presidents. laura brown, the head of the school of political management at george washington university discusses how the current nominating process came to be, including primaries, political conventions and electoral college. join us next sunday on c-span's q&a. up, washington journal takes a look at the next steps in the impeachment inquiry. we go to new hampshire for elizabeth warren poss town hall with union workers. after that we follow along with senator michael bennet as he campaigns in new hampshire. this morning on the washington journal, wall street journal white house reporter and scott wong discussed the upcoming hearings in the impeachment inquiry. later, george washington university law professor talks about what is next in the

impeachment process. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. next. ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, november 18, 2019 -- week 2 gets underway tomorrow. 8 witnesses are set to testify over three days before adam schiff's house intelligence committee. we are spending our first hour today asking if the three open hearings that have taken place so far have changed your mind on any aspect of the impeachment of president trump. if you find yourself changing your mind, 202-748-8000 is the number to call. if the open hearings have not changed your mind, 202-748-8001. textan also to send us a

this morning. that number, 202-748-8003. on social media, you can catch up with us on @cspanwj at twitter and at facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good monday morning. you can start calling now. some of the latest polling on whether bang mines are changing --m reuters-if so spoke reuters-ipsos poll over the weekend. reuters and if sauce -- ipsos with their poll on friday. 44% of u.s. adults said trump should be impeached. a similar poll that ran early in supportedound 45% impeachment, 42% opposed it.

the poll found 68% of americans said they were following the hearings, that includes 28% who said they were listening and hearing live on broadcast. 25% said they had not paid any attention to the proceedings in congress and on whether bang people are paying attention, the headline of the front page of the new york times, house hearings roll-on, but many tune out, that is the headline in the print edition today. overwhelmed by fact, fiction, and spin, many people are numb and disoriented, struggling to discern what is really an ac of slant and fake news. many americans have the opposite experience and turn to sources they trust that tell them exactly what they already believed to be true. we are talking about that topic and asking whether bang --

whether you have changed your minds. we are conducting a poll online on our facebook page to answer the question of whether bang it has changed your mind. 4.5 thousand voters say they change their mind. 87% said they had not changed their mind. we are getting your reaction whether it is via phone, or twitter or facebook. we want to hear from you. we start with john on the line for those who say they have not changed their mind. john, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am a bit more sophisticated than the average bear. i have had to deal with a lot of white-collar crime and white-collar criminals. host: -- am i on right now? okay, good. it is very sophisticated criminal behavior by the democrats. they have been accusing

president trump of the very crimes they have been committing. hillary clinton created the false dossier and went to the wrong people to get it and then they accused trump of russian collusion and he has been racist and the democratic party has been exposed of having plenty of racism and this joe biden thing with hunter on the board. and joe biden withholding the billion dollars until the prosecutor who was probing around was thrown off the case. this is what they accuse trump of. host: do you think 8 more witnesses this week will change your mind. are you open to changing your mind from what you are hearing and watching? caller: this is an inquiry, this is not a court. people get that confused. they can ask all the questions they want, but they have yet to

come up with sufficient evidence that would be impeachable. it is a lot of hearsay and nonsense, but the democrats are extremely successful at painting a picture of corruption within the trump administration, but they simply cannot put their finger on a really criminal event, which is why yes, i am open to if they could really find something. if it were to go to court, i would have to consider that if it were genuine evidence. so far, it is a lot of hoopla. half the people in the united states, more than half believe he should be impeached and this is the power of tv. television is an extraordinary -- extraordinarily powerful tool. on the line for those who

say they have changed their mind after that first week is david. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i love c-span. i am catching little bits watching your show in the morning. i just think the congress, our government is becoming sort of like a circus. i don't know and i am not a fan juste president, but i am being driven crazy by our government, i guess. forve been watching c-span 30 years. people had intelligent conversations. you guys used to have a democrat, republican sit on either side of brian lam or somebody like christopher stein.s along with ben people were not so angry and they were more nuanced and logical. i am disgusted with our

