i do not trust people with power. the left does. the left once more and more power centralized in the state. i am against it. i want to influence people. that is my dream. i think i do. i have no desire to have power over anybody. host: we thank you for joining us on this sunday morning. if people want to follow you on the web, they can do so how? dennisprager.com, prageru.com, and at dennis -- @ dennisprager. none of it is hate. it is all predicated on my deepest believe in life -- god wants us to be good. results from louisiana.

your reaction. caller: well, it is just sort of another -- what has been a pretty terrible week here for the president. has had a longtime confidant convicted of all seven counts of lying on friday. he has had a series of people coming forward to the impeachment inquiry, testifying anut what they consider improper pressure campaign to get ukraine to investigate the have somed now you political deceit here -- defeat here in a state that trump won by 20 points. the democrats are pulling and upset here, doing better than they did in the primary. that is going to be something other republicans start paying attention to, to see if the issident's political pull

not as strong as they hoped, and, you know, they have got a lot of senate republicans up next year, and they have a lot of house republicans who are starting to look at the political landscape and have decided to retire as well, so it is not great for the president. host: let's turn to the recording both the of you and your colleague at a bloomberg news and some testimony behind closed doors yesterday. one of the headlines is "career diplomats building a narrative of ukraine's pressure campaign by the president." what have you learned? >caller: so we have even more, i guesscaller: career, and in some cases white house officials, coming forward to the committee -- saying that they providing sort of more confirmation of details about what was going on behind the scenes and also how they viewed this phone call with the ukraine president zelensky on july 25. mike pence's aide, jennifer

appeared said trump more focused on his personal political agenda rather than some one policy objective with the united states on that call. that is not great for the president. tim morrison, a former cia director of the national did testifyncil, that he did not hear anything a legal on that call, but he provided more confirmation that gordon sondland, the ambassador , was talking about a pressure campaign to get ukraine's president to announce investigations. a number ofes after other diplomats have come forward and recent days to say that they also heard, either overheard conversations that happened friday night with david ukraine -- one of our

diplomats in ukraine overheard a conversation between trump and sond land. these are things that will be rolling out in the next few weeks of testimony. to roger me turn stone, because of the late 1980's, he has been a close friend and confidence of donald, what his closest and most public supporters, found guilty on friday of witness tampering, lying to congress, faces a potential of 50 years in jail. he is now in his mid-60's. there is some indication, at least based on the president's tweet, that he may be up for a pardon. caller: yeah, i mean, he clearly and thepardon, president has the power to give him a pardon, and the president has some tweets about roger stone, which seem sympathetic to stone. i think that almost certainly resulted in another article of

impeachment, however, for abuse of power from democrats. the key here is that prosecutors in trump's department of justice -- the reasonne why he was lying was to protect the president, and so you could have a situation where the president is pardoning people for lying to congress for him. that could be, you know, that would be a pretty dangerous precedent, potentially, if anybody who ever lies to congress does not have to pay a penalty. the think that is, uh, president may want to pardon him, but i think the consequences for that could be politically not so great for him somethingnly would be that would be another thing that democrats would take a hard look at. host:.

we are talking to steven dennis he covers the capitol hill and most notably the senate for bloomberg news. whether or notut you are sensing any division among republicans, either support or lack thereof, of republicans, because ultimately, they will be the jurors if this comes to a senate trial. guest: the president is working them hard. he is having senate republicans , 5, 10 atwhite house a time on different subjects. impeachment has been coming up. senate way i view republicans, as i talk to as many of them as regularly as i can come almost every other day, they sort of our in three buckets. is a bucket of five or 10 senators -- actually, less than that, usually, who are robustly defending the president all the time, and then you have got a much bigger bucket of senate republicans who do not want to talk about it at all, and if they do, they will sort

say a big talking point about or haven't seen anything yet, or they will wait until they see it when it gets over here, and then you have a may be much smaller group must 2, 3, or senate republicans who have said very critical things about the president's phone call -- mitt romney, susan collins -- who are not saying much after that, but have made clear that they are not happy. and then you have got a few people, like pat toomey of pennsylvania, who, at last believehis past week, that the call was inappropriate but not impeachable. and so that seems to be a bucket that could get a lot bigger, that a lot of senate republicans could ultimately not vote to convict but have some harsh

words for the president's conduct here. that is something that happened in the bill clinton and treatment. if you remember, joe lieberman gave sort of a scathing speech about clinton's conduct, but ultimately the democrats lined up to protect him from removal. and that could be where things are going. it is really hard to tell at this point. one thing that i don't think is likely is an actual removal, barring a collapse in the president's support amongst public and primary voters, because then come as a senate republican, you are essentially voting for the end of your career, because somebody is going to run against you and probably beat you if you actually remove a president that they like. host: a lot as the week unfolds with public hearings resuming on wednesday morning. steven

>> she spends washington journal, live everyday. coming up monday morning, we will review week two of the impeachment inquiry hearings with a wall street journal reporter and senior staff writer for the hill. later, discussion on the impeachment inquiry with george washington university law professor jonathan turley. be sure to watch washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern monday morning. join the discussion. ♪ >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white ande, the supreme court, public policy events from washington dc and around the country, so you can make up your on mine. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider.

c-span, your unfiltered view of government. during the turkish president's visit with president trump at the white house, some had the opportunity to ask the turkish leader questions on russia, weapons, and attacks on kurds in syria. here is a look at this meeting. >> we've been discussing trade and lots of other matters. i thought bringing over some of our republican senators that are very much well-versed in what's going on in turkey to meet president erdogan would be good. so we are having a very strong discussion on different things, including the safe zone and the border, the oil, and again, trade is a very big factor. so we are going to have a meeting for a little