a great call. it was a very nice call. everybody said it was perfect. i always say it was equally as good as the other call. i put it out today and no one even want to report it. it was so good they don't want to report it. inwe had an honest press this country, we would be so well served. and you know what? when i look at your approval numbers, they are the worst they of been in the history of our country. the media. you ought to get your cells back into a position where people respect the media again. i know some great journalists, some great people in the media but there are not enough of you. there is a lot of dishonesty. many of you i just consider members of the democrats. and it is a shame. >> coming up on "washington journal" reaction to the first public hearings of the

impeachment inquiry and in an hour, can't -- constitutional law professor susan low bloch [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] good morning, welcome to washington journal. week one of public impeachment inquiry hearings against president trump have come to a close. we have seen government officials testify about what they know and what they heard. and we have seen president trump insert himself into the new cycle through tweets in the midst of testimony by one of the key players. our question to you this morning, what has been your impression of the first week of public testimony. is your mind made up on whether president trump should be impeached or not? do you need to hear more testimony? we want to know what you think. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001,

.or independents (202) 748-8002 and you can always text us your andhts at (202) 748-8003, we are always reading on social media on twitter and facebook. work fort some ground our conversation by talking a little bit about what the news is reporting on the impeachment inquiry hearings. here's a story from the new york times. the former united states ambassador to the ukraine told the house impeachment inquiry on friday she felt threatened by president trump, shocked, appalled, and devastated that he vilified her in a call with another foreign leader. as mr. trump attacks are in real-time on twitter. a stern warning about witness intimidation from democrats. extraordinary back-and-forth unfolding on the second day of

public impeachment hearings as marie yovanovitch, who was ousted as the envoy to ukraine on mr. trump's orders. details from the president's allies to undermine her, as she pushed to promote democracy and the rule of law. she describes the house intelligence committee how rudolph giuliani, mr. trump's personal lawyer, work hand-in-hand with a ukrainian prosecutor to circumvent official channels, smear her, and push her out of her job. her testimony came amid the third impeachment in query and modern united states history. it drew a spontaneous standing ovation and a loud round of applause from spectators, and cap to revealing first week of public hearings as democrats seek to make their case that mr. trump abused his power to enlist ukraine's help in discrediting his political rivals. presidentormer vice

joe biden. speaker nancy pelosi called it bribery, echoing the language in the constitution that describes impeachable offenses. they talkingre about just then? here's the tweet that came out testimonyterday's from the former ambassador. this is from president trump, who tweeted everywhere marie yovanovitch went turned bad. she started off in somalia, how did that go? then fast forward to ukraine, with a new ukrainian president who spoken favorably about her in my second phone call with him. it's a u.s. presidents absolute right to appoint ambassadors. what was the response to that tweet? the intelligence chairman, adam schiff, asked the former ambassador to respond to the president's tweet, attacking her in real-time during her testimony. here that exchange. [video clip] >> would you like to respond to

the president's attack that everywhere you went turned bad? , i don't think i have mogadishu,, not in somalia, or other places. i think rest served over the years -- i think where i served over the years, i, and others, have demonstrably made things better for the u.s. as well as for the countries that i served in. ukraine for example, where there are huge challenges, including on the issue that we are discussing today of corruption. huge challenges. but they have made a lot of progress in 2014, including in the years i was there. people, the ukrainian get the most credit for that, but a part of that credit goes to the work of the united states , and to me as the ambassador in ukraine. have shownor, you

the courage to come forward today, testifying. notwithstanding the fact that you were urged by the white house or state department not to , notwithstanding the fact that -- astestified earlier you testified earlier the plot -- the president implicitly threatened you would that call record, now the president in real-time is attacking you. what effect do you think that has on other witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing? >> it's very intimidating. designedigned -- it is to intimidate, is it not? >> i can't speak to what the president is trying to do, but i think the effect is to be intimidating. >> i want to let you know, ambassador, that some of us here

take witness intimidation very seriously. host: what was president trump's reaction to the reaction to his tweet? here is president trump, yesterday, answering questions about that exchange and that tweet. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> what you say to democrats who say you were witness tampering when you made that tweet. >> i will talk about transparency, i like transparency and on the most transparent president in history. i will tell you what tampering is, when a guy like shifty schiff doesn't let us have lawyers, doesn't let us have .itnesses i have been watching today, for the first time i started watching and it's really sad when you see people are not allowed to ask questions. nobody has ever had such horrible due process. there was no due process. a joke,it's considered

all over washington in the world, the republicans are given no due process whatsoever. we are not allowed to do anything. it's a disgrace what's happening. but the american public understands and that's why the poll numbers are good and why other things are so good. what they are doing in washington with that hearing, and by the way, to political process, not a legal process. if i have somebody saying i'm allowed to speak out, if somebody says about me that we are not allowed to have any kind of representation and we are not allowed to have anything, and nobody has seen anything like it in the history of our country, there has never been a disgrace like what's going on now. you know what? i have the right to speak, i have freedom of speech as others do, but they had taken away the republicans rights. i have washed today a certain talented people who wanted to ask questions and they were not allowed to ask questions, republicans. they were not allowed to ask weston. the sad thing.

allowed to ask questions. it's a sad thing. with our phonert calls with stan on the independent line. caller: i wanted to remind the public, and you guys on c-span that there is an unintended consequence to this impeachment. this is it. when it goes to the senate, fory senator has to sit in six hours a day to listen to all of this stuff that's going on now in order to vote. in order to be able to vote for impeachment. six senatorsat the running for president are going to do when they have a meeting and they are supposed to be listening to the impeachment, but they have to debate in timbuktu? they will have to choose what's

more important, correct? host: i don't think they have actually set the rules for when the senate will start or what the senate will do yet. we have to have a guest coming up later on that will help explain that. are you still there? the democrats are forgetting, now, in congress, mitch mcconnell runs the show. they get to make the rules. it will be interesting. thank you. let's go to roy, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i'm just sick of the whole thing, but i think the impeachment is going good. i think chairmanships -- chairman schiff did a good job and that lady was good even though it president sent a tweet during the hearing which i felt was totally inappropriate, and i

knew the orange rat would squeak. he is bringing the country down. if you cannot see that this woman has dignity and has served tellingrnment is not the truth and all of these people are not telling the truth for some reason -- the republicans are acting like a bunch of jerks. we don't want to hear about steele dossier's, this doesn't even have to do with that. if they can't find out anything by now, there is no problem. this is about hearings for a corrupt president of a corrupt government. nobody wants to work for the government because it's corrupt under donald trump. we need stability in this country, and dignity. and anybody that supports this guy, you are bringing the country down with him. obama --ctator, he's he's a bum, and a liar. host: let's go to natalie, on

the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i would like to say that this impeachment inquiry is a waste of time. the president does have a right to speak when people are accusing him. however, this is a legal process and i do believe it's more .olitically based the entire congress is wasting time and they should get to work doing things. ,y the time this is finished the whole presidential -- this term will be over and it will be time to vote. let's just move on and get this , so we can focus on making our country better. host: had a thing this lend? what do you see as the ending?

-- how do you think this will end? do you think the house will vote to impeach the president? what do you think the senate will do? caller: more than likely, because the base of the democrats, they will try to vote to impeach. when they reach the senate they will not do that. host: and you said we should skip past this and go to the election, what do you think -- do you think it will have any effect on the presidential election in 2020? caller: i do. i believe people are sick and tired of this, and they are seeing the people we have elected to represent us waste time. i think americans have the common sense to know that this is just politically oriented and we want people who will take care of us. and i truly believe the president has our best interest at heart. he's not perfect and people are fed up.

under his presidency i have seen things improve, i'm a small business owner, and our employees have benefited from this and i support him. andnot everything he says, i do think he's doing his best. i think it will be to his benefit in the end. i really do. from let's talk to ray, elizabeth city, north carolina, on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i believe this whole thing is a political sham. the republicans are not even .llowed to ask questions that one republican was not even acognized, talk about dictator. talk about somebody being a dictator. he's right there.

i'm sure you don't mean it republicans a lot to ask questions because several republican did ask questions in the hearing yesterday. caller: what i'm saying is counter.ot allowed to schiff has control over the whole thing, and they have to go before theyapproval even get there. . it's wrong. people have been seen through this. trump has been great for this country. he's not perfect, i agree with the lady previously, he is not perfect. no one is. however this country has

benefited from a trump presidency. think thekly, i majority of the american people just want to move on and i can guarantee you that a lot of actionare seeing this from the democrats and they will say ok, we will see what happens next november. host: let's show one of the questions that was asked by one of the republicans, this is representative chris stewart of asking the former ambassador if she has any evidence of the president accepting bribes or being involved in criminal activity. here's that exchange. [video clip] ambassador, very simply and directly, do you have any information regarding the president of the united states accepting any bribes? >> no. >> do you have any information

regarding any criminal actions that the president of the united states has been involved with at all? >> no. thank you. thank you for answering directly. the american people know this is nonsense, the american people know this is not fair. i have a prediction. i think public support for impeachment is ashley going to be less went -- is actually going to be less when the hearings are over than when the hearings began. finally the american people can see the evidence and they will be able to make their own determination regarding that. ellen, fromtalk to miami, florida, on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i listened to the comments this morning, the country so divided. yesterday i watched quite a bit about the rules. the whole house voted on the

rules is my understanding, adam schiff has control because he's the chairman. the representative who tried to bring up their point of order new they were out of order -- knew they were out of order and they were trying to make it seem as though they did not have any rights, and try to make him look bad when indeed they had all of the rights to ask the questions they needed. me to seerbing to these diversionary tactics. bully.sident is such a i'm pretty old, i go back to the vietnam-era. there were a lot of things during president lyndon johnson's terms that i liked, a lot. but when he did something that

was wrong, such as in vietnam, i was out there protesting. i was young but i knew it was wrong. i was able to observe that on one hand i like this, i like medicare, the voting rights bill, but here's something i don't like and i was able to speak up about it. where the republican supporters of president trump don't seem determine one thing they like and another thing they don't like. i was watching this ambassador, she is such a dignified woman. she was so honest. why did he have to damage my reputation she asked. he has a right to fire me, that was not a question, but to have to kick her on the way out and years ofr fine 33 plus duty to this country, and the

way the republicans talk and people on fox news, just a low level bureaucrat, diminishing the work that these people have done for decades, serving our country for republican and democratic presidents. it bothers me to no end to see this division and that republicans have closed their eyes and seen an alternative universe. i don't know how to get around it. friends that support the president but they can't say why. that's my comment. host: thank you. from woodstock, connecticut, on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i hope they finish these hearings and they send it to the

senate. they have to remember that the senate has subpoena power, and they can subpoena whoever they , including former president obama, to find out what's involved in all of this. clapper, brennan, all of those people and see what happens. that why do you think former president obama should be subpoenaed in this inquiry? caller: because former president obama was running the government when comey, brennan, the russian dossier, all of stuff was under control and everybody knows the white house wants to know what the tweets. in .his could be really big it could be really big. and bring down the democrats. host: let's talk to henrietta,

from fort pierce, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. followno idea how i can that up. he is so right. comment, it, to my wash all of the impeachment all ofay -- i watched the impeachment yesterday. hello? host: we hear you. caller: i watched the impeachment yesterday and what i noticed was that the woman was very believable. but she really had nothing to say of any magnitude. she was basically a woman who lost her job. , in terms of thing support for the president, there's one reason i'm supporting the president, because he's the only one in

washington doing something about everything. and the democrats are doing nothing about everything. disgraceful that adam schiff as they say is trying to bring down the president, why? because he cannot be him on the merits. economic try to dirty him. and you know -- you can only dirty him well. and trump does not dirty well. that will be the bottom line. [indiscernible] us ison the line with spencer hsu of the washington post, because there is more news going on in washington than just the impeachment hearings. one of the president's confidantes, roger stone, was found guilty of lying to congress.