government, that's it. i am not making much sense, i am tired, so i better get off. host: did you watch all three of the witnesses testify last week? snippets.just watch because i am so disgusted with everything, even though i am very interested and watch -- host: how much do you think you will watch this week? 2 or threebably hours tops. i am not going to sit by the television or anything. i will fast-forward, watch it later or something. host: you called on the line to say you had changed your mind, what aspect have you changed your mind on? it was i just thought going to be clearer against the president. i don't think it is as clear as i thought it was and i cannot describe it right now because i

worked all night. i am tired and i am going to bed. host: thank you for calling us before you go to bed. he wasiting in i knew guilty before and the hearings have just fueled his hate, get him out already. lizzie saying it makes me more determined to do everything i can to possibly reelect trump next year. thank you, democrats, for keeping me alerted. i have heard no irrefutable facts, only hearsay, speculation and feelings, you cannot impeach a president on anything presented to date. i am disappointed in our congress and they better not shut down the government because they are not doing their job not passing the spending budget in time. host: that effort to move another continuing resolution. happening this week on capitol hill amid week 2 of the open

impeachment inquiry hearings, that resolution moving through the house and senate would have to be signed by the president before thursday when the current continuing resolution runs out. if this one is signed and passed by the house and senate, it would go to december 20. we are watching for that amid everything we will be talking about. allen in brooklyn, new york, is next on the line for those who say they have not changed their mind. caller: good morning. thanks very much. i have not changed my mind about the basic conclusion. there was already basis to move toward impeachment based on the mueller come clerk -- report. recusedo said have himself for the way he lobbied hiset his job before making summary of the report that distorted the outcome, i don't think most people have would

have concluded as the mueller court was as weak as they believed if barr had not painted a very inaccurate picture of what the report said. it basically said but for the fact of a memo in the 1970's that said presidents could not categorically been indicted, he would have been indicted bakes -- based on the facts. host: there is a lot of discussion about what happens when this gets into the articles of impeachment phase, what those articles should be. do you think the articles of impeachment should include aspects of the mueller report or should it be more narrow, more focused on ukraine, the phone call and the actions surrounding that phone call? caller: i think it should be both and the fact the mueller report included aspects of the misbehavior of so many of the trump campaign officials already sent to jail, including roger stone sent to jail during the

hearing on friday -- he was convicted and not yet sentenced, but he will be sentenced in february, it ties together the unity of the wrongdoing by the trump administration as it relates to the 2016 and 2020 election cycles and the fact they have been able to obfuscate the merits of the mueller report some designed to maintain legitimacy on the actions of the president while he is in office so mcconnell can salvage some of the many traditional nominees he pushed through during this administration, which probably never had legitimacy to appoint anyone and if they perhaps focus or sentthe impeachment to the senate on wrongdoing going into the 2020 election, maybe some republicans afraid of

having nominees claude back because of the illegitimacy of the president will be more actively considering impeachment because it is focused more on what may happen in 2020. host: on the line for those who have changed their mind during that first week of impeachment hearings is mary in tennessee. what did you change your mind about, mary? mary, are you with us? we lost to. bob in tennessee. go ahead, bob. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have not changed my mind. smoke andthis is mirrors by the president -- by the democrats. if people really want to know what is going on in the ukraine, go to the ukrainian media outlets. there was one thing this week, there were two major arrests in

the ukraine that no american media outlet i have seen has covered it. supposedly it is connected to the u.s. consulate in romania and another arrest was a banker for money laundering that has connections to high-ranking democrat politicians in the united states. if you really want to know what is going on in ukraine, go to the ukrainian media outlets. is the main outlet you trust for overseas information? give me the name of one? caller: the newspaper in kiev. i cannot pronounce the name of it, i will not try to. read ukrainian media outlets. the u.s. media is just malarkey. host: bob referring to the inspector general's report,

michael horowitz the inspector general for the department of on thatis working report to look into the origins of the russia probe and so we are waiting to see when that report will be released publicly. ken is next out of washington, d.c. for those who have not changed their mind. ofler: i apologize on behalf of the previous caller from tennessee that insulted you as being part of the media. i don't speak eastern slavic, so i am not going to refer to a ukrainian website or newspaper to get viable information. the truth remains the same, there is a lack thereof. donald trump has proven over decades he is on trustworthy. there is a process when it comes to impeachment on i certainly do not speak on behalf of americans

