainian security -- no matter if you believe it or not, that has to be pursued. that was the take away. time,3 p.m. eastern behind closed doors, david holmes testifying before the committee, the staffer said to have overheard the president and ondland talk about

the investigations. what the minority leader had to say when he was asked about that revelation and whether or not gordon sondland's testimony next week would change their calculation. >> republicans, the president, have been critical of the testimony yesterday, secondhand, third and, next week you will hear directly from gordon sondland, who president trump put in this position, a supporter of the president and a contribution to the inauguration fund -- would his testimony change your view? >> what have the other witnesses said? >> there was a phone call overheard where the president asked about investigations. >> ok. you have a phone call where the president asked about an investigation. an investigation going forward most of america wants to know what transpired. an investigation the attorney general is working on. none of that is impeachable. the answer is no.

host: congressman? guest: leader mccarthy does a good job of sort of going over to the investigation the justice department launched after it was clear they had a problem with the investigation in question. the investigation at the center of this is the investigation the president wanted ukraine to launch into one of his political rivals. the president has not made it as part of his foreign-policy corruption in out ukraine. that is a falsehood. in fact, the person most at the point of the spear to root out corruption and regrading was the abbasid or -- corruption in ukraine was ambassador jovanovich, who the president removed. this is an investigation of the bidens, a politically motivated investigation. it is distressing to see leader

mccarthy essentially say in answer to that question, it doesn't matter. it is ok. they have gone from saying the phone call did not happen to saying the phone call had nothing to do with the bidens, to now that the phone call have something to do with the bidens and it is ok. this has been a slow process of trying to normalize behavior that under any other circumstance with any other president would have been seen as so outrageous that it would warrant serious action. it is distressing. there is not a republican party in congress anymore. there is a party of trump. whatever trump does is what the people of that conference will support rather than a party that is interested in the facts. arguedepublicans have that there is no print". -- quid pro quo guest: the military aid was released after it was found out a whistleblower had revealed it was being withheld, potentially, in

exchange for a political favor. a political favor the president has already acknowledged asking for. there is a transcript that shows it. ok becauseat it is after we got caught, we went ahead and released this military aid, is really a preposterous excuse. it is one, i know it is all they have, but it has to be seen in full context. the idea that since they were caught and that ultimately later released the aid in an effort to make sure it did not look as though they were trying to exchange one for the other -- not a very good defense and not one we should take at face value. host: we welcome viewer questions and comments. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. us. first name. city and state at (202)-748-8003.

did the president commit bribery? guest: if bribery is offering something to somebody for a nefarious act, trying to induce them to do something in your benefit, that would be considered bribery. the president uses quid pro quo. it is amorphous and sounds technical. not using latin, using more plain language, we are talking bribery. we are talking offering something, in this case $400 million of congressionally approved military aid only on the condition that in this case the ukrainian government launch an investigation into one of the president's political opponents. i guess we can call it what we want to call it. use fancy latin words or call it what a normal person on the street would call it. attempt to bribe a foreign government to do something not

in their interest, not in the u.s. national interest but is in the personal and political interest of one person. that person is the president of the united states. host: what are relationships like on capitol hill after you hear the minority leader at a news conference say, refer to adam schiff, the chair, as a liar repeatedly. you have speaker of the house say to reporters, those are republican talking points. on,nder how this is going what are relationships like, not when the cameras are on but when you're talking with members across the aisle? guest: they might be surprising that on the personal level, the relationships are what they are. we work together on issues all the time. most of us not involved as one of the committees of jurisdiction in this case, not on the intelligence committee, spend the vast majority of days working on issues that are not related to this impeachment and

doing what we can to work across the aisl. on one level, they are unaffected. it does have effect on the way relationships are perceived. at a certain level, to hear the characterizations of adam schiff, not so much that they disagree with him but this is unfortunate. for the most part, it is unaffected it has to have some affect. americans don't see this, most of us continue to do our work. i spent yesterday, for example, almost the whole day on issues involving trade. trading relationship between our partners -- continues to be subject to discussion. we had a big meeting that included almost all members of the democratic caucus. the entire conversation was about the united states, mexico, canada agreement. the business of congress