let's find out about that. spencer, good morning. can you hear me? we will try to get spencer back on the phone. let's go to pam, from racine, wisconsin, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. ahead.o caller: i was just calling about a statement that donald trump made at one of his rallies, saying that joe biden was good obama'sing but kissing butt. but he did not use the word butt. i want to know when the republicans are going to stop kissing his butt.

that's the comment i wanted to make today. back we have spencer hsu from the washington post. good morning. guest: good morning. host: roger stone was found guilty of lying to congress. what happened with roger stone? remind our viewers. guest: he was convicted of lying to the house intelligence committee in its investigation of russian interference in the tampering withnd a witness, this is in regards to his efforts of learning about the release of hatch democratic emails that were released by wikileaks. of course these were hacked that the u.s. government assessed were conducted by russia. specifically, roger stone boasted that he had advance

inwledge of an intermediary getting information from wikileaks in the summer of 2015, during the democratic national convention. at this time, emails were being released and president trump was saying if you are listening, russia, try to find hillary's emails. was that stonees was asked by congress in 2000 17, who was your intermediary? and stone is accused of lying of any he did not in fact have channel or intermediary. there was no record of communications with such a person, and when pressed he falsely named another person as his contact and pressure that witness to lie or mislead or not cooperate with the investigation

. he did communicating with the trump campaign about this and not having any communications -- juliaian sanchez sans twitch was holed up in the ecuador embassy and making statements. know in washington that a lot of times people are convicted not for the crime, but for the cover-up. whetstone convicted of anything wasctually did wrong, or -- stone convicted of doing anything wrong or trying to hide from congress? guest: his defense pointed out that there's nothing wrong with opposition research, it happens every day. to theconvicted of lying congressional investigating .ommittee about what he did in june 2016a time when the democratic national

committee announced that it was attacked in march. stone announced that he had information about what wikileaks was doing that he followed up. not -- hently he did made the statements which were determined to be false in order to protect the president. his defense argued that he did nothing to committee's jurisdiction -- she did not think that wikileaks had anything to do with russia, so he decided that the answers were not within the committee's purview. prosecutor said you don't get to decide what questions to answer or what truth to tell. it's your job to tell the truth and for the investigators in congress to suss it out. host: what is the connection between roger stone and press trump -- president trump? is there a connection? yes, roger stone is a

long time republican activist, has been working since president nixon and he famously has a tattoo of nixon on his back. he calls himself an agent provocateur of the conservative right. people characterize him as a political trickster. he and trump knew each other in new york, where they are both , from his back as the early 80's. trump was a rising real estate developer, one of the most prominent in the 80's. and stone got him to make his first contributions to then president ronald reagan's campaigns. he became a client of roger stone and paul manafort's up-and-coming lobbying shop which later got manafort into trouble and convicted.

and stonewood, from time to time, promote president trump's presidential ambitions since the 90's. thee spoke frequently with president, late-night calls as a confidant and advisor, breaking down the day. that stone denied having any communications with the campaign when he had been talking to manafort, his deputy, bannondeputy and steve who was later the ceo. they viewed gaetz as their access point or main point of contact to wikileaks. one of the top two opposition research priorities for the campaign was clinton's emails and the clinton foundation. there was keen interest in

wikileaks, and not extended to the conversation that gaetz testified to in the period between the democratic national convention and the interest in what wikileaks was doing was the greatest, and gave call stone -- and stone called tromped -- trump while gates was in their suv traveling to laguardia. they said there would be more information coming. what does that prove? wikileaks was publicly saying more information was coming but it shows that the candidates were talking to stone, that is something that special counsel robert mueller never got the president to testify, but they did get sworn written answers and the president said he did not recall the subject of any conversation with john -- with stone about wikileaks or any communications with his campaign. , what'se last question

next for roger stone? we saw president trump tweet about him. do we see an appeal? sentencing? a pardon from president trump who has tweeted about this case? guest: president trump has been a strong supporter and spoke to us yesterday about a double standard and naming all of these democrats that he says have lied, although i don't think he brought up anyone who lied under oath, nor in an investigation of this kind. perhaps they disagree about the fbi director who is being investigated by prosecutors. it has been speculated that stones defense in this case -- stone's defense in this case, people understand why he was trying to mount a case where

there were so much documented evidence and maybe his audience was not the jury box but the person in the white house. years ones up to five six counts and a maximum of 20 years on a count of tampering with the witness. first-timers typically get less, but you are still facing more than a year in prison. he will likely appeal. give you a little credit and consideration in sentencing when you accept responsibility. in this case because stone has used the defense to attack the mueller investigation, the justice department, the fbi, the intelligence community, and the president boosting him on, can he accept responsibility and get a few months shared office case? that would seem unlikely. host: we would like to thank spencer hsu for bringing us up today. thank you. guest: thank you.

host: lets read a few of our tweaks this morning coming in from our viewers before we get from-- tweets this morning our viewers before we get back to what you think about the impeachment. milwaukee says the president is doing a great job and impeaching -- in impeaching himself and making the job of democrats easier to yesterday's tweet attacking the integrity of the ambassador wasn't on thoughtful move, not as dumb aspiring call me but it is up there. memp is a -- dumb as firing -- comey. the pred -- another tweet reads that if the president threatens you it's free speech but if you threaten someone the swat team will drag you out of your house. another tweet says i agree with president trump, the dems are perpetrating a hoax on the american people and started

impeachment proceedings on day one. it's not working, we can see through it. how about passing a real budget instead of acr. one more from north carolina. of course trump tweets intimidation during the testimony, he attacks all women who stand up to him. let's go back to our phone line and talk to sergio, in new york, on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. one of the things i appreciate about c-span is that it's one of the few places that all americans, republicans, independents, democrats, can have their voices heard. instead of going to our echo chambers on either side, i defer tocome to c-span, -- prefer come to c-span where there's a discussion. republicans are complaining about process, about how it's unfair. i did not hear the republicans complaining during the benghazi

hearings that the process was unfair. was following a procedure set forth in the constitution and house rules. as an independent i look at this and i look at the legend -- the ledger on the side of president trump, roger gaetz committed a criminal act and is going to gate -- to jail. paul manafort is in jail. criminalz committed a act. trump university is a fraud. trump foundation is a fraud. let's look at the other side. you have these people who are long-term servants of this points, respected at all , taylor, a vietnam that show an, etc.. you have people coming forward -- a vietnam veteran, etc., you have people coming forward at great risk to their lives, these people are patriots, coming

forward to speak out against this criminal president. what is the gop doing? they are defending criminals and attacking patriots. , have all people here independent, democrat, republican, what's wrong with this picture? defending criminality versus attacking patriots. thank you very much. at a couple ofk tweets from lawmakers that came out this week. here is one from representative eric swalwell who said the president is smearing the anticorruption ambassador as she testifies against him area this is an effort dashcam. this is an effort to discredit her and chill others who may testify against him. this is consciousness of guilt, he keeps acting guilty area -- guilty. another tweet says expect witness tampering to be an article of impeachment.

republicans are also getting involved, yesterday during the hearing, representative john radcliffe asks maria jovanovich jovanovich about hunter biden's role. here's got exchange. (202) 748-8001before -- [video clip] the prosecutor was fired by the then president, correct? >> yes. >> and the prosecutor general opened the investigation into the company, correct? >> i think that's right but i'm not actually sure. >> he was in charge at that point in time is the prosecutor general? public you aware of the a statement by the vice president that that firing of the prosecutor general occurred in march of 2016, six hours after the vice president told

president poroshenko that he needed to fire the prosecutor general or he would not receive $1 billion from the united, do you recall -- united states? do you recall that? >> yes. >> does not raise a potential concern or conflict of interest that the vice president of the united states was ordering the who wasthe prosecutor investigating a company that has been correct? >> i don't think that was the view, he was not a good prosecutor general fighting for -- corruption, i don't think that had anything to do with the company. >> but the legitimate concern about hunter biden's role was legitimate, correct? >> i think it creates the concern that there could be an appearance -- , fromlet's go to bill columbus, ohio, on the

republican line. caller: thank you for having me on. they had the former ambassador on yesterday hoping that she would cry like she did. when you look at the facts, on day one when they asked the witnesses if the president did itthing to speak up now and was silence. you could hear crickets. not a word out of them. when congressman stewart asked the witness yesterday if the president committed any crime in her view she said no. saidhree of the witnesses the president has done nothing to be impeached for an this is a scam. thank you. umar,let's go tomorrow -- from jersey city, on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i'm listening to the guy who just went on, knowing that that

lady did not say that he did not do nothing wrong. , and madeeatening her her leave by threatening her like they did the lady with what she was getting ready to go through. she left and that was her purpose of coming and doing her job. she got nervous because he threatened her area everything the president does -- her. the president -- everything a president does, they asked like it is nothing. they want obama to come in and testify because he's black and they cannot get over the fact that he was black and that's the bottom line. republicans don't understand anything going on, they are acting like they don't see it and it doesn't bother. they have no real questions to ask, they got the same amount of time to talk, they just don't have anything to say. , from st.s go to mark

peter's missouri, on the independent line. for taking myyou call. i wanted to comment and say that most americans are sick of this impeachment inquiry. i have been watching it, and it's draining the life out of me and i don't think i will watch anymore. and schiff has, no credibility. for two years he was saying that he had direct evidence of president trump and the mueller investigation and everything, and none of that came to light all. i think that his credibility is actually damaged. the democrats, it seems like they have been going after trump since he got an office, almost

since before he even got into have been bashing him and everything. with the impeachment inquiry, the ambassador, as i watched it, she had no direct knowledge of the phone call at all. that she no evidence was going to give to support and impeachment inquiry. i'm not even sure why they had her on. she was not even there with the phone call. now theyly gets me is are going into, or they went in again,her private forum, to depose some witnesses that may have some evidence. i just don't understand why they don't do that out in public and let us see what's going on behind closed doors.