, but i know the rule of law. he has proven this by being a draft dodger, not showing his taxes. racism, which the first caller accused democrats of doing, you have to be more specific. i do believe the investigation has to continue. it is in the right direction and if he wants to clear himself, unlike the central park children he accused of a crime they did not commit, tried to prove themselves not guilty and they hee still found guilty -- has all the tools at his disposal to prove his evidence, but for some reason, he refuses to show them. host: if you have changed your mind when it comes to the impeachment inquiry, 202-748-8000 is the number. if you have not changed your mind during the first week of open hearings, the number to

call, 202-748-8001. we begin the segment by talking about some of the polling. here is another from the washington times today noting reports, a daily presidential tracking poll finding 50% of likely u.s. voters approve of president trump's job performance. overall approval has been tracking up since the first day of the impeachment hearings. -- 50%wednesday and 48% on friday. anna for harper pointing to those numbers. page.s the opinion

northstar opinion research is .he name of his firm while clinton and trump impeachment efforts differ dramatically on the politics and allegations, one similarity offers tantalizing parallels that can predict how the public reacts to the current -- overwhelmingly theng partisan reaction inquiry was such a partisan affair mr. clinton's impeachment had virtually no effect on his job approval. it began the summer of 1998 with 60% job approval. his approval never dipped below 60%, it bounced to 73% after the houseboat to impede -- houseboat

vote tochment -- house impeachment. if you want to read the column, today's wall street journal. 'smes in boston has not had opinion changed. why is that, james? jober: doing a fantastic and i don't have to worry about i get to to c-span, watch the impeachment. number 45, they will not change. they are going to do this thing and lose again. if democrats want to do something, let him do his little term and get him when he gets out of office. they are just wasting our time. thanks to you guys at c-span, we have got everything and i did

watch it. i watched c-span and i can catch up with the impeachment without wasting my life sitting in front of the tv, it is simpler and shorter with you guys doing it. host: let me give you uneven , c-span.orgtcut /impeachment for videos of the impeachment hearings, events, documents, briefings, responses from the white house all in one place, c-span.org/impeachment. rob is next from new york city on the line for those who have seen their opinions change when it comes to impeachment. on what aspect, rob? caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. originally, i was in the camp of what -- let's wait for the next election. as i hear more and more about the innerworkings of this fiasco

democracy, it seems is at stake. ,t seems we had an ambassador an outstanding ambassador, a diplomat that was fighting against corruption and she was removed from office. here you have a person who was fighting corruption in the ukraine and she was removed from office. trump is working against people who are fighting for democracy and against corruption in the ukraine. it was not clear to me that our national security was at stake, but democracy is on fire around the world and trump is throwing gasoline on the fire.

i would like to say one more thing. honestly.ple think honest people perceive others as honest and they give you the benefit of the doubt as being honest. an honest person's first thought when others talk is to believe them, figuring the person has no reason to lie. honest people project that others are being honest and by and large, that is what we do. what honest people don't know is spendsother person decades and decades and decades, most of their adult lives crafting the ability to lie, honest people don't get it. a and large lies, unimportant and important lies for the sake of the sport, the power of continuing took full someone ise that something else that

totally untrue, it is for power that people lie, for sport, it is an illness. host: audrey out of georgia is next, has not had her mind changed, go ahead. caller: good morning. i believe the president should be impeached and all the republicans calling around that are so hung up on obama and clinton, neither obama nor clinton is in office. obama has done his 8 years. , i always as a child heard if everybody all around you is saying the same thing, there has got to be truth in it. people are saying the same thing about trump all over the world, yet republicans refuse to say

they are telling the truth. i believe the biggest thing is he has them so brainwashed. if you listen to what republicans are saying, they are repeating things donald trump he has saidsaid and more times than one, if i say it enough, you will believe it anyway. i knew donald trump was no good, but i did not know there was so many other people in the world exactly like him, filled with hate and racism. host: the open impeachment inquiry hearings get underway again tomorrow morning at 9:00. we will go over a busy day's schedule at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow, two individuals that listened in on that july 25 phone call between president trump and ukrainian president zelinski at the center of the impeachment