continues. we are not all obsessed on this. we have to do more than one thing at a time. it continues and that includes working with republican collect. host: -- colleagues. host: michelle and los angeles, democratic. caller: i read the transcripts. trump almost gave the impression we were the corrupt nation and not any problems with ukraine. for instance, he says, and the transcript, "do us a favor. our country has been through a lot. ukraine knows a lot about it. i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine crowd strike. you know, one of your wealthy people." who is crowd strike? what wealthy person is he talking about? when i looked it up, it was the ceo of crowd strike.

he is not even a ukrainian citizen. was askingled trump about something that was fictional, basically. i don't know. i have more questions. i wish trump would get in front of the congressional committee and answer some questions. guest: the last point is a good one. whether president trump whatever sit for questions is one point but i find it difficult to accept the defense many republicans on the committee, the intel committee, are offering -- that we need to have hunter biden testify or we need to have the whistleblower outed, when people with much more direct knowledge of the question at hand, of the subject matter investigated, like, mick suppose, youven, i

know, perhaps having mike pompeo testify or rudy giuliani testify -- having those people come forward, which the president is blocking presumably would help the president's case if in fact they have a firsthand account that contradicts what is being offered by these career professionals who have nothing to gain or lose one way or the other by coming forward. we will see. i don't think they want to do that. they want to make this into a game show. try to create as much chaos as possible. they have tried on wednesday's hearing to do that. they may try again today. it is the wrong path. host: dennis, indiana, republican. caller: couple questions for the congressman. to start with, let's establish the facts about adam schiff being a liar. he lied about his staff having any knowledge of the

whistleblower prior and oh wait, he forgot. oh yeah? yearses he told her two that he had concrete proof of collusion between trump and the russians. committee told in when he was fate his little transcript reading of the transcript of the phone call. adolph schiff needs to resign elosicongress and nazi p needs to go right along with him. guest: people can form his own opinions -- can form their own opinions about adam schiff. i have known him for seven years. he is a decent and honorable guy. i do not find him to be a problem at all in the sense this caller has indicated. it is interesting there is this obsession about adam schiff in particular. created aticature he

the beginning of the hearing, taken on, laying out what his perception of that call between the ukrainian leader and the president was. i get that criticism. let's take a step back. out thereduals criticizing adam schiff for what they perceived to be some indiscretion or mistruths he may have spoken -- this president, the president folks are wrapping their arms around is known by democrats and republicans, independents, people inside and outside the u.s. is known as being a regular and routine liar. they dismiss it. trump being trump. you cannot have one standard you aggressively apply to a career professional, in this case a u.s. attorney, and now serves as chair with great

distraction and a great track record, and then be dismissive of daily, hourly lies told by this president and say, it is ok because that is trump's style. that is a double standard we cannot accept. host: texas, wichita falls, independent. caller: couple comments. nancy pelosi was on earlier. she was talking about how this whistleblower has the right to remain anonymous. the whistleblower law contains no provision that allows the whistleblower to remain anonymous. she apparently doesn't know what the law contains. makes her look sort of foolish. during the fast and furious scandal under obama, that whistleblower ended up getting fired, yet they want this whistleblower treated with kid gloves. seeingpretty rich

hastings standing on the house floor calling for the was ahment of trump, federal judge impeached and removed from the bench for bribery, if i recall correctly. that was rich. finally, i was watching the program the other day. a federal prosecutor on alevision saying how she had five euro girl -- five-year-old girl who was sexually abused by a man, yet she was required to be in court and testify and face that man. a five-year-old girl. yet we cannot have this whistleblower come in, the president be able to face his accuser. that is a shame and a disgrace. host: ok, michael. guest: this is a talking point republicans are using to try to diminish the facts that are now clearly in evidence.