host: several people have compared some of this process to a grand jury inquiry, which you know does not happen in public. we will have a guest on in a few minutes it will go through the impeachment process with us. but some of the stuff, wouldn't you agree if it's like a grand jury inquiry, would have to be done behind those doors -- closed doors? caller: if it was a natural grand jury but i don't believe that it is. host: let's go taleo, -- go to miami, florida, on the republican line. caller: my comment is during the proceedings you can see that no witness rings hard proof -- brings hard proof, it's all third-party or second party but

there's no actual evidence that the person being interviewed is there or in the impeachment process is testifying i heard the president. it's always a third party. my staff member overheard. the american people are intelligent and we will not be deceived by the democrats trying to control the narrative. especially schiff, he knows that this president won. and from the moment that he wins by a landslide democrats attacked constantly. the news in this nation has been dominated by inquiries and investigations and when the president tries to move an agenda, to get the roads in the budget and many other things of the country can prosper, but democrats have been holding, for no reason -- obvious reasons,

they are trying to control. they know they cannot win the next election. .o let's make a big scandal let's bring this lady, with all due respect, if that was one of not sendadors, i would her to a troubled country. i would not have been confident with her sitting in front of all these all protecting the interests of the united states and bring corruption to an end. the president is a special man who speaks his mind and it is not very elegant. but he's the only president who has been willing to tell many things in the country have gone wrong and has stood up to china and north korea. and the only president that has brought the north koreans to a table. but anquiry is nothing

kangaroo court in which the president is being placed in a position of disadvantage in the next election. it's very clear. host: there is a video that president trump put out this morning summarizing the week in the impeachment hearings. we want to show that to you here it is. [video clip] ♪ [indiscernible] was there an impeachable offense and that call? shattered out. anyone. -- shout it out. anyone? [indiscernible] >> no. were you involved in the phone call? >> no. >> you did not listen in on the call? >> no. >> neither of you were on the

call. >> that's correct. you ever talk to president trump in 2019? >> no. >> have you ever had contact with the president of the united states? >> no. ♪ let's go back to our phone lines and talk to david who was calling from connecticut on the independent line. good morning. ,aller: good morning pedro thank you for taking my call. over year ago i called into c-span on the republican line. this time i can't call in on the republican line and what you .hown on is evidence of why the purpose of my call, to get to the point, is that there is a method that i think could be

employed to expedite the entire impeachment process and come to a conclusion and get america back to where it should be. recommended by representative welcher in the in query. why doesn't the man occupying our white house come before the committee and testify to exactly , thene did and did not do allow the whole distraction to come to a conclusion and be wrapped up? do that, do not donald, come before the in query, -- the , bring your inquiry evidence, let's get this wrapped up and get back to the people of the united states. host: lisa is calling from dallas, texas, on the democratic line we had --line.

caller: thank you. i'm so appalled by this whole thing. they keep running the story about who was on the phone call, he gave that information up, we heard the phone call, but on top of it, other presidents have been impeached for less. every week he has something different he has done, what's one with the united states that we are defending this guy? hes a mob boss and i think has something over there republicans because these are intelligent people that have been with our government for years that have defended this criminal like behavior. calleret's talk to our from savannah, tennessee, on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call.

what i have to say about this is schiff acts like a hall monitor and a great school that did not get his way and will not get his way. leave our president alone. they are doing everything they can to avoid doing the work of the people. democratsme of those can't chew gum and walk at the same time, they need to choke on the gum read they will keep messing around in this country will be in worse shape. no one has ever done what president trump has done and he has more followers and strengthen this country than anyone has ever had and will ever have. there will not be a democrat in the office next election. if you then he's outside looking in because trump is not going nowhere. let's see the ambassador

one more time, here she is detailing her reaction, emotionally and physically when she read the call record between president trump and zielinski of ukraine. here's the -- the exchange. [video clip] you test up -- >> you testified that you had left before the time of the call . when was the first time you saw the call record for this phone call? >> when it was released publicly at the end of september. >> prior to reading that call record, were you aware that president trump may reference to you and that call? >> no. >> what was your reaction to learning that? >> i was shocked. absolutely shocked. and devastated, frankly. >> what you mean by devastated?

devastatedocked and that i would feature in a phone call between two heads of state in such a manner, where president trump said i was bad news to another world leader and i would be going through some things. moment. terrible a person who saw me reading the transcript said that the color drained from my face, i think i had a physical reaction. now, words fail me. without upsetting you too much, i would like to show you the excerpts from the call. the first, where president trump says the former ambassador from the united states, the woman, was bad news, and the people she

was dealing with in the ukraine was bad news, and i want to let you know. what was your reaction when you heard the president of the united states refer to u.s. that news? shocked, appalled, devastated, that the president of the united states to talk about any ambassador like that to a foreign head of state, and it is me. i couldn't believe it. , when thet excerpt president references he was a short one. he says well, she's going to go through some things. what did you think when president trump told president zelinski that you were going to go through some things? ,> i didn't know what to think but i was concerned. >> what were you concerned

about? >> she's going to go through some things. it did not sound good. it sounded like a threat. >> did you feel threatened? >> i did. >> how so? know exactly, if not . very precise phrase reallydidn't feel -- i don't know how to answer the question any further except to say it felt like a threat. i wonder what that meant. it concerned me. host: we want to show you some reaction from represented mark meadows after the hearing. here's what he tweeted. not a single one of these facts that changed, both call transcript shows zero links

between age political investigation, it was released without any new investigations, ukraine did not know eight was held during the july 25 call, and trump and zielinski both said zero pressure. i want to remind everyone that you can follow all of this from c-span's impeachment inquiry webpage which you can find at www. c-span.org/impeachment. you can go there at any time for video-on-demand of all the congressional briefings and hearings, as well as the administration's response to the in query process -- inquiry process. phone linesk to our and get a couple of quick calls in before the end of the hour. karin is calling from fort

worth, -- craig is calling from fort worth, texas, on the independent line. caller: good morning america. i would like to bring to you, clearly, what i have discovered over the years. in most parties, mainly the democrats, republicans, and independence, they are working -- independents, they are working against the people and the constitution of the united .tates and change needs to come and for us illegal americans, we need to have a constitutional republic restored that works for the people, instead of for the globalists and elitists. thank you. bernie, fromalk to saint leonard, maryland, on the democratic line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. , -- thea few years ago

circus went out of business. for the last three years i have been watching the circus, adam schiff, maxine waters, nancy pelosi is the head clown. look at the problems in california. call mr.ancisco they trump an unethical man but it seems that the democrats are having a tough time keeping her clothes on with bill clinton taking his pants down in the white house and joe biden swimming in the buff. cameras.ave security and you have this congresswoman having an affair there areice, and now similar problems. as far as stopping the russians from packing the elections, it

will not happen, because they can't even stop a robo call. if it happens i hope it happens again and maybe they will get rid of the clowns on capitol hill. the house intelligence committee will be holding more hearings on the impeachment inquiry against president trump on tuesday. jennifer williams, and aged vice tosident pence -- an aide vice president pence will testify, followed by kurt volker and tim morrison. watch live coverage beginning at 9:00 eastern on c-span three. you can also watch online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. coming up next, georgetown university constitutional law , susan, who will

discuss the legal and constitutional issues surrounding impeachment. stay with us. we will be right back. ♪ >> next week, the house willligence committee discuss impeachment inquiry hearings, beginning tuesday morning at 9:00 eastern on c-span3. watch testimony from jennifer williams and director for tenantn affairs, the

colonel alexander vindman, and at 2:30, ambassador kurt voelker and tim morrison. on wednesday at 9:00 a.m. eastern, testimony continues with ambassador ordinance on land, and at 2:30, deputy assistant secretary of defense for russian, ukrainian and eurasian affairs lauren cooper and david hale, under secretary of state for political affairs. and on thursday at 9:30 eastern, testimony will be heard from fiona hill, former senior director for europe and russia. watch the two public hearings and in their entirety on our website c-span.org/impeachment. there you will find transcripts and procedures for the hearings. a point of interest feature that identifies key moments during the hearing indicated by a star in the timeline. next week, watch live coverage of the impeachment hearings on or listenc-span.org,

live wherever you are on the free c-span radio app. booktv will, feature three new nonfiction books. tonight at 11:00 eastern, donald trump, jr., talks about his book onigger," by the tactics -- the tactics used by the political left that he feels slanderous conservatives. afterwards, martha minow talks about her book "when should law forgive," and is interviewed by paul butler. even are so punitive that people who have served their sentences have these collateral consequences of their crimes, not allowed to vote in many places, not allowed to have a professional license, not allowed to keep their children, not allowed to get housing in certain places. i think enough is enough and we should find ways to acknowledge

it. we are imperfect human beings. the law is imperfect. and then nikki haley with her book "with all due respect." watch booktv every weekend on c-span2. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with susan low bloch, a law professor at georgetown university, who is here to take us through impeachment one-to-one. good morning. guest: good morning. host: you testified back in 1998 in front of congress about what an impeachable offense is. tell us what you said then. what is an impeachable offense? guest: the constitution defines bribery, for high crimes and misdemeanors, so it obviously, if the president or any officer commits would be crime, that

an impeachable offense, but a serious abuse of the office or of his discretion could also constitute an impeachable offense, even if it is not a crime. host: what do we call the process that is going on right now in the house? is this an impeachment, and impeachment inquiry, and impeachment hearing? where are we in the process? guest: this is called an impeachment inquiry, where the house has decided there is ,nough evidence out there potential evidence out there, that might warrant articles of impeachment, so this is the point at which they are investigating. it is sort of like a grand jury, and they are deciding whether or not to indict, or in this case, impeach the president. if they draw up articles of impeachment, then it goes to the full house and they decide

whether or not to adopt one or more of the articles of impeachment. arer that, if there articles of impeachment adopted by the house, and it goes to the senate for a trial. host: we heard a lot of conversation over the week of comparing this impeachment inquiry to a criminal or civil trial. we have heard people talk about, well, this person is not getting due process, the lawyers are not available, can you compare and contrast the differences and similarities between the impeachment inquiry and what most people know as a criminal or civil trial? are they the same thing or are they different? ,uest: they are very different although they have a lot of similarities. the difference is that at the end of the whole process, even if the president or the official is impeached, and then removed by the senate, there is no punishment.

an impeachment method as a way of removing from office an individual who should no longer be in office because they have committed high crimes or misdemeanors. it is similar to a trial and that we have initially and impeachment or indictment and then later it moves to a jury for a trial, but in this case, the jury is the senators. at the end of it, there is no punishment. it is simply removing the person from office, so it is similar, in some respects, but the most important thing about impeachment is that the president in this case, or some other official, who alleged to have committed serious abuses of the office, serious abuses of his discretion, again, it does not have to be a crime, but it is so serious that the house things it is worth first and

inquiry, and then potentially the indictment or impeachment, and then at their trial, you need two thirds of the senators to convict, so it is a very serious process, it is different from a criminal process. host: does the president have all of the same privileges and rights as a criminal defendant would in a federal court or in a local court, do you have the same rights to question witnesses? do you have the same rights to have lawyers present at all times, or is it completely different because it is held in congress? guest: it is similar but different. in the house, again, it is like a grand jury, so in a grand jury, the alleged defendant, the would-be defendant, is not represented and is not even there, or he might not be there. similar toe part is a grand jury impeachment.

but, again, in a grand jury impeachment, there are not that many rights for the defendant. once it gets to the senate for a trial, if it goes that far, then similars are somewhat to a trial in federal court. host: the constitution does not define what high crimes and misdemeanors actually are. what can you tell us exactly what that means? guest: it is not define it, you are right. it does say treason, bribery -- host: bribery, we've got that. what those are areas where a person has so seriously abused his office that he has put the country in jeopardy. treason is when you sell out the country. bribery is another way of selling out the country, so by enlisting those two specific crimes, the constitution gets the defense that you only get impeached for something that is

a serious threat to the country, a serious abuse to the office. host: i want to play a little bit from what house speaker nancy pelosi said earlier this week, when she reacted to the first public hearing. she specifically said this, and i want you to react to it. here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> on the investigation front yesterday, a very successful day. truth, truth coming from the president and people he appointed, a person that he appointed most recently to the state department. again, none of us have come to congress to impeach a president. we come here to do the work of the american people to make the future better for them to try to do so in the most bipartisan way possible, find our common ground where we can, and our ground where we cannot, but yesterday, you heard the president speak in the unambiguous terms,

devastating testimony corroborating evidence of inquiriesvered in the and the power abused, violated his oath by threatening to withhold military aid and a white house meeting in exchange for an investigation into his political rival. a clear attempt by the president to give himself the advantage in the 2020 election. in doing so, as i said to the president, you jeopardize our undermine ourity, national security, jeopardize the integrity of our system and violate your oath of office. host: i undermine our want you to react to speaker pelosi. she seems to be making a case for bribery against the president and these impeachment inquiries. guest: well, she is using the idea of bribery to illustrate what the charges against trump are, and that is that he used his office for personal gain.