inquiry, jennifer williams and lieutenant colonel alexander vindman will be together at a panel starting at 9:00 a.m. and we will have coverage on c-span and c-span 3. listen on the free c-span radio app and sometime around 2:30 tomorrow afternoon, another panel, ambassador kurt volker and timothy morrison, special assistant to the president and senior director for european and russian affairs at the national security council, they will be together in that panel. jennifer williams on that first panel is somebody who has caught the ire of the president at least in a tweet yesterday afternoon around 3:00. the president telling jennifer williams, whoever that is, to read both transcripts of the

presidential calls and the just released statement from ukraine and then she -- and then she should meet with the never trumpers and work out a better presidential attack. for theoad ahead impeachment inquiry and what happens after these open hearings end before the house intelligence committee, speaker nancy pelosi on the sunday shows yesterday was asked about the road ahead and here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> we have another week of hearings and there will be an intelligence report and then what? does the president get, as he said, to confront his accuser? >> what do you mean confront his accuser? confront the whistleblower? >> presumably. >> i will make sure he does not whistleblower.

he has every opportunity to present his case. it is really a sad thing. what the president did was so much worse than even what richard nixon did. nixone point, richard cared about the country enough to recognize this could not continue. the intelligence committee is leading this part of the inquiry , there are other depositions being taken by more committees. some of the depositions will continue and then what takes place in the intelligence, public will continue for another week. i don't know how much longer, i guess it depends on how many more witnesses they have. that is up to the committee. >> you expect that to be wrapped up before the end of the year? >> i have no idea.

>it is self-evident we have open hearings for the next week, i don't know if there are any beyond that. we are out for thanksgiving. and then when we come back, by then, maybe a decision or maybe they have more hearings. host: nancy pelosi yesterday on face the nation. the lead story looking at the week ahead in the impeachment inquiry, the headline, sondland is the pivotal piece to the puzzle talking about the european union ambassador testifying at 9:00 a.m. the e.u.'s envoy direct line to trump could open new doors in the inquiry. tim jordan also on face the nation was asked about gordon sondland's testimony and here was his response. [video clip] >> we have not heard from kurt volker yet, the first witness the democrats called, ambassador

voelker said everything was done and there was no quid pro quo things was done in -- are done in the best interest of the united states and ukraine. of that happened and ambassador voelker's testimony will be powerful when we hear from him later this week. >> specifically, he said there was -- he did not know there was not that there was not -- 4 facts that will never change, that is the funny thing about facts, the fact we have the transcript and there was no security assistance -- we have the two people on the call.

ukrainians did not know the aide was held at the time of the call and they did not do anything. >> i understand you are saying the aide was released, but are you comfortable with the investigation that was requested? >> the investigation that was requested? >> the president spoke to gordon sondland about this request to have the bidens investigated. >> i thought we were supposed to look at foreign involvement in 2016 elections. >> in the 2020 election, does that make you feel comfortable? >> there was never an investigation undertaken -- >> but the request for one? >> it did not happen. there is all type -- talk about things that did not happen. what did the democrats tell us? there was a quid pro quo. host: congressman jim jordan, the newest member of the house

intelligence committee, was put on that committee by republican leadership in the house just ahead of these open impeachment inquiry hearings. we are asking if any of the 3 witnesses we have heard from so far, if they have changed your mind, if the testimony you have heard, what has come out in the hours of hearings have changed your mind. if they have changed your mind --202-748-8000. betty in florida on the line for those who say they have had their mind changed. this is an old lady you are talking to, i am 90 years old and i went through the nixon impeachment. i was for nixon. i am telling you when i hear

trumppeople for president , -- one day at work with all my friends and they were talking about nixon, i got up and walked away and within two weeks, when the tapes came out -- no one wants to see a president impeached, but i believed for a long time, i think it is because i live in a community where we have a homeowners association and you cannot remove a board by the board, it has to be by the body that put you there. that is what i believe that president trump should be .emoved i don't listen to any stations like fox, even cnn.

i listen to c-span in the morning and i might get news later on at my local station. i decided just to watch the inquiry and i am telling you i have changed my mind. it might hurt some democrats, it might help some democrats, but after hearing the people i have , it is likee text the gentleman two calls back that said it hits like a light this iss is security, your democracy. host: you don't think we can wait until november 2020 and the election for the american public to decide this? caller: guest: -- caller: not anymore.