the whistleblower protection act, by the way, i appreciate the colors comment -- the comment but it is not 100% correct. there are conditions in which they whistleblower can have their identity revealed. there has to be a necessity to do so. in this case, the whistleblower simply said, i see this taking place, i believe it is wrong, i think i have an obligation under the protection act to come forward and i am seeking the protection that act provides. the facts that the whistleblower brought forward have been testified to by other individuals who have been in the state department or career ambassadors for a long time. the idea that the whistleblower's identity is necessary in order to determine what the whistleblower brought forward his factual's fallacy. that is not the case. it is a talking point. it is something they will continue to use.

one step further. the effort to out whistleblower will have the effect of putting a chill into this administration to prevent other whistleblowers from coming forward to bring forward wrongdoing they see. the notion of the whistleblower protection act, and that is the purpose of the act, to give individuals the ability to come forward without fear of retribution. what we're seeing now is an effort to paint a picture that basically says if you come forward against donald trump, prepare yourself to face retribution. believe, is to try to put a chill in this administration so career professionals who see wrongdoing, will keep it to themselves. host: north carolina, janet, democratic. caller: thank you for having me on. i have been a democrat all my life. i am ashamed.

appalled to be a democrat. i will be voting for donald trump. furthermore, the congressman there, you got your talking umnts down really good and as far as the whistleblower, he is not a whistleblower. whatever his name is, he works exclusively for the cia, john brennan, he is a spy more or called, he will blow the whole thing wide open for you guys and you know it and furthermore the ambassador jovanovich, she had, she should have been fired because she was fromere keeping people being investigated and the reporter, he laid it all out in

the documents he procured. i have been doing my research. you guys are just losing democrats left and right whether you know it or not. you need to quit lying. have a good day. ukraine, prosecutor in the former prosecutor who said jovanovich handed him a do not prosecute list has protracted that statement. she testified behind closed doors under oath that she did not give him any sort of list, nor did she say verbally that certain people should not be prosecuted. guest: she didn't do that. she says she didn't do it. the ukrainians say she did not do it. there are people out there who want to undermine anyone who has the temerity to step forward and challenge this president. this is a dangerous moment, when you think about what is happening. anyone who comes forward,

whether a member of congress, adam schiff, a career professional, ambassador jovanovich, anyone who comes forward is going to be subjected to this barrage of falsehood and pretense. this notion that the abbasid or was involved in the various activity -- that the ambassador was involved in nefarious activity was rudy giuliani's idea. i hear no republican outrage around rudy giuliani's activity. this is in effect an attempt to smear anyone willing to come forward to challenge this president, whether they are career professional or a political leader. that is third world country tactics being used and what is supposed to be the greatest democracy on earth. host: the committee subpoenaed rudy giuliani. he has refused to testify.

continuedn't democrats to pursue his testimony under oath? guest: it is my view that we should pursue it. if the administration is going to stonewall any witness who actually could come forward who might do damage to the president because they are so close to him, we have to continue to move forward with the work we are doing now and base our conclusions on the fact that we can get in a reasonable amount of time. it is clear the president is not going to cooperate and is going to obstruct our effort to have key fact witnesses come forward. we have to continue to pursue it. that would be my personal view. we cannot let a new witness be dangled in front of us every time it feels like we are getting close to having facts that would lead us to a particular conclusion in order to continue to delay and delay this process. host: dan, wisconsin, republican.