in this case, it was to help him was his reelection, and he withholding money that congress had allocated for the aid of ukraine, and ukraine really needs the money, and he was doing it not because he thought it was in the best interest of the united states but because he thought it was the best interest of his own reelection, and that is a can to extortion -- that is akin to extortion or bribery, or you are using the threat of money or withholding money to gain personal advantage. leader,w, republican house republican leader kevin separatebrought up a issue, which one you to hear what he said. the question i want to ask you impeachable offense be a constitutional offense? here is what he had to say. [video clip]

>> remember what we are discussing here, we are talking about removing a duly elected president. you take that so lightly, we have a transcript. alexander hamilton warned us this day may come. that a person may have the majority within sight of congress to use impeachment for their own political gains. we have watched how many times they have tried this in the last three years and failed, and now we watch adam schiff one more time leading the charge. >> is any of it inappropriate to you? >> are we having a hearing about inappropriate or are we having an impeachment inquiry? it goes through the fabric of democracy. lightly?ke it that you just had the u.s. congress vote on an impeachment inquiry and then change the rules of the house where you don't have due process, you move it out of the judiciary committee from the intel committee to make it an impeachment committee, and you have secret meetings inside the basements of the capital, you

have not removed -- released all the transcripts, and we just watch the two nieces they wanted to pick, you denied minority to bring witnesses forward. you denied the president, who you are moving to impeach, to have an attorney in the room to cross-examine, the same respect anybody else had before, so, yes, the question is nothing of theirs is impeachable, and we should not be putting our country through this. we are less than a year away from election. host: is there a difference between an impeachable and constitutional offense? guest: there is no such term as constitutional offense, so i think we just had to say with what is an impeachable offense. as i said, that is a serious abuse of office for personal and constitutional bribery gives us an idea of what a

constitutional offense would be, but the allegation being made about trump, that he withheld the aid from ukraine, a that congress had appropriated, and he was withholding it not because he thought it was in the best interest of the united states, but because he thought it was in the best interest for his reelection. and most people think that is a inquiry.ffense in the one thing that kevin mccarthy said when he was talking about secret,ewhat being in with the house is doing is deciding whether or not there is an impeachable offense, much like a grand jury deciding whether or not there is an indictable offense. all of that is always done in secret. in fact, this particular hearing is more public than a grand jury hearing would ever be. host: he also brought up several complaints about the process going on in the house. and president trump has talked

about this, as well, so here is president trump from yesterday talking about the impeachment inquiry process, and i want to talk to about that. [video clip] president trump: one freedom of speech -- i want freedom of speech. that is a political process. the republicans have been treated very badly. i watched a little today. i was not able to yesterday because we had the president turkey here. i watched some of it this morning. i thought it was a disgrace. when we have great republican representatives, people elected by the people, and they are not allowed to even ask a question, they are not allowed to make a statement, we are not allowed to have witnesses, we are not allowed to have legal white house counsel, it is a disgrace and embarrassment to our nation. host: who is setting the rules that the house is operating its impeachment inquiry under? guest: the house sets its own rules, but there is a history. i mean, it did not make it up yesterday.

there have been 200 years of impeachment inquiry. fortunately, we have had fewer of those, but they have had to impeach and convict sometimes a federal judge and other officials. there is a long history of procedures and rules. slightlyt modify them to meet whatever the current needs are, but basically, they are the same rules that have existed for years. host: are these rules set by the house under majority vote? are they rules that only the ruling party in the house sets and the other party has to go along with? how does that process work? guest: the rules are adopted by the majority, so the party and the majority does have more control, but it is not on a blank slate. and the idea of president trump cannot gethat

witnesses, that is not true. they suggest amend the majority decides whether or not to bring those witnesses and. the time allotment is the same. createdthe committee is is manned or personed proportional to the representation in the house, so it is true that the democrats have more members on the committee than the republicans, that both republicans and the democrats have their own lawyer to askr this whole week specific questions. they did decide that it would be good to have a lawyer do some of the questioning rather than just the members of the house, but both republicans and democrats each have their own lawyer asking questions. host: is it unusual to

intelligence committee is taking the lead here, so the judiciary committee, which i believe they were in the past? guest: typically it is the dish committee, but it doesn't really matter. i think in part because this matter involves foreign intelligence with ukraine, and i think also in part because some of the inquiries or some of the committee hearings that were run by the judiciary committee earlier, particularly, was sort of a food fight. i think nancy pelosi. adam schiff could do a good job on this. host: let's remind our viewers that you can call and if you have questions about the inquiry process going on in congress right now. democrats, airline is (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, call (202)-748-8002.

you can always text us a question at (202)-748-8003. we are alwaysnd, reading on social media on twitter, @cspanwj, and on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. explain to ask what exactly are articles of impeachment? who drafts those and where do those come from if they come out of the house and where would they come from? guest: articles of impeachment so they an indictment, are articles, statements of alleged wrongdoing by whoever is being impeached, so in this case, it would be statements of alleged wrongdoing by the president of the united states. all theey have heard testimony, they are drafted by the committee. they can draft 1, 2, 3. usually it is on the order of

two to maybe four or so. and each are drafted, what, in this case, the president is alleged to have done, and then it goes to the full committee. if they get voted out there, then it goes to the full house, ande the full house votes, any article that gets the majority of the vote becomes an article of impeachment. host: does that mean the intelligence committee would be drafting the articles of impeachment to be voted on? or would that go to the house judiciary committee to do it? do we know which way that is going to go in this process? guest: we do, and it is going to be that the house judiciary committee, eventually, if there are articles of impeachment, it will be written by the sherry committee. the hearing seems to be going on in the intelligence

committee. guest: it is a judicious use of the expertise of different committee. the alleged wrongdoing is in foreign affairs, so it makes sense to intelligence committee would do the investigating. the judiciary committee is good at judicial things and articles of impeachment would be, as i say, like an indictment from a grand jury, so it makes sense to let the lawyers do it. host: let's go to our phone lines and let our viewers join this conversation. callingart with john, from silver spring, maryland, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask professor a quick question. professor, if you send someone a subpoena, and those are the people who commit the crime, and they do not want to show up, with that also be a part of this criminal case that makes sense that the president is holding

those people who commit the crime not to show up in front of congress? and my next question, professor, is -- and i'm very worried about it -- the witness yesterday was testifying in the capital, like i amm in the court and complaining about someone harassing me and did a lot of things against me, and the person sends me a text message saying that you are no good, you are worthless, isn't that a part of the impeachment when the eetsident is sending tw harassing this woman when she is testifying? would you please explain to us isn't that witness intimidation according to the law? i will listen to my answer, thank you. guest: great questions. i think your first question is what happens if there is a subpoena and the person does not show up?

if a grand jury subpoena zoo, you better go or you go to court and argue why the subpoena is somehow invalid. in an impeachment inquiry, it is somewhat similar. issue subpoenas, and as a potential witness who gets subpoenaed, you really ought to go. if you don't, you could be found in contempt of congress, so some of the witnesses that have been subpoenaed that are not coming do run the risk of being bound to be in contempt of congress. the problem is the house does not want this to drag on too long. they are aware of the fact there is an election next year, and they are not sure that they want to go to court to enforce the subpoenas, so it might be in this case that even the witnesses ought to appear, and a base jeopardy if they don't, we might find the house does not

bother to enforce the subpoena. your second question is what happened yesterday when the president tweeted while the ambassador was talking about being fearful of the president in some way? was people have said that very similar to intimidating a witness, and, obviously, some people are upset by that. i don't think anything will happen. the president might find himself having generated another article of impeachment for obstructing this inquiry. host: let's go to robert who was calling from you billy, michigan, on the republican line. robert, how do you pronounce your town? lee?t ubi what is your question? caller: is she supposed to be a

constitutional scholar, right? host: she is. caller: i want to ask a simple question. the supreme court justices, when 5-4, 6-5, decision on your supposed to know the constitution really good. here is what i don't understand. i am a contractor, if you give a blueprint to a house for nine contractors, all nine houses will be the same build, everything. why is it that the supreme court, when they read the constitution, why is it that half of them are wrong and half are right? either they don't understand what to read and what our forefathers meant, but that is what is really boggling to me. these houses will be built the same if you give it to nine

contractors because he followed the blueprints. yet, when these cases are in the supreme court, it is not delivered that way, so don't they understand the constitution the way it was written? i don't believe any of them know the constitution. host: go ahead and respond. guest: wow. what a question. a couple of points. one, you are right. there certainly are five more decisions. it is interesting, though. the court decides something like 80 to 90 cases a year, and they are unanimous. aren't the ones that make different cases or the pages orake the front the ones we read about. the ones that are controversial are 5-4, 6-3. the reason for that is the constitution is an outline of the structure of government and

the general principles, but it was written 200 years ago, and they could not have anticipated every single question. what the court is doing is interpreting the general outlines of the constitution and applying it to the individual question before it. sometimes there is a difference of opinion as to how to interpret the constitution. again, more than half the decisions are 9-0. host: this process that we are watching down and congress is not the first time a president has had to go through an impeachment inquiry. the house judiciary committee approved three articles of impeachment against president nixon and 1974. we will show those and then the house approved two articles of impeachment against president clinton in 1998, so we have gone through the house process before.

to af this leading up question from one of our social media followers. they want to know is this proceeding now more public than previous impeachments have been? guest: well, a couple of things. house, theyxon, the drafted the articles of impeachment. it never went to the full house for about because nixon signed before that could happen. but the writing was on the wall, and in effect he knew that they would be adopted by the house. today, everything is a little bit more public because of television, because of social media. i think we are focused on it more, but the process is not that different from what it was in the clinton and nixon impeachments. read some of the articles of impeachment against

president nixon as they were approved by the house judiciary committee. ofsident nixon was accused obstruction of justin's investigations into breaking and entering at the dnc headquarters at the watergate building in washington, d.c. he was also accused of abuse of power for trying to use the cia, fbi, and other agencies to cover conspiracy, and he was accused of contempt in congress for refusing to turn over material in response to congressional subpoenas. now, for the articles of impeachment against president clinton, the house approved tose two, lying under oath the grand jury about the nature of his relationship with monica lewinsky and paula jones. and he was accused of obstruction of justice for encouraging monica lewinsky and others to make all statements, concealing gifts he had given her. what type of language does it

seem the house is moving toward if they plan and pass articles of impeachment? have heard nancy pelosi bring up bribery. we have heard talk about quid pro quo. what language does it seem the house democrats are considering or are moving toward in their impeachment inquiry? as we haveink that just heard, nancy pelosi is moving toward the idea of bribery as an illustration of what is wrong and what trump has alleged to done. i don't think they will accuse him of bribery because i don't think that technically fits, but they will accuse them of abusive his office for personal gain, and personal gain was to get help from ukraine to help him in biden,lection to hurt

who looked at the time this happened, like the front runner. i think it will be abusive his office by something akin to bribery, and obstructing justice perhaps,eet yesterday, by telling people not to cooperate with the house, so i think there will be at least those two articles. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to eric, calling from mill bridge, maine, on the independent line. good morning. caller: yes, hi. host: go ahead, eric. caller: you know, knowing how young our democracy is and how fragile it has been for our history, our adversaries are constantly trying to find >> and weaknesses to attack our democracy and to weaken it so they can continue to further their dictatorships around the world. what are thes,

republican so afraid of to not act in a more bipartisan way to resolve the oversight that is going on in washington today? the rules that have been set in the intelligence committee have been set by the republicans during the benghazi hearings, so why are they afraid of their own rules? following everything set forth by the republicans. and national, security. i mean, these are the republicans that are fighting against what we are fighting for. i would like to have you speak to what is in jeopardy if we do not become more bipartisan in the senate. host: go ahead and respond. guest: well, i agree with much of what you said. i think that the democracy is incredibly fragile, and i think that it is frightening to realize how fragile it is.