he could do a lot of damage in a whole year. i did not vote for president trump, i did not vote for hillary and the reason i did not vote for president trump is what he did to president obama. because i am independent, i did not vote for obama, but i thought what he did was terrible. for two years, he would not leave that man alone and i could not vote for that man knowing the things he did for the university and that kind of thing. maybe i am feeling like this because i am not going to live that long. i am quite ill. i can remember my mother who had me late in life, she had more excuses for living. she would see her grandchild. i have got great, great grandchildren and i think this is helping me because i want to see how this ends. host: we hope you are with us

for a long time longer and keep calling in to c-span. we will check in with you down the road, okay? caller: you are welcome. host: pennsylvania is next for the line who have not changed their mind, mike, good morning. caller: good morning. fiasco.d parts of this the two guys they had from the ambassador and the other guy, they knew nothing about this. i don't see what democrats are trying to do. yesterday and there was a democrat from the intelligence committee on the show and he basically threatened gordon sondland to put him in jail if he does not testify the way he wants and yet i don't hear anything about that this morning. the president sent a text that they say threatened this woman

and yet this committee member threatensnew show and gordon sondland and i don't hear anything anywhere. ist i really want to know democrats love to play this what if game. let's play the game. what if trump used the irs the democrat party to make sure they could not get a 501(c)? would that be impeachable? what of president trump use the fbi against the american press to find out who was leaking what? what if president trump was actually just trying to find out if this oligarch who owned burisma, what if he was trying to find out the russians were paying off the obama administration through biden's kid?

see any of this. i think the democrats have really overplayed this. host: you said you were watching chris wallace yesterday. president trump also watching chris wallace yesterday had this to say about the interview with steve scalise. obnoxious chris wallace away on his lowest rated , unless i am on it, morning show. this unfair interview would never have happened in the fox news pass, great job, steve. here is a little bit of the interview yesterday on fox news sunday. [video clip] >> if that was the case, then president trump would not have done all the things he has done to help ukraine stand up to russia. on the original phone call released, the president was

thanking president trump for the things he have done, like selling the javelin missiles. barack obama and joe biden would not sell ukraine those same javelin missiles. >> all of that is true, your statement of the record is accurate, but the differences between the april phone call and july phone call, president trump thatuspended military aid the u.s. congress had helped -- authorized, the president suspended that and the question is did he suspended because all he cared about was investigating the bidens? of -- part of what congress legislated had language attached that required the legislation -- making sure ukraine was rooting out corruption.

the law required that before any taxpayer money go to ukraine, the president had to ensure they are rooting out corruption, which ultimately, they did. the april phone call and july phone call, president trump never mentions the word corruption. what he talks about is investigations. investigations of democrats, possible interference in 2016, investigations into the bidens .nd paris some -- burisma said with the president asked is is he going to do the investigations? >> we can talk about second and third and fourth hand information who ultimately are going to testify, but what the facts are, did the money actually go to ukraine and even on the phone call, they talked about the steps ukraine is taking to root out corruption.

it was what zelinski got elected on. going back to possible interference russia was involved in in the 2016 election. one name you heard in that exchange, david holmes, that top official at the u.s. embassy in investigators on friday he had overheard president trump on a cell phone call at a restaurant in ukraine asking gordon sondland if ukraine's president agreed to conduct an investigation into his political rivals. in terms of keeping these names straight, we will talk more about that. we will do our usual week ahead in washington.

what we know of what they said in their closed-door depositions, many of which have been released, but not all of them. right now, we are asking has the open impeachment inquiry so far changed your mind. we mentioned the facebook poll we put up, now more than 8000 voters in that poll. saying the open impeachment hearings have not -- if yourr mind mind has changed 202-748-8000. if your mind has not changed, 202-748-8001. charlie's mind has changed. what aspect of the impeachment hearings have changed your mind? people notn you ask

to testify, and question the people who do testify, that is all. host: give me this specific incident you are talking about? caller: there are some people who were told not to testify, didthere are people who testify. those people want to question the people who are. i am saying something is wrong with that. host: do you think president trump should testify? caller: not necessarily, i am talking about the people he is telling not to. he is telling his people to question those who are. how do you go like that? in other words, some people have --host:t not to testify

do you think mick mulvaney in terms of the president's people -- do you think the acting chief of staff should testify? caller: sure. anybody who has knowledge of the situation should testify. that is the congress, right? i am a 100% disabled veteran. i started listening to c-span .hen the hostages were in iran changed over the course of the week. how have you changed your mind? caller: i was neutral.