caller: good morning. the gentleman that testified on wednesday, neither one of them had any first-hand knowledge of the conversation. i'm curious as to how they can say they are reliable witnesses. video with joe biden demanding the $1 billion be withheld from ukraine unless they got rid of their prosecutor within six hours? two witnesses are career professionals who know more about the workings of the relationship between the u.s. and ukraine then anyone else in the u.s. they are experts with contact inside and outside ukraine and the u.s. government. i will let their testimony speak for itself. their voices have been trusted

by democratic and republican administrations for decades in order to keep us safe. on the issue of what the vice president was advocating for, that was u.s. policy supported not just by the u.s., but by the international monetary fund, other international organizations working to route out corruption in ukraine. all he was doing, and this has been set across the board by people who are honest observers of the case, what he was doing was articulating american foreign policy supported by democrats and republicans at that time. they want to cast it as if it is a nefarious act. it is not. again, if you happen to be willing to step forward and criticize donald trump, you have to fasten your seatbelt and prepared to have anything you have ever done characterized as if you are a never trumper, a career professional, a liar, if you happen to oppose the president on any front.

the president has a habit of accusing his opponents of the things he himself is doing everyday and his supporters fall right into it. i believe, as a vietnam veteran, the hearing that started on impeachment is a travesty. it is a travesty for our country. if the democrats think the republicans, the next time the republicans have a house and there is a democratic president, they are not going to try to impeach him, they have lost their minds. this is idiocy. babbling idiocy. this is an argument over policy. trump, this phone call, even if trump was interested in the investigations, good for him. who cares? he is the president. he sets the agenda.

the state department is supposed to work for him. the fbi is supposed to work for him. cia, are people, the supposed to work for him. he sets the policy. you may not like him. a lot of times i don't like him. compared to the democrats, he looks like a saint. true the cia,ot fbi and the state department work for the president. this is false. when people take those offices, they swear an oath to uphold the constitution. they work for the american people. congress and the president, the judicial branch share power over the actions of the u.s. government. the congress appropriated $400 million to supply military aid to ukraine in their effort to beat back the incursion by russia. the president took the side of the russians in holding back that military aid that congress, the elected representatives of

the people wanted to ensure was being used to protect the ukrainians from russia. for the president to do that, then to be called into question for his action -- the president is not fully in charge. he has his share of authority. we did not elect a monarch when we elected him. ofbelieves that article two the constitution says he can do anything. that is just not true. host: a couple other issues. democrats and republicans negotiating over a continued resolution to keep the government funded and avoid a shutdown. how much are democrats willing to give to the president and republicans for border wall funding? guest: we have continue to support border security we think makes sense. we have appropriated money. we are not going to be put in a position where every time we get to a standoff on budget that the

president can then bring out his seventh century border wall proposal and ask us to find that in exchange for keeping the government open. it didn't work when the president tried it last january. it was an abysmal failure for him. i don't think he should go there again. host: next week, voting rights act and the bill to expand it will be on the floor. guest: long-overdue. gives us the opportunity to go back to states, particularly in those plates were states engage in activity intended to tamp down voter participation. it allows the federal government to exercise authority to protect civil rights of voters. this is important. it is necessary. some years ago the supreme court threw out key provisions of the voting rights act that involve preclearance. if there are changes in places where there is a history of discrimination, they have to have those changes precleared.

this would give us back to a place where it is federally protected to vote. it would be a 21st century version of the voting rights act. it is important. host: stacey abrams, former candidate for governor in georgia, in washington dc today likely talking about voting rights issues at the national press club at 1 p.m. eastern time. watch it on c-span three, www.c-span.org or listen with the free journal@c-span.org radio app. thank you for the conversation. >> thank you. host: we will take a break. when we come back, and coulter will be here to talk about impeachment, daca and 2020. ♪

>> this weekend, book tv will feature three new nonfiction books. saturday night at 11:00 eastern, donald trump, jr. talks about his book, trigger, on the tactics used by the political left that in his view, slanders conservatives. sunday night at 9:00 eastern, former harvard law school dean about her book, when should law forgive? formererview is by a georgetown law professor. >> we are so punitive that even people who have served sentences have collateral consequences of crime. not allowed to vote. not allowed to have a professional license. not allowed to keep their children. not allowed to get housing. i think enough is enough. we should find ways to