i do think that more bipartisanship would be a good thing. i do think that the house is following the rules that have years,tablished over the and i guess i cannot answer why republicans are upset with these rules. they have been the same roles over many -- not many impeachments, we have not had that many -- but they are basically the same rules. i'm not sure what the reason is for the criticism. host: let's talk to crystal, calling from pennsylvania on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning, good morning, c-span. good morning, professor. i want to thank you for explaining the process to me because i do appreciate it.

i also wanted to make a statement about the ambassador yesterday and everyone was calling and saying why was she there? what was her purpose? but the way i understand it is that she was creating, or the democrats were creating a timeline for when this all started. so they had to get the ambassador out of the way to do the criminal acts that trump and his cronies were doing, so i do understand why she had to testify, and they do appreciate her very much for her service. i also appreciate the other guys who testified the other day because they reminded me of professionalism again. people who were professionals. and trump and his cronies sort a group ofe of like people who just came in and

decided to do with their own way. so i just wanted to get your about herw you felt testimony yesterday. thank you, and have a good day. guest: thank you. i hope you have a good day, too. that the stateu department people, including the ambassador yesterday, were very whatssive, and showed us real great ambassadors and state department officials should be doing and how much they care about the country, and how much they are willing to risk their own lives for us. i think the state department got + yesterday or this last week or so. comment on the dollar store analogy. i think i will let that one go. i think so far the state

isartment looks like it really admirable institution and one we should be proud of. host: during the hearings this week, we got to see not only the lawmakers on the intelligence committee, but we got to see the intelligence committee lawyers. on the democratic side, there was daniel goldman. on the republican side, there was steve pastore. what is the role that the lawyers on both sides play? is it unusual to have them doing questioning? or is this something new that we are seen since this is all televised now? guest: that is right. i think the fact that television is here has had a huge impact in several ways. initially, i think what happens with the introduction of television's a lot of the members of the house use the opportunity when they get there five or 10 minutes took, some

would say, grandstand. and what adam schiff has decided to do is let both sides have a lawyer, and they are trained to get the facts out. they're not interested in making statements. not interested in getting reelected, so both sides are using the lawyers to try and ask the witness direct questions so that we get a timeline, we get an understanding of what is happening, and then the individual members of the house can ask their own questions, but we at least have had, as the caller said, we have had some and give us the timeline. host: speaking of lawyers, at what point will the white house's lawyers and the president's lawyers get involved in this process? will we see representation from the white house during the impeachment inquiry going on in the house?

guest: so far, i don't think we will. i think the time we will see the white house's lawyers as if it goes to the senate for a trial, and then the white house has its own representation and they act like lawyers. but in the house impeachment process, the white house lawyers are behind-the-scenes, but we will not see them on television. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talked to josh, calling from connecticut on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how's it going? host: just fine. go ahead with your question. caller: yep, so, first, does a allow hearsay evidence? that is my first question. and secondly, i would say it is intellectually dishonest to say the republicans can call their witnesses because the democrats can just say no to any of the witnesses that they want.

and my favorite question from yesterday was when the democrat lawyer asked ms. marie evanovich tcht she thought -- yvonavi what she thought trump was thinking when asked a certain question. i will leave you with that, thank you. guest: ok. actually, i forgot the first question redo you remember? host: it was a question -- i forgot the first question. do you remember? host: the grand jury, it was compared with grand jury, is hearsay allowed in grand jury testimony? guest: i believe hearsay is allowed in grand jury testimony. to be honest, i'm not a criminal lawyer, and i have never done a grand jury. you would have to ask my son about that. he is a criminal defense lawyer. but hearsay is,

not necessarily unreliable. it depends on who is saying it is how it is used, but that a question i don't know the answer to. and the question about republicans calling their .itnesses, you are right the majority of the democrats could turn it down, and i don't know how many times that has the republicans can ask for witnesses, and i believe are planning to do that. jimbo, callingto from bakersfield, california, on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity. i have two questions that are kind of disjointed, but i wanted to ask them. first off, if i get fired

because i don't want to participate in a crime, ok, or cover up a crime, do i have any legal recourse, and is that a just reason for firing me? that is my first question. and then my second question has to do with a subpoena. has the president and his staff created a precedence in a past practice for not respecting subpoenas? in other words, why would i ever respect a subpoena again for the rest of my life? the president doesn't respect subpoenas. the staff does not respect subpoenas, why should regular people? those are my two questions. just so grateful for c-span, and i wish you guys a very good morning. guest: thank you. the first question was if you get fired for not covering up, is that just cause?

be.again, i think it would you would have to ask my husband, who is an attorney, so i'm not totally sure, but it sounds like a justifiable reason to me. the second question is why would anyone respect a subpoena if we see these people define subpoenas? again, that is a great and serious question we should worry about. ignore subpoena. there are appropriate methods for how to challenge a subpoena. you can do it in court. the problem we are having right now is when someone defies a subpoena, the house could go to court and try and enforce the subpoena and probably would win, but it takes a long time, and the house is aware of the fact that we are approaching an

election year, and it does not want to run into the election for next november, so it looks like what the house is deciding to do is just not to enforce the subpoenas and just proceed without them. host: several of our online viewers who have been tweeting and are asking about precedents that are being set during the impeachment inquiry. for example, like you said, about the house and it subpoenas. what lessons are we learning about how government works? what precedents are being set now during this impeachment inquiry? for example, you just said the house subpoenas and the white house ignoring them. does that mean that future presidents will also be able to ignore congressional subpoenas? serious problem, and, yet, no one should ignore subpoena, and if one does ignore

subpoena, one should be fearful of having a court find them in contempt of the house, congress, or contempt of court, all of which are criminal offenses and are to be avoided. it is unfortunate those precedents are being set now. again, it is because the house fears that if it goes to court to enforce these, it would take too long. we may see the house go to the courts, but time is a problem. host: let's go back to our phone callingd talk to lula, from cleveland, ohio on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. can you speak up a little bit because we are having a hard time hearing you? caller: can you hear me now? host: that is better. caller: thank you. my question is the president

came on national tv and admitted that he has been brought to the impeachment inquiry today. what more with the house have to do prove these so it will be brought before the senate so he can answer to the crimes that have brought him there? i'm going to hang up now, thank you. host: i believe her question was what does the house need to see to agree to articles of impeachment, given everything that has been talked about in the media and the transcripts and the witnesses that have come forward? well, we have not heard

everything. there ishat yesterday a conversation that was overhead between gordon sondland, the ambassador to the eu, and with the president, so we are hearing ahead of time what people might testify to, but we have not heard all the testimony yet. i suspect the house inquiry will go on for another, i would say two weeks or so, and then articles of impeachment would be drafted by the house to share a committee, and those have to get voted by the house judiciary committee, and then it goes to the full house. then we are talking at least another month or two. host: do you see the impeachment inquiry going all the way into 2020, or do you think they will wrap it up before?

will: certainly, the trial not happen in 2019. if there is a trial in the senate, it will be in 2020. host: and we will get into what will happen in the senate in a few minutes. amy, take another caller, calling from shelbyville, indiana, on the republican line. good morning. caller: hello. excuse me. i love c-span so much. mcqueen fromy shelbyville, indiana. we are part of the sixth congressional district, proudly served the congressman greg pence, brother of our former congressman and president vice president of the united states mike pence. i watched the hearings yesterday, and i had an observation about the witness,

the ambassador. she was easily intimidated. fearful.asily made she testified about how she got iset easily about things, and can see why she would be removed as ambassador because she didn't seem to have the gumption or the willpower or the character to set up a good fight against corruption in the ukraine, which everyone has agreed, had a lot of corruption in it. so i think that i can see why she would be removed. now, she may be very good teaching a class at george washington university or wherever she is now. i'm sure she is a very nice person, but in that position, i think you have to be really strong. also, i have a question of your

guest. professor, were you a supporter of hillary clinton in 2016? see the relevance of the question, so i don't think one to reveal that. as far as the ambassador was i think that she was in the state department for 33 years. she had a lot of different posts. i'm not sure everyone saw her the way you did as being fearful. she was clearly careful. she had a good reputation, but the main point is that the president can remove her. that part is not contested, and if he thought she was not doing a good job, that is his prerogative to remove her. the problem is it was sort of the way he removed her, and the

undermining that he did that has upset some people. senate -- over to the first, before we get to the senate, does the house have to vote on articles of impeachment? or does this stop process require a vote on articles of impeachment at this point? guest: no, this is just the inquiry. this is sort of like grand jury, and they are just gathering evidence. at the end of the evidence, they will decide whether or not to send it to the judiciary committee, which will decide whether or not there is an impeachable offense there. the house judiciary committee might well conclude that there are no articles of impeachment to write, and if they decide that, that is the end. if, however, they decide there

are articles of impeachment that should be proposed, they will go to the full house, and then this does have to vote up or down. but no. at this point, it is just an inquiry. host: assuming the house votes on and approves articles of impeachment, what is the process in the senate? who's in charge? what are the rules there? guest: when it goes to the senate, there is a full trial. if it is the president of the united states being impeached, then there is a special provision that says the chief justice of the supreme court of the united states comes down from the supreme court and sits in the senate and presides. he is the presiding judge. the reason the constitution has the chief justice presiding is because otherwise it would be the vice president presiding, and that would be a conflict. host: because the vice president

is the president of the senate. guest: yes, thank you, and if the vice president were proceeding over the trial of the president, that would be a conflict because of the president does get impeached and removed, the vice president becomes president, so you don't want the vice president presiding, so we have the chief justice. clinton was tried, and the chief justice, who was chief justice rehnquist, when he came down to robe, his had his judicial robe and added a band of gold because it was such an unusual opportunity. we have not impeached and tried many presidents. host: does that mean the chief justice, which would be roberts, in chargeef justice of what is going on in the

senate or is it just a ceremonial role? guest: it is more than le ononial, but he will ru matters of evidence. he will run the trial. he doesn't vote. he does not have a large roller, but he keeps order, and he makes sure the process works, as it should. host: will he have the final word on anything? guest: no. host: or can the senators overruled him on things they don't agree with the chief justice on? guest: well, he doesn't vote on the impeachment and conviction. the senate does control the rules of the trial. theory,kes a ruling, in they could disagree with him. i don't think they are likely to, but his rule is largely ceremonial. host: i want to get a couple

more calls in, but i have one more question. we had a caller earlier that brought up the fact that several senators are running for president, and they are on the campaign trail. do all senators have to be present in the chamber for the full senate trial under impeachment of president? or is it they should be there but they don't have to be there? guest: i don't believe there is a requirement that they have to be there. i agree with you that they should be there. the president, after the trial is run, the president will be removed if two thirds of the senators present vote to convict. the assumption is that most senators will be there. i don't think we want to have the possibility of removing a president without a full senate there is i don't think a rule that says they have to be there.