-- information is they should subpoena all witnesses and they should be held accountable if they do not produce the information and that is the only way for americans to get the facts and down to the bottom of this. it is the courts. i think the courts need to expedite everything. ,ost: when you say the courts something as monumental as impeachment likely would make its way to the supreme court. do you trust the supreme court? caller: i have to. thishave the last say in buthey lean to the right,

more importantly, before it ever gets to the supreme court, they should be forced through the court system to testify and the subpoenas honored and respected and if it has to be fast tracked --the supreme court, of drum changed before the impeachment, the mueller report clinched it for me. i voted for trump. by the way, it was a big mistake. in favor ofemain impeaching the president, but there are many more crimes for which he should be impeached starting with violations of the emoluments clause and the constitution. still nothing impeachable although trump is still an ill mannered cad. democrats opened a pandora's

box, which is unfortunate for the bidens. it put the soviet style deep -ocrats on display and turned off millions. two748-8003 is the number text us if you want to get in touch. that is easiest when you tell us where you are from and your name when you do that. john, his opinion has not changed, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. republican,tered but i am a never trumper. i really called. life is a numbers game and i think c-span is to help the american public make good decisions, but my thought is i have listened to trump talk about how he has rebuilt the military and done all these

things. it c-span in the morning when they do the calls, you should put up the numbers of something like how far he moved the unemployment rate, how much has he really done to rebuild our military? to listen to everybody -- i watch c-span when i want to see what is going on in america -- what people say. people go how can we elect elizabeth warren in massachusetts but i am going how can somebody elect jim jordan in ohio? we are really divided and the only way we can really get back on track is to figure out what the real numbers are. a segmentsed to have every friday on the washington journal, america by the numbers. we worked with the census bureau to look into some aspect of the .umbers i will certainly bring it up if that is something you want to

see back. caller: it is really -- we are very divided and basically, it is a numbers game, people need to see the numbers and it is so hard to get them all out, i get it. and i dider trumper not vote for hillary clinton. i voted for johnson weld. as far as to watch what is going on in the united states of , our government -- i remember when they used to put the numbers up on how much we and hillary bush clinton and how much we loved our government. our government was always the lowest number like 16% and i am sure it has not changed much. as far as seeing what is going to happen in the future and as

far as impeachment goes, i am not a big let's impeached donald trump, but let's elect somebody that could get into office and do something for us. host: out of hollywood, florida, good morning. opinion has not changed, go ahead. are you with us? i hear your tv, but you have to stick by your phone. brenda in north carolina, opinion has not changed. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am just upset how all of this has divided our country so much. i voted for trump, i will vote for trump again. it is upsetting to see how -- it really bothered me, that one democrat caller, a woman, said we had been brainwashed by

trump. one has that kind of power to brainwash millions of voters that voted for trump. i would like to stick to the facts and the facts of this case and this impeachment inquiry has all been underhanded. it is not by the constitution, they are not fair and balanced. they are not letting the republicans -- they have to ask permission, it is almost like schiff is judge and jury. if you go to a trial, i heard done in the it is courts. if it is done in the courts the right way, both sides get to have witnesses. up theirs get to put

defenses. i think this impeachment inquiry and nancy pelosi comes on and says if the president wants to and give the facts and testify to prove himself innocent -- i thought this country was you are innocent until proven guilty? nancy pelosi is way off and so is the way this impeachment inquiry is being conducted. it is a sad day in america, but not for her, it is a sad day for the people to listen to such everywhere.m our president has been attacked since day 1. i think it right up more people don't how crooked -- i

know if they are crooked or not, but how unfair. the is a definite, that democrat party has become. get intoid if they office again, they would go rampant again like they did before. before brenda was talking about satisfaction with the government, trust in government, the gallup polling organization with their tracking areers about whether voters satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the government is run. this is their latest tracking number from september 3 through 15th of this year, obviously before the impeachment hearing scott underway. 35% satisfied with the way the nation is being governed, 64% dissatisfied. that compares about the same to what it was in 2018.