acknowledge forgiveness. we are imperfect as human beings. haleyp.m. eastern, nikki with her book, with all due respect. watch book tv every weekend on c-span2. >> sunday night, q&a, the washington post former afghanistan-pakistan bureau chief, pamela constable talks about her experience covering the region. >> sometimes people will say things critical of the u.s., of the west. that is more common than somebody saying something offensive about being a woman or causing problems. people tend to be generally speaking, very broadly, more helpful to a woman than to a man. they can also try to take advantage of you in various ways. generally, my experience has been if they are not going to

like something about you, or mistrust something about you. it is not that you are a woman. it is that you are american. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. >> washington journal continues. >> ann coulter back at our table. we will start with impeachment. you said you were not going to watch. you did. guest: very remorseful. presidentou think the asked the ukraine leader to investigate joe biden and hunter biden? guest: i hope so. i hope it was quid pro quo. this discussion is make-believe. that is what foreign policy is. what was obama's iran deal? we will lift sanctions if you

stop making nukes. look across time. state department bureaucrats seem to think they are the president. americans don't like that foreign aid is being given. the entire 2006 election is america saying, that is enough of the middle east. can we have some me time? can we care about americans now? all we are hearing about his ukraine. that is what foreign aid is. we don't like it. they always come back and say it is not that much money. it is so important. we use it to put pressure on companies to clean up corruption. it is always a quid pro quo. that is why he is the president. host: is it ok for a president to ask for an investigation into his political rivals? this quid pro quo would be for his own personal gain? guest: it is so reaching. so reaching. it was biden, i would say that is kind of a conflict, biden on

tape saying i would not give this guy a $1 billion check unless he fires the prosecutor, investigating the company paying my son. that is a personal interest. whether or not our former vice president was corrupt, along with a corrupt ukrainian company, energy company, if there was corruption there, that is something america has an interest in. i do not know that we have an interest in calling off the prosecutor investing in a company hunter biden is associated with. host: it would have hurt hunter biden. guest: allegedly. that is why we have investigations. i love the new york times, msnbc -- no, that has been investigated, there was nothing wrong about that! i think it was yesterday, the entire state department didn't think it looks good, the entire joe biden's advisors saying you have to tell them to quit, you have to stop this. they keep trying to formulate answers. new york times explains yesterday, joe biden's aids were concerned

. do you think they except that with donald trump? ok, we just won't bother with it. he can be corrupt. he was grieving. he was. it was a horrible thing. i am not making light of that. that doesn't answer the question, was a corrupt? of course it was. our president as commander in chief should be asking for investigations. this quid pro quo nonsense, just like the stormy daniels thing pays $100,000ump to make these grifters and liars go away for making claims they had sex with him because the only reason he could possibly care about that isn't because of his grandkids, he doesn't want his wife to know, is it because it is humiliating generally, no, it is only because it would hurt him with voters. that is insane, crazy. american there was n interest in firing the

prosecutor investigating the company paying hunter biden ill-gotten gains. ok. you have a mixed motive. it is a lot worse than that case, then it is with trump because, i mean, i don't think biden is the strongest candidate um because biden might be running for office. if you don't get out of a criminal prosecution or corruption investigation because i am running for president. jeffrey epstein. running for president. you cannot investigate me federal government. host: what do you think about rudy giuliani's role? guest: i don't really care, in myfirst let me say, lifetime, i think in anyone's lifetime, alive today, government mostly does a lot of bad things. two things government has really made people's lives better. one was rudy giuliani cleaning up new york city and other cities following his lead.

making that city livable again. now that they are releasing criminals again, the hipsters in brooklyn are about to find out what it used to be like in the 1980's. they are in for a big surprise. the change to new york city, ronald reagan winning the cold war, defeating the soviet war machine, that changed everyone's life. think of anything, any government, basically single-handedly in both cases without those men, it would not have happened. it would not have happened. so yeah, i will never criticize rudy giuliani for anything, well, now that reagan is gone, perhaps the greatest living man, he is a good prosecutor investigating corruption. it also reminds me watching the hearings, that i swore i would not watch, we have got to get rid of the entire foreign service, ambassadors. this is not a new thought. i am not being petulant.