they have to be there to vote but not necessarily be there. host: let's take a couple more calls, so let's talk to lorena from indianapolis, indiana, on the independent line. good morning. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i am sorry. i have to go behind that lady from south bend, wherever she said she has been, questioning someone. anyway, most of my questions have been answered. i really wanted to know what is the recourse through the trump administration when no one appeared when they were subpoenaed, and i wanted to know what happens to them? buti heard her answer that, now the question is to you, lady gave me the the third degree when she

answered my call, she wanted to know what i was going to say, and i had to say verbatim what i was going to be talking about. i see a lot of people calling another independent line, and they know they are not democrat, just like i'm not, and i have been trying to call on the independent line forever. but you let them spew all kind of hate. if theys wondering would tell the people who call what they're going to say, i don't believe they would let them through. .nd i have one more statement why is it any time a democrat calls, you automatically put your hand on that button? --an, he shall full he shall full speed for his around, and he acts like he does not know what they are saying and he runs on -- and he lets them run on and on. you could easily cut them off when they call and say, i used to be a democrat. host: let's see if we can get an

actual question and before the end of the hour. let's try milton, calling from baltimore, maryland, on the democratic line. good morning. you have a question? caller: i do. good morning. first, i'm going to make a quick statement. a lot of times what i see the republicans are doing, especially in the impeachment hearing is called door baiting, where no matter what the question is or the statement of facts, they will say one word and get out there talking points. and my question is this, you think it will be feasible for the democrats to have someone maybe subpoena president obama or someone like the gentlelady on your panel right now to be and tellgo behind america just what the constitution is really about and what it really says? thanks. host: well, you did testify in

front of congress and 1998 -- in 1998, did you not? guest: i did. they had a panel of law professors, and i was the only female in 1998. host: this was during the clinton impeachment inquiry. guest: the question was, what is an impeachable offense, and did we think what clinton had done was impeachable? division.y, there was it was because the house had not done and impeachment in a while. they wanted to know whether what clinton had done wanted impeachment. host: in the second question peopleas bringing in from previous administrations, subpoenaing people from previous administrations, has that ever been done in the house? guest: no one has ever subpoenaed a past president. i'm quite sure of that. i don't think president obama would be subpoenaed.

i don't know. i would be surprised if that happened. anything could happen. host: as we wrap up this hour, what do you expect to see next week as we go into the second week of the house's impeachment inquiry hearing? some: i guess we will hear more from some of the people who overheard the conversation andeen sunland -- sondland trump, and then i'm not sure what would come next. didwhole point is to see trump actually abuse his office and try and get ukraine to investigate the bidens? is that why he held up the money? i don't know how many more witnesses they need to support that allegation. host: real quickly, we talked about this earlier, you expect the house to wrap up whatever it is going to do before the end of the calendar year, and if the

senate has to take up an impeachment hearing, you believe it will not start until 2020, correct? guest: that is where i would put my money. host: we would like to think constitutional professor beto o'rourke of the georgetown university of law -- thank susan low bloch, of georgetown university of law, and for helping us understand what is going on in the impeachment process. guest: my pleasure. host: coming up, we will open up the phone lines and that you talk to us about the impeachment inquiry hearings, week one. democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. we will be back with your call in just one minute. announcer: next week, the house intelligence committee and chair adam schiff continued public impeachment

watch live testimony from jennifer williams, eight to president mike pence, and director of european affairs of the national security council lieutenant colonel alexander benjamin. volker, theor kurt special u.s. envoy to ukraine, and white house aide tim morrison. on wednesday at 9:00 a.m. eastern, testimony continues with the u.s. ambassador to the european union, gordon sondland. and then the deputy assistant secretary of defense for affairsn and eurasian david hale, under secretary for political affairs. and that 9:30 p.m. eastern, they will hear testimony from fiona hill, former national security or director for --. website, atn our c-span.org/impeachment. there, you will also find

procedures for the hearings, and a highlight reel identifying key moments in the hearings. watch the impeachment inquiry on c-span3, c-span.org, or listen wherever you are with the free c-span radio app. today at 10:30 a.m. eastern on american history tv, authors explore the role of men in the women's suffrage movement. >> they march as a group of 89 men in top hats and bowlers in the suffrage parade of may 1911, where they are pilloried and mocked and every sort of insult is hurled, and they embrace this and it galvanizes them. from then on, they are no longer offering their names, they are really ready for work. blitzer prizewinner

david kim riley on his work. think therei do not is a fancy way to say i have sinned. and the writing in newsweek -- i love having the print on my photos. all of a sudden, you have the context. easterny at 4:00 p.m. on real america, the 1969 film "apollo 12: pinpoint for science. " >> dropping out, we are going to get hit by lightning. [inaudible] two, maine out. >> and a look at the work of pulitzer prize-winning from thet pat oliphant university of virginia, which has just acquired his cartoon collection. past onour nation's american history tv, every weekend on c-span three.

"washington journal" continues. host: we are going to go back and take your calls on your opinions of how the first week of the public impeachment inquiry hearings went in the u.s. house. did you hear what you needed to hear? do you think you need to hear more information? again, to set the stage, i want to read a little bit from the wall street journal report on yesterday's events. here is a story from the wall street journal. the former ambassador to ukraine, who was fired this spring, felt threatened by disparaging comments from president trump and was alarmed by the state department failure to defend her. she testified in the second public impeachment hearing. grillo been alleged was -- marie yovanovitch was the third witness called, and democrats used her appearance to argue mr.

trump sought her removal to clear the way for a pressure campaign in the ukraine that could benefit the president politically. mr. trump ordered her removal after his personal lawyer rudy giuliani told him she was obstructing the effort. the wall street journal has reported. republicans emphasize friday that presidents have the authority to fire ambassadors as they wish. and they portrayed her testimony as largely irrelevant to the impeachment inquiry. its told investors that when she learned mr. trump had criticized her in the july phone call with his ukrainian counterpart "the colored drained from my face." in at he was testifying morning session, mr. trump took to twitter to attack her a accusations of witness intimidation's by adam schiff, who is running the proceedings. here is the tweet we are talking about right now. president trump tweeted during former ambassador you about it

testimony. it is the u.s. president of the absolute right to appoint ambassadors. again, we want to know what you think about what has been going then the first week of house impeachment inquiry. before we get to your calls, let's see former ambassador yova novitch's reaction to that tweet when read to her by chairman adam schiff. >> would you like to respond to the president's accusation that everywhere you went turned bad? >> i don't think i have such certainly not in somalia

and other places. i actually think where i have served over the years, i and others have demonstrably made things better, for the u.s. as well as for the countries that i have served in. wheree, for example, there are huge challenges, including on the issue we are discussing today of corruption. huge challenges. they have made a lot of progress since 2014, including in the years that i was there. i think in part, when the ukrainian people get the most credit for that, but a part of that credit goes to the work of the united states and to me as the ambassador, in ukraine. ambassador, you have shown the courage to come forward today to testify. notwithstanding the fact that you are urged by the white house or state department not to,

notwithstanding the fact that as you testified earlier, the president implicitly threaten , and nowat call record the president in real time is attacking you. what effect do you think that has on other witnesses being willing to come forward and expose wrongdoing? well, it is very intimidating. >> it is designed to intimidate, is it not? >> i mean, i cannot speak as to what the president is trying to do, but i think the effect is to be intimidating. i want to let you know, ambassador, that some of us here take intimidation of witnesses very, very seriously. >> here -- host: here is a tweet from president donald trump talking about this. he tweeted "they call it serving up the pleasure of the

president. the u.s. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than preceding administrations. it is called, quite simply, america first. with all of that, however, i have done far more for ukraine. you think,know what so let's go to our phone lines and go to ingrid, who is calling from montrose, colorado on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, ingrid. caller: thank you for taking my call. one of the things i want to in the many questions during the proceedings, why this lady was called to testify and if it is partially to show how trump has a tendency to get rid of anybody that disagrees with his opinion, that has the courage to speak out or that

hampers his political progress. it is also a well-known fact that he is a bully. he shows it with his tweets, his demeanor, his attitude, the stuff that comes out of his mouth -- sometimes it is so unbelievable it is jaw-dropping, and anybody that gets in his way disappears. [inaudible] when people get in their way, they have acid thrown in their face, they get poisoned, they get shot in the middle of a public bridge -- i mean, it is retaliationhanism, is applied not the same way, but it is the same mechanism.

then she goes away. anybody that has ever lost their would think twice about coming forward and speaking the truth, even if it is the truth. ron, callingalk to from new hampshire on the democratic line. ron, good morning. caller: good morning. c-span, you guys rock. i love this show and you guys are fantastic. i have a couple of quick comment send a question to leave you with -- i am getting really sick and tired of the republicans deflecting all of donald trump's illegalities by bringing up clinton and biden. i am a democrat, but i do not give a rat's behind -- if you want to investigate the clintons for another 40 years, like the republicans have already, if they found something wrong, by all means, put them in

jail. if you buy something wrong, which they have not been able to do so far, put them in jail area but stop deflecting from donald trump's illegal activities. that is just not right. many of the witnesses that are coming before us right now are republicans. they were installed by donald trump and his administration. donald trump claim to clean up the swamp, but he brought it with him. many of his administration are already in jail are waiting for sentencing for jail. my question is, it seems like all roads lead to russia. since donald trump has been in office the last three years, he has done more for russia than he could ever do for the united states, including over 100 secret meetings with russians between him and his staff, trying to get them back into the g8, you name it. seceding syria, these are all huge, huge, presents for

vladimir putin and russia. driving a wedge between nato and america, driving a wedge between america and our allies? these are all huge birthday gifts for vladimir putin and russia, trying to deflect all of this, all of russia's interference in the 2016 election on to ukraine -- i do not know what donald trump owes russia, but it seems like all roads lead back to russia. to mark, calling from annapolis, maryland on the republican line. mark, the morning. caller: yes, hi, how are you? basically, there is no high crime. there is no misdemeanor that has been established and i understand the inquiry, but doesn't the president have a constitutional duty when he's giving american taxpayer money to a foreign government, doesn't he have a constitutional duty to ensure there is no corruption?

we have mr. biden, former vice president biden who basically got a prosecutor fired, ok? he is running for president. so i really don't understand this whole thing. the president has a constitutional duty to basically make sure there is no corruption in foreign governments that we are giving aid to. quo, no no quid pro high crimes and misdemeanors, and there is no collusion with russia. i do not understand this. it is crazy to me. host: let's go to wane, calling from springfield, west virginia on the independent line. good morning. caller: morning. you very act oh host: yet -- you there? host: yes, go ahead wayne. caller: i have three points on the grand jury. the grand jury has judges to keep the prosecutor i jackn

-- in check. it's up to compare this to a grand jury, she is just wrong. the second point, on trump's phone call, he has had a lot of evil they want to know. i am one of those people that want to know he was working on my behalf. if it benefits him, so be it. russia point, people, don't forget, nine federal agencies and the obama administration armed russia with uranium, and nine federal agents these claim to have evidence of trump-russia collusion, which we all know is false now. you all better beware and look at what is going on. this deep status they. -- this deep state is they. it is the government, federal agencies, and not only in america, it is global. they are working with other countries to bring the american economy down -- you have to

, theons, the globalist global economy, and the one , the global economy, and the one world order. in both cases, they have to bring our economy down because -- to match the rest of the world's economy. growthwhy obama said 2% should be the norm, because that is what they are trying to do, bring our economy down with the rest of the world's economy. to protrusion,k calling from columbus, georgia on the democratic line. patricia, good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling not just as a democrat, which i am as a think thebut i whistleblower's statement has dotted the i's and crossed the t's. they got her out so he could corrupt, which they never mentioned, he was corrupt.