back in 2016 in september before the 2016 election, 23% satisfied with the way the government is being run. the lowest recent rate in their tracking poll, october 2013, just 18% satisfied. 81% dissatisfied to read all those numbers available at gallup.com as we hear from maggie in lakeport, california. her mind has changed over the course of the impeachment hearings, go ahead. haser: yes, my mind changed. i felt for sure democrats would be putting on a very strong inquiry hearing and they have not done so so far. leaningw, my mind is towards non-impeachment. host: why did you think they

would put on a very strong impeachment inquiry? caller: because of all the dialect going on in the party enthusiasm to have -- so far, it has not proven fruitful. host: jane out of texas. mind has not changed. caller: yes. the wrong button because i have not changed my mind. i still would vote for trump again. i go by what the bible says and the bible says you don't kill babies and don't do this or that. i am 86 years old and when i was working in the polls when i was 20, i found the people in this tried to get rid of --

mess with the elections because they would take and void ballots and at the end, they would have too many ballots. at 3:00, they finally told me they had voted the 6 ballots they had voided. host: do you think there is anything that could come out this week that could change your mind? are you open to changing your mind? caller: i do not think there is anything. anybody that could put up with the harassment president trump dayput up with since -- the he was confirmed, they started talking about impeaching him and he had not done anything as president. my rain out of maryland, the line for those who say their mind has not changed.

thank you for taking my call. i started listening about maybe 8 months ago. i have a brother who is a local politician, so to speak, a community activist and he convinced me to start listen to channels like you guys, it is good to hear news that has a ring of truth in it. my mind has not changed and some of the reasons why trump -- he does not tell the truth. i am trying to be nice about it. he will tell you a lie to contradict the lie he told you. you cannot believe him. his son-in-law were found to have met with russian folks who had affiliation with the russian government. his son-in-law admitted to the meeting to get dirt on hillary

clinton during the actual 2016 campaign when trump was running for office. admitted -- his son never did. maybe a year ago in march, trump said so what if my son met with the russians to get dirt on hillary clinton? and ad that in interview text. host: do you think there is many people out there whose minds could be changed on this topic? caller: i don't know. some people blind themselves to the truth. i used to listen and i got emails to my work computer that were against trump and they said and they said

a lot of stuff and i started realizing it was propaganda. i think he is lying. i think he is not telling the truth. if he is in fact doing a good job, i want to find that out, too. the average american is probably in that vein of thinking, we want to hear the truth, we don't want to hear a bunch of propaganda. host: you can keep watching tomorrow, it begins again at 9:00 a.m., it is c-span 3, two panels tomorrow, two individuals testifying at 9:00 a.m.. it continues with three more witnesses on wednesday and one more on thursday. there is the panel appearing tomorrow, jennifer williams and alexander of inman on that first panel. c-span 3, c-span.org, and the radio app, hope you watch all week long. we will be getting your

reactions. on the south carolina line for those who have changed their mind. go ahead. youer: yeah, i appreciate being gone because i think it is a free and honest exchange about this. i understand impeachment is a political process, but it should be a search for the truth and what concerns me is the way adam schiff has conducted himself and he is basically, since he is leading this thing, he is acting as a judge. for him to go to california in the middle of the impeachment hearings and tell a crowd of people how they are going to get president trump and how crooked he is takes all the impartiality out of it. i know they have been saying since day 1 they were going to

impeach him and 40 democrats did not show up because they denied he was even president. if you are going to have an impeachment, at least make it an honest search for the truth and if you have already made up your mind, you should take yourself out of that chair and put an impartial person in it. i appreciate you listening to me. host: david is next in arkansas on the line for those who have not changed their mind. caller: good morning. i would like to answer about mr. trump being under attack by the media and democrats. all is one of the most grandiose public figures we have ever seen. every time he makes a comment or performs an action, there is going to be a reaction to it. if you doesn't like it, he needs to stay off twitter. he needs to stop making

disparaging remarks against other people. some people find that offensive and they will comment on it. that is the way things go. as far as the impeachment going on, i think the media needs to emphasize one point more. ukrainep -- the aid to was approved by congress. it was then withheld. wase was no excuse that it being withheld until the new ukrainian president rooted out any type of corruption. it was withheld until the ukrainian president was going to make a public statement that the bidens were being investigated by the ukrainian government. it wasn't until the white house became aware of the whistleblower complaint that the funding was released. when you come up and say mr.