why do we have the ambassadors? that used to take three months to sail from the united states to britain. we have a telephone now. we have the internet. other than being a payoff, they get to live in the ambassadorship and they can help an american with a visa -- why do we have this band of foreign service agents? they warned us about 9/11, that would be one thing. they warned us about the shah falling and iraq invaded kuwait but go back and look at their track record. they said, saddam hussein, don't worry, he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. their track record is zero. we are all pretending we don't have internet. if we are going to have ambassadors at all, they should be forced to wear the dusty wigs and just the way we did in the 1700s. host: ann coulter will take your questions and comments.

(202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. you say the president should not be impeached but you tweeted out, i give up, trump moscow. -- trump must go. guest: that was in response to a senile tweet he had sent. i was in your greenroom advising the assistant to the democratic congressman you had on. this is how you go after trump. you guys are doing it wrong. the democrats -- they won't take my advice but it used to be a party that represented the working class. i mean, i think the republicans did a better job for the working class but be that as it may, that was what their, their claim to fame. we care about the workingmen, working woman. now it is the party of hollywood and wall street.

politics, college campuses. the way they should go after trump is saying, you have not built one inch of new wall. immigration, doesn't make you are my life a lot worse, illegal immigration, mass illegal immigration, yeah, fantastic, park avenue matrons can get there very cheap maids and nannies. who does it help the most economically? as bernie sanders used to know, the working class. their wages are being driven down, flat, flat, flat for 30 years. i care about my fellow americans. when trump ran, what happened to the forgotten man? what happened to that? that is how you go after him. no. new york times. what are yourats, doing with this open border stuff? just because trump is for it, you don't have to be the antonym of whatever he says. he is totally right.

president trump should come out against pederasts. host: what did president trump tweet yesterday? guest: he said, accurately, there is a case before the supreme court now. how this ended up with the court, president has also given up all the prerogative of the presidency. there are certain things like foreign policy and emigration is a part of that that are pretty much 100% the prerogative of the president of the u.s., commander-in-chief. you don't have district court judges stepping in. anyway. constitutional law scholar, not saying that sarcastically, president obama spent 6.5 years telling illegal aliens allegedly brought here as children that he had no authority. he explained our government works in congress has to pass a

bill and whoa there has been a lot of amnesty. they can pass amnesty. the president cannot just announce this can come from congress. for six years, the president, barack obama, says i cannot single-handedly grant you embassy. toward the end of the administration, he said, i think i will grant you all amnesty. he starts issuing work permits to this class of illegal aliens, many of whom, many, um,, yeah, thousands have been arrested for committing felonies, grants them amnesty. it is an unconstitutional executive order. one executive order can overturn another. trump promised to sign an executive order overturning the amnesty for dreamers. remember, he had beautiful lines on the campaign trail. if only he would go back to campaign trump. used to say, i care about american dreamers. that is what americans wanted to hear. he tweet out this case before

the supreme court, overturn unconstitutional executive order under the exact same procedure and he says, a lot of these dreamers aren't angels, many of them are criminals but if the supreme court upholds my executive order, i will work out a deal with the democrats to keep them here. wait a second. you just said they are not angels. they are legal. let's pretend we were all in a coma for 2016 when you said you would deport them so fast our heads would spin. the last line. i will work out a deal? explain what that means! my tweet was, fine, that is it, i quit, they can stay, you have to go. host: the hardened criminals part of the tweet. neither the white house nor the campaign provided comment. immigration services, reviewing applicants sent politico data on

terminations. none of the data shows immigrants with significant offenses are enjoying daca protection. guest: that is an absolute lie. politico fact is an arm of the democratic party. this is a government zone figure. i don't know what they are going by. in order to qualify as a dreamer, they have all these, as with everything involving immigration, the important thing is keep dumping more nannies on the country because wall street needs them, their hampton estates do not clean themselves. that is the important thing. they have these fake loopholes we have heard about, told about ct --places like politifa the new york times wrote about it, they have had seven years to figure out what is in dreamer requirements. to have a, you have

high school degree. no you don't. you have to apply to a high equivalency an degree, apply, show you have applied to a trade school. that is not the same thing as having a high school degree. you can be convicted of a crime. just no more than three misdemeanors or one felony. host: eric, glen bernie, maryland, democrat. caller: thank you for c-span. sayingement is she keeps that biden was withholding prosecutor was a going to investigate paris step. -- burista.