and biden and the clinton administration and all of them, they did investigate them. so later that if he did win the election against trump, the russians put it in trump -- look at all his family business over in europe, and everyone that has been in his circle is collateral damage. , he is shielding his family, his son-in-law, they have not stop their business overseas and around the world, even in america. everything he is trying to say he is against, he is sliding it under the rock like the snake that he is. deborah,'s go to calling from west chester, ohio on the republican line. deborah, good morning. caller: good morning, and thank theso much for having constitutional law professor this morning. i do have one other request, and that is to have an individual who is both a historian

professor in treaty negotiations. my concern is the office of the presidency, not just trump. in our treaty we have with ukraine that was negotiated by president clinton, ratified by signed,te in 2000 and we have and we spell out that we can ask specific inquiries, questions regarding criminal investigations. concentrating on the motives of the president, we should be concentrating on his compliance with the treaty. the office of the presidency and the separation of powers in the constitution gives his office the responsibility, and only his office the responsibility in negotiating a treaty and also compliance to a treaty. so that would have been my first step. i am previous job -- retired, but i did regulatory compliance.

the first thing you do is go back to the laws, you go back and say, is he compliant or not? the fact that yes the question is not the problem. knowotives -- we may never his motives, and his motives may have been political, but the reality is his job description gives him that responsibility. my second point is that i would rather have a president who has a poor choice of words and struggles to articulate his ideas, but his policies are in the best interests of the united states. when you look at how ukraine is today, in the fall of 2008, russia was screaming. we almost had missile defense under bush 43 in poland. ukraine wanted to be a member of nato. what was the first thing that obama did when he went 10? he -- when he went in? he stopped missile defense in poland. that was a major strategic

blunder. hillary clinton hit the reset button with russia, whatever that means, and on a obama hot mic, says we are going to give them some leeway. they invade ukraine in 2015. i consider those strategic blunder is more of a problem than the president uses to poorly articulate content, regardless of his motives, the content was in compliance with the treaty. if you were to have an whovidual on c-span understands treaties and can take apart that treaty paragraph by paragraph, that is where we should have started. have been talking about impeachment all morning, but there is other news going on in washington. we talked a little bit in the show about roger stone's conviction in federal court. there is another piece i want to bring to you this morning about president trump. to you from npr

-- president trump has issued pardons for two army officers accused of war crimes in afghanistan and restore the rank of a navy seal was acquitted of murder in iraq. for more than 200 years, presidents have used their authority to offer second chances to deserving individuals, including those in uniform who have served our country, said white house press secretary stephanie grisham, in a statement released on friday. these as -- actions are keeping with this long history. includes a man who has served six years of a 19 year of thee on charges second-degree murder, after ordering his soldiers to open fire on three unarmed men in afghanistan, killing two of them. he had been convicted in 2013. the other part an officer -- pardoned officer is matthew goldstein, a west point graduate awaiting trial for allegedly murdering a suspected afghan bomb maker in 2010.

the trial was scheduled for next year. the president also restore the rank of special warfare operator chief edward gallagher, a navy seal who was convicted of posing with a corpse of an enemy combatant in iraq. gallagher had been acquitted of murder and other serious charges in july 2019. some current and former pentagon officials say the pardon, while legal, could undermine the military justice system. defense secretary mark esper and ryan mccarthy had argued against clearing the three men as a bad example to other troops in the field, according to the new york times. are talking -- we are going to go back to talking about the impeachment inquiry for this week. if you have opinions or you want to talk about it, you're free to call in. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media. on twitter, at @cspanwj and facebook, at facebook.com/cspan. let's talk to michael, calling from san diego, california on the independent lines. michael, good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to make a comment, i am watching this trial and i noticed that when they ask these , the ones that are responding with a microphone, not the congressme n, they are continually asking for what their feelings are, what their opinion is, and it is sort of like -- this is not -- everyone knows what opinions are, ok? we need to get through facts and stay with facts. if they are going to go into opinion and state why legally it is their opinion that it is this

way, that is one thing. what they are doing is really embarrassing to this country and it makes us look as a whole and is really a disgrace what is going on and a waste. it is a waste of money and time. host: let's go to our caller from bismarck, north dakota on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to commend the onmplican party investigating corruption in ukraine. i want to know how it is going in saudi arabia. thank you. host: let's go to tom, calling from illinois on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to say that i think trump should have been impeached if he did not look into the biden thing, because

one of the -- the woman that was the ambassador, she presided over that and knew about all of that. there was no way people did not know about that in the ukraine, because biden was running around bragging about it. i think if trump had not looked into this, he should have been impeached because he was not doing his job. he was just doing his job. that is part of what we do here, we do not waste our money and we do not let people like joe biden he did in ukraine. it is terrible. that is all i have to say. thanks. host: since the caller brought onovitchmbassador yv was asked about what happened in ukraine yesterday. here is representative radcliffe about marie yovanovitch

hunter biden's role in the gas company. here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> shortly before your viktoration in 2016, shook and was fired by president poroshenko, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> prosecutor general shokin was the one who had opened the sma, isgation into buri that correct? >> i am not sure. >> he was in charge of it as a prosecutor general. >> yes. >> are you aware of the public statements by the vice president that the firing of the prosecutor general occurred in march 2016, six hours after the vice president told president poroshenko that he needed to fire the prosecutor general or that he would not receive $1 billion from the united states. do you recall that? >> yes.

that raisesink that a potential concern or conflict viceterest, that the president of the united states was ordering the firing of the prosecutor in charge of a company that has been identified as one that is substantially corrupt? >> i actually do not. mr.n't think the view that shokin was not at the prosecutor general fighting corruption, i do not think that had anything ma case.th the buris >> but the concern about hunter biden's role was legitimate, correct? raises concerns that there could be an appearance of -- let's speak to roger, and valley park, missouri on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, roger. say is,all i want to

in new york and new jersey, trump got 7% of the vote because people know him. he has ruined 1000 lives. he has refused to pay the bills and been sued more than 100 times for not paying his bills. he said he is going to run the country like he ran this business, and that is what he is doing. he is running it into the ground. he is a con man, a crook, and deserves to be in jail. the biden's did nothing wrong. ukraine, the countries around ukraine said, please get this prosecutor out of office. two years before trump even ran for president. republicans need to get their timelines straightened out. it is smoke being blown in your faces and he is a con man. this is false and you have fallen for it. half the country has fallen for it. everyone is realizing this guy is a con man. that is what he does. he needs to be in jail, he should have never been a

president. it has brought our country way down. we are the laughing stock of the world because of this man and people did not seem to care. you have to care. this is our country, this is our democracy. i am a navy veteran and i love this country. donald does not love this country. he does this for the money he is getting and that is it. you will have a good day. thank you. host: in the midst of the impeachment inquiry going on in washington, there is still one gubernatorial race going on, and that is in louisiana, where they will have the runoff vote today, where governor income at or -- governor -- incumbent governor john bel edwards will face businessman eddie rispone. on the phone with us we had tyler bridges, a political reporter at the advocate in baton rouge, louisiana to tell us about what is going to happen in this race today. tyler, good morning. guest: good morning. host: tyler, first of all, tell us how we got to the runoff

today between the incumbent governor john bel edwards and eddie rispone. tell us how we got here? guest: it is rispone, by the way. host: got it. that rhymes with "phony," according to john bel edwards, the democratic incumbent and his supporters, but how we got to this situation, jesse, is that louisiana has an open primary. all the candidates are in the primary, regardless of political party, and there were three candidates in the primary, the incumbent governor, john bel edwards, the only democratic governor in the deep south. election fourise years ago, a story i tell in my book "longshot," and he was challenged in the primary by this richness -- this businessman, eddie rispone, a very wealthy businessman, a big donor to conservative causes but

totally unknown. the third candidate was a congressman from rural northeast louisiana, ralph abraham. in the primary, the governor got about 46%. 27 percent, abraham, 23%. abraham was knocked out in the primary. since then, it has been edwards versus rispone. host: what kind of turnout for you see in these runoff elections in louisiana? your anywhere close to election day turnout, or is the number much, much lower? rispone in today's -- guest: in today's election, we are expecting a turnout of about 50%, which is not as high as it would be in a presidential election, but higher than the turnout in the governor's race four years ago. people are more energized, probably because of trump, who

has been tilde louisiana three times now in the last month, including a visit to boot your city -- mosier city in support of candidate eddie rispone. host: president trump has been tweeting this morning about the race. he started out with "good morning louisiana. polls are open at 7:00 a.m. it out and vote for eddie governor. be her next he will get your taxes and auto insurance down. find your polling places below. " -- issident trump president trump helping get out people to vote in louisiana? guest: there is no doubt president trump is helping bring out republicans. he is a popular figure in the state, winning with 58% of the vote over hillary clinton in 2016, and he has been here three different times, thursday night, and vice president pence has been here, donald junior has

been here, pence was on the radio here yesterday, but john bel edwards, his supporters are also turning out because of the president, because the dislike of the president. we are particularly seeing african american voters, more than half of the voters in the democratic party of louisiana, they seem to be more energized than they were in the primary election, when the governor got a 6% of the vote. he needed over 56% of the vote and he did not, which is why he is in the runoff against businessman eddie rispone. host: does he need 50% today or today, the majority vote wins? guest: whoever gets above 50% in this to candidate race will be the next governor. polls show the race to be very tight. every single poll has shown the governor with a very narrow lead, so the governor, i talked

to him last night, he is confident he will get another four years to be the governo r of louisiana. host: what is the incumbent saying about president trump his popularity -- he is the only democratic governor in the deep south. is he embracing president trump, criticizing president trump? saying nothing about president trump? what is governor john bel tion on president trump as the race starts today? guest: when a president comes to your state three different times and campaigns against you, you cannot stay silent. has been awards conservative democrat. he signed a medicaid expansion, provided medicaid to 50,000 working louisiana residents, and leftis something the likes. john bel edwards is very

conservative on abortion, signed into law a strict antiabortion bill this year. a hunter, a west point grad, an army ranger who grew up hunting as the son of a sheriff and grandson of a sheriff, whose brother is a sheriff in the rural parish he is from. it is hard for republicans to go after him, although they have been calling him a tax and spend liberal. the president called him a radical -- i do not think many people in louisiana would view but it will be tough for the governor to win this race because this is a conservative state, the legislature is two thirds noublican, and there is other democrat who holds statewide office in louisiana. the governor is trying to defy political gravity here. there are reasons to think he could win, because he is generally a popular governor in the state. host: are there any national applications on this race? we heard a lot of conversation

around the kentucky governor's race, whether that actually anything, if it told us anything about president trump's popularity and ability to get republicans elected. will we see any national of locations around the runoff race today? that isbsolutely, and because president trump has made this into a referendum on theelf and eddie rispone, latest rally of the president in mosier city in north louisiana, also said vote for me to send a message to the corrupt democrats in washington. not wantedwards does to nationalize this race. he wants the focus to be squarely on louisiana issues, the issues that have made him popular with voters and president trump is saying hey, i'm sorry, vote for me -- i'm sorry, vote for eddie rispone to show your support for me. that is what we will be watching

tonight. host: last question for you, tyler. what are the polls showing for the race today? isn't going to be close, do we expect a blowout for either candidate? what does it look like going in the final hours? guest: the polls look like it will be a very, very close race. the governor has a slightly, energizing his supporters again, particularly members of the african-american community. republicans are counting on president trump to pull businessman eddie rispone across the finish line and become next governor of louisiana. host: we would like to thank tyler bridges, political reporter at the advocate in baton rouge for coming on and talking to us about the louisiana governor runoff today. tyler, thank you so much. guest: thank you. go back toe going to talking about the impeachment inquiry hearings, going on in the u.s. house today. before we get back into that, i

want to remind you that you can follow the impeachment inquiry on c-span. c-span a special page on for you to follow. it is c-span.org/impeachment. on this page you can find video on demand of some of the briefings and hearings that have been going on this past week, and you can follow it and you can look at some of the congressional briefings, you can look at the house hearings, but once again, you can follow the impeachment inquiry by looking at our page that we have set up for it. c-span.org/impeachment. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to eileen, calling from charlotte, north carolina on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning, and i hope

you don't mind if i start by saying north carolina has a democratic governor, roy cooper. isn't the only state, although our legislature is majority republican. host: i will agree with you, but we were talking deep south. north carolina is old south, not deep south. caller: oh, ok. i did not know that distinction. it depends on what it feels like also. host: i understand. two pointsany case, i would like people to think about -- to answer somebody's question before, the president has no duty to root out corruption in other countries. if anything, he should because in traded rooting out corruption be our country -- concentrated on rooting out corruption in our country. if anything, that is left to the diplomatic corps, to root out

and overcome corruption in foreign countries and inform the state department when that exist so that it does affect our relationships, but the president himself has no duty to do that. this case, people should remember it is the house that holds the purse and they gave these funds for ukraine. the president, whatever you think of him, was interceding in that relationship, i think that orwhere the idea of bribery holding it over somebody's head comes up, because it had already been granted to that country by the house of representatives. and i think people are forgetting about the balance of power and how we have remained strong over the years. the second point i would like to make, given the president temer

call -- can recall a diplomat at will, he could have just done that. what was the reason for having giuliani have a campaign to , who had a woman sterling reputation? the fact that she had a sterling reputation was irrelevant. all he had to do was recall her. i think that enters into the question that the democrats have -- why is this president acting in this way? why is he making it all about him and causing all this turmoil? things could proceed in an orderly way, and that is what has kept our country strong. host: let's go to george, calling from jacksonville, florida on the republican line. george, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm very happy that c-span and fox are two very fair and balanced networks, and you have

done a pretty good job of that. i want to bring up two issues -- one is oligarchs and the other is your way, and they are directly related to this ,lection and the 2016 election the 2018 election, and what is happening to trump right now. the ambassador certainly had some things i don't agree with, but she said two things which i do agree with -- it was hard to hear because people were not really listening. number one, she said the ruling oligarchs who control the media in ukraine. only 3%o point out that of stories on cbs, nbc, abc are pro-trump, even when he has done many things correctly. he does something's wrong but many things correctly. and the second thing she said, the people who were calling

heard it, she was asked if trump did anything illegal. she said no, trump did not do anything illegal. that leaves us on to why warner is saying the 2016 election was twisted by the russians, and i am saying, and i have told trump people this, and a guy from india has also said the same technology. this system started about 10 years before he won the nobel prize, finding he could change emotions in dogs and people using a radio frequency -- he started with things like smells of food. yarway was thrown out of this country by trump because he found they were using pavlov technology, to induce hatred, induce lack of

empathy, and detachment from reality, a light form of schizophrenia, in voters all over the country using the smart meter system. this weekend, our c-span cities tour explores america's story as we featured the history and literary life of charleston, west virginia on book tv and american history tv. today at noon eastern on book tv, all of our charleston literary offerings, including a look at booker t. washington's life in west virginia, will be featured. [video clip] >> the family became to malden because washington ferguson, his stepfather, was working here in the salt factory and also in the coal mine that was owned here. insent money to his wife order to get the horse and buggy to bring her and the kids to

the city. once arrived, they find a wonderful city of christian believers. she gets a job as a chambermaid and then as a cook, and gets the family to hire booker as a houseboy, knowing he would learn social graces, they have a big library available to them, he would have a lot of opportunities he otherwise would not have. as an important part of him being with the family, he developed a familial relationship with mrs. ruffner. she was a yankee lady, a second and really liked booker. he could do no wrong, always asking her, how am i getting along, what am i doing well, what do i need to do? he was honest and hard-working, and very bright. i think she appreciated his parents and i think she did something for him that gave him

a self-confidence that probably carried through his career, because his career was full of crisis and dark hours. but he was able to see himself in her eyes, reflected as a perfect being. tune in thisre to week to book tv and american history tv as we travel the charleston, west virginia. and to watch video of charleston and all the cities we have visited on our c-span cities tour, go to c-span.org/citiestour. let's see if we can get a few more calls in. let's try jane, calling from collins, mississippi on the independent line. james, the morning. caller: yes, how are you doing? james, i am doing well. first, tell me where collins, mississippi is? caller: it is located about 45 miles south of the jackson,

mississippi. right close to the gulf coast. host: got you. go ahead with your comment. caller: the lady was calling in and talking about the american treaty, that is one of my things i want to talk about. it we are issuing treaties, we need to go back to native americans and african americans and make surent, those things are straightened out before we start talking about any treaties with american policies pertaining to african-americans and slavery, because he would bring that up, about how we to go back to that. we need to talk about that too, because like i said, there is a lot of things going on. racial time in this country, there is civil war breaking out and there will be civil war breaking out somewhere down the line with hate and stuff like that, but my main point is russia, china, north

korea, these people are locking themselves into scorn. they know if president donald j. trump is beaten in the election or succeeded in the election, there is going to be so much racial and violence in this country, there is going to be a civil war. those people are going to attack us over there, they are waiting for us to attack ourselves and it is going to happen if we don't realize, we need to check out our own party. if a democrat is doing something wrong, you should not support him. if a republican is doing something wrong, you should not support him. what we got now, we got all of this racial tension in every state, in every place you live now. if donald trump was not a white male and talking like that, saying those things, we would have a serious problem with this.

we would be calling him out on the caller of his skin, and people say, it is not racist. a white man can say that. a white man can say those things . a person with two different races could say that. because of the caller of this man's skin and the attitude he has about everything that is not white, or white and right in his eyes, [inaudible] president barack obama could never say those things. host: let's talk to harvey, our caller from canton, mississippi. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: i know exactly where canton, mississippi is. caller: thank you. thank you for taking my call this morning. this is a hot topic, and i have been watching the impeachment inquiries very close. first of all, where are we going with this?

are we going to allow outside entities to be closely involved in the u.s. election? that's my first question. number two, no matter what party he belongs to, you read something about three offices, that -- officers, the president has restored their rank and service. an ambassador is the eyes and ears of the president in any country. they are bound, like boots on the ground. if you're going to vilify a , [inaudible] who have served this country for 32 years and sacrificed for this country, there are ways and tells which you can go to this is appropriate. if she had done something wrong,

a 33 year servant tells the president, he should have at least given her a reason why she was being recalled. there were corruptions in the country of ukraine, then she would have been the very first person i need to contact. giuliani did not have to go to ukraine, period. this person works for him to root out any corruption. president has the authority to watch over any u.s. --, but that to was not his motive here. we have to separate fact from fiction, what is happening here. why would you go and remove a diplomat who has served this country for 33 years? it would be the same thing if you had a general on the ground

who was commanding forces in a foreign nation. [inaudible] he would have more intelligence in thatto whoever particular area, that particular country. that would be the first move if he was rooting out corruption to make. host: let's go to allen, calling from bridgeville, delaware on the republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. i want to make three quick comments. you asked in an earlier session, how would you rate the inquiry so far? after listening to three very qualified delegates, i know one thing for sure -- they've got huge, impressive resumes, but none of the three were on the call, so they cannot add anything in terms of what the president did wrong.

another calls that investigate hillary clinton all you want, but she did nothing wrong. james comey did find something she did wrong, and the only reason she did not go to jail, because they came up with intent -- she did not have any intent to do anything wrong, so that is what kept her out of jail. the last one is burisma. if that job is still open, i am qualified for that gas port. as we close up this hour, i want to remind you that the house intelligence committee will hold more open hearings on the impeachment inquiry against president trump on tuesday. jennifer williams, aid to vice president pence, and lieutenant ndemann are scheduled to testify first, followed in the afternoon by kurt volker, special envoy to ukraine, and a national security

council aide. watch live coverage, beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. you can also watch online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. keep it to c-span on tuesday, when they resume the house impeachment inquiry. let's see if we can get a few more calls in before the shows ends.ow let's try mario, calling from florida on the democratic line. caller: top of the morning to you, happy saturday. host: go ahead, mario. caller: i have been injured from work six months ago, so i have had lots of time to immerse myself into what has been going on. i have to tell you, it seems to me that our underpinnings are ,ery fragile and sparse at best when we can get to this point in these proceedings, having so

much aggregate information drop on us in the last three years, much of it being brought to the public where everyone can see them and make their own opinions on what has been going on. so much information, i just don't understand why we don't seem to have any framework. this allows us to stop ourselves from hitting the ground when we start to fall. host: let's go to joyce, calling from joplin, missouri on independent line. joyce, good morning. we lost -- oh, there you are. go ahead. caller: hey, i want to talk about the way they vote. it seems like you are always going to have a split party vote as long as people have -- why , give us ado it like ballot and we vote and nobody just who voted for what, that we voted. as long as you have to have your

name down, republican, democrat, whatever, there is going to be a split vote. the party is, you know -- that is what i wanted to say. host: let's go to billy, calling from minnesota on the republican line. billy, good morning. billy, are you there? caller: morning. yes, i am here. host: go right ahead. i want to know how the democrats would feel if adam judge, how they would feel if they had a judge beat out of several howion dollars before -- would they feel if their judge

hole andmillion in the still wanted to judge him? by that?t do you mean schiff was -- $3 million or $4 million in a deal with trump before he was president. host: and where are you getting that information from, billy? c-span earlieron that he had lost iney to trump in a land deal manhattan years ago, so i don't understand how he can be the impartial judge in this whole

impeachment operation. let's go to brenda, calling from montgomery, alabama on the democratic line. brenda, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? what i would like to say, when trump opens his mouth, he is either lying or bragging and i think he should be ashamed of himself, the way he is treating these people who gave their whole life for our country. i mean, he just makes me sick. we ought to impeach him, throw him in jail. host: brenda, how much of the impeachment inquiry have you been watching? caller: every bit of it. host: what do you think? democrats arehe proving their case, or do you think there needs to be more evidence and information before they moved to impeachment votes? caller: i think they are doing fine, you know? but the republicans, no matter

what comes up against trump, they are going to say oh, it is all made up. it is not made up. why don't these people get up on the stand and say that when they gave their whole life to the country? it doesn't make sense. trump is a terrible person. host: we would like to thank all of our callers and guests for being here with us today. you can also go to c-span.org/impeachment, to our impeachment inquiry page, where you can see video on demand of not only the hearings better going on in the house, but you can also see the congressional briefings and statements being done by both republicans, democrats, and president trump. i would like to invite you to join us again on c-span washington journal, tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m., as we continue the conversation with america. everyone, have a great that her day. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.

visit ncicap.org] >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has provided unfiltered coverage of the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c., and around the country so you can make up your own mind. 1979, c-spanble in is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. the supreme court heard oral argument about the legality of president trump's decision to rescind the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. program, which started under president obama, protected the children of undocumented immigrants from deportation.

in december 2017, president trump announced he would phase out the program. lawsuits soon followed. the supreme court has through june 2020 to issue a ruling. the argument first this 18, 587, the department of homeland security versus regions of the security -- university of california. mr. chief justice, in 2017 the fifth second -- circuit held a daca in the expansion of daca was likely unlawful. the judgment affirmed by equally divided courts. in the face of those decisions, the department of homeland security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to retain the daca policy. based on the belief that the policy was illegal with serious doubts about the illegality and the general proposition abroad