in reality, he was not going to investigate burista. joe biden wanted them to. for her to keep saying, republicans keep saying it, it doesn't make it true. guest: that was the previous prosecutor. wrong. ct on that.a as they say on law and order, that is a question of fact for the jury to decide. there is a personal benefit. the former vice president, if true, no you cannot do that because he is running for president. that is madness. host: connie, illinois, republican. caller: yes, i am glad to hear ann talk about the forgotten people. oure, donald trump is

martin luther king jr.. martin luther king jr. tried to bring blacks and whites together. donald trump is trying to bring americans together, no matter what your color is. you can be native american like me, anything. he doesn't consider me native american. he considers me in american -- an american. as far as impeachment goes, the first guys that testified, when jim jordan asked them, it wasn't jim jordan, it was the other guy what is the impeachable here? him and stared at him.

host: ok, connie. guest: great point. somethingetorically, stylistically about trump that sometimes seem less than presidential. come on. it is fun. we all have a good time. i totally agree with connie. this is why i was introducing trump at rallies weeks after he announced, when all the people now pretending he is building the wall, denouncing him for the next 10 months, no, i love that about trump. i think that is the way for both political parties to go. we are all americans. to care about the forgotten americans. him, ison i am needling i want him to keep his promises and as for the impeachable offense business, i'm sorry. the democrats are making a huge

mistake here. i know they will not take my vice. i knew this would happen when they took the house. they would spend years on stupid investigations. are they getting anything done? infrastructure bill? doing anything for the forgotten or remembered americans? start passing bills we agree on. everyone wants an infrastructure bill. chuck schumer wants one. trump wants one. why can't we get that? that is a lot of good paying jobs. the first infrastructure i would build is a wall along the border. i don't know if anyone has mentioned that. host: last year you got in a screaming match with the president. guest: i never breathe a word to anyone but it did come out a month later. it was about the same things i say on twitter. march, march or april, 2017. host: it was about immigration? guest: everything i'm am saying

right here right now. i have said it before. good thing i do not lie. same thing i say publicly all the time. you're not keeping your promises. he has not done anything on nafta, china. judges are great. ok. judges are better than either reagan or bush. i will give him credit. why doesn't he turn over immigration to people who knows what they are doing? he turns it over to the rnc with the autopsy report, let's forget about the americans already here and just go pedal to the metal to do amnesty dreamers. remember that? after romney lost? republicans who love their country are terrified. the rnc will be the end of us. all they care about is donors, the chamber of commerce and the coke brothers. that is not all they care about. -- koch brothers.

that is all they care about. donors have way too much power over both parties. host: what was president trump saying to you and that screaming match? guest: i do not like to tell tales out of school but the one funny thing i think he would like people to know was -- [laughter] the one moment he got most upset was when i said, you are no different than jeff! michigan,urg, independence. caller: good morning, everybody. thank you for letting me comment . the democrats are crying for president trump's head. i don't like republicans or democrats. they are all a bunch of liars. the hypocrisy is, why are they crying for sanders had? willid on public tv, i withhold aid to the israelis if they don't do what i want them to do and talk with the palestinians. country,nn, tell the

what is the difference? guest: absolutely right. we are all pretending, we have a lobotomy and forgot all foreign policy until this moment. just for fun, i did a search if you weeks ago -- a few weeks ago, foreign aid in the same sentence as conditions. foreign aid usually comes with strings, usually corruption. most americans want to wash on washingtono march on with pitchforks. i am not sure it is particularly useful. to the extent it is useful, the only point is we will give you this aid or in the case of the brilliant john kerry negotiated wanted,l that obama that was for his, i'm talking like a democrat now, that was for his fame and glory. that was a personal interest so

he could have something to the obama presidency other than i wrecked health care. no, that is what foreign policy is. we do this for you, you do this for us. usually something that does not particularly benefit us at all but generally helps the world by cleaning up corruption. host: bedford, ohio, democratic caller. caller: hello. i have heard a lot about your and ins and other things am very careful to make sure it is factual information. paul i have heard is your opinion -- all i have heard is your opinion. this is about the impeachment inquiry. i would like to hear something based on facts and not criticism about those no longer in office. thank you. host: ok. fact. iran deal is a

the trade-off for, we will lift economic sanctions and in exchange for that you dismantle your nuclear reactors and heavy water filters. that is what foreign policy is. it is a fact, over and over again, foreign policy, foreign aid is tied to conditions. i suppose you could run the nexus search yourself, both hillary clinton and state department officials. it is a fact, to qualify for daca you don't have to have a high school degree. you have to have applied to a high school, trade school or equivalency degree. it is a fact you can have misdemeanor convictions. you cannot have a serious felony conviction. i suspect, i mean, i don't know as i have said many times, whenever the subject of immigration, there is always a lie. it is always one of those puzzles.

you have to figure out what the light is. i'm not sure what the lie is. my guess is you cannot have a felony on the record when you apply and are accepted. all of these dreamers applied or excepted and went on to commit rapes, murders and other felonies. host: all of them? guest: no, no. there are about 50 that have committed serious crimes like rape, assault or murder. there are at least 2000 that have been arrested for crimes. the point with the dreamers is, dreamers, boy, he who controls the language controls the discourse, these are people who were brought to our country illegally. i am sorry. it sucks to have a parent who was a criminal. it may not be your fault, assuming it was true, and how are we going to prove when they were brought here? they were in the shadows. anyone can claim it, as i wrote in my book, adios america, with

admission after the fact, in the agricultural adjustment amnesty, in the 1986 amnesty under accepted,% of the accepted applicants were fraudulent. the idea was, these hard-working farmworkers have been picking our crops. it is so unfair. let's grant them amnesty. they are such hard workers. they were applying from places, some of the terrorists to the world trade center got in on the agricultural amnesty after driving a cab in new york, people working for the government saying these applications written about this, they would say cotton is purple. you pick cherries from the ground. they were obviously fraudulent. they were accepted. how much harder is it to prove when someone came here and started living in the shadows versus have you ever worked on a farm in the u.s.? something like 800,000 were

admitted. 90% of them are fraudulent. prove you, how do you were brought here as a child? who cares? either immigration is good for americans or not good for americans. we have been dumping so many foreign cultures on this country, in order to save the people already here, in order to keep the lifeboat from sinking, we need a moratorium. that is something we thought we were getting. with donald trump no, instead, the rate of illegal immigration has gone up under trump. it has gone up. i care about my fellow americans. i care about this wonderful culture. prosper,essful, more better for the working and middle-class than any other culture in the world, that is why they want to come here. we need to put a brake on it now. that is what people were voting

for more than anything else. that is why trump could shoot someone on fifth avenue. that is why some of us are after him for not following through. if the democrats want to beat them, that is what they go after. host: the supreme court heard oral arguments in the case and coulter is referencing on tuesday. we will air them tonight on c-span two. in.house is gambling caller: you went through a lot of things. danielsay, with stormy -- in januaryw 2019 washington post had an article about her giving a signed legal statement saying she never had the affair with trump.

[laughter] --t thing with ukraine host: i apologize but the house is in. guest: no one cares about ukraine. build the wall. everything you heard in the last half-hour is so much more interesting. host: the house is coming in. c-span two is where you can find our coverage of the impeachment inquiry with the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: the house floor live.