trump was doing his job, he was -- what did he do to ensure the corruption was rooted out? we haven't heard anything about that. all we have heard is that it was thateld up until the time the ukrainian president was to give his statement that they were actively investigating the bidens. host: we only have a few seconds left in this segment but you started off by talking about the president's twitter usage. we already saw yesterday, the president tweeting about one of the witnesses set to testify tomorrow, jennifer williams, special advisor for europe and russia in the office of the vice president. do you think there is any chance he stays off twitter this week? caller: absolutely not. trump is very grandiose.

he thinks his opinion counts more than anybody else's. he has an opinion and he believes everybody is entitled to it. the thing with mr. trump is, he is 73 years old, he began -- he behaves like a four-year-old. four-year-olds believe attention is good whether it is bad or not. good attention, if it is bad attention, it is great. the guy has the morals of a chipmunk. he doesn't care. as long as he attracts attention. he looks at all attention as and what did he do, 146 tweets in three days regarding the impeachment hearing and he claims he wasn't watching it? host: we will keep an eye on the president's twitter page today and in the days ahead.

that was the last caller in this first segment. up next we will take a look at the week ahead in washington, specifically in the impeachment inquiry. we will be joined by wall street journal white house reporter vivian salama and scott wong, senior staff writer for the hill. with, a conversation george washington university public interest law professor jonathan turley. we will be right back. ♪ >> a look now at some books being published this week. toanonymous author presumed be a senior official in the trump administration takes a critical look at the president in a warning. society, the author

compares the economic debates of the 1960's to those happening today. in black radical, a tufts university -- chronicles the life of early 20's newspaper editor william monroe trotter. also published this week, jodi on how's broke reporting detroit officials were affected by the city bankruptcy in 2013. university of city law school professor thomas mcgarity details how the electric power industry in america has changed over the past 40 years in the book, pollution, politics and power. look for the in bookstores this coming week and watch for many of the authors in the near future on book tv on c-span2. this week, the house intelligence committee and chair adam schiff continue public impeachment inquiry hearings. beginning tuesday morning at 9:00 eastern on c-span3, watch live testimony from jennifer

williams, aide to vice president mike pence and director for european affairs at the national security office and at 2:30, and timor kirk volkner morrison. on wednesday, testimony continues with u.s. to the european union gordon sondland. secretary --ty deputy assistant secretary of , under and david hale secretary of state for political affairs. on thursday, the committee will hear testimony from fiona hill, former national security council senior director over europe and russia. what's the first two public hearings in their entirety on our website, c-span.org/impeachment. you will find transcripts of witness testimony and procedures for the hearings plus a points of interest identifies key moments during the hearing.

this week, watch live coverage of the house impeachment inquiry hearings on c-span3, c-span.org or listen live with the free c-span radio app. "> "washington journal continues. host: each monday in this segment of the "washington journal," we take a look at the week ahead in washington. we could also call it the week ahead in the impeachment inquiry. joining us to talk about it is vivian salama, white house reporter for the wall street journal. scott wong is with the hill, senior staff writer. start us off by walking us through the witnesses who will be testifying tomorrow at these open -- at these open impeachment hearings. scott: i think the main witness that we are watching for on tuesday will be alexander been been. -- alexander vinman. he is a created a rack war veteran, a purple heart -- he is

war veteran, a purple heart recipient. he was on the phone call between president trump and the president of ukraine. the reason why he is significant is he raised alarm bells twice, once during a july 10 meeting between ukrainian officials at the white house and white house officials including gordon sondland. this all has to do with the alleged bribery or alleged quid pro quo where president trump has been -- the people around him have been demanding investigations, for ukraine to carry out investigations into the bidens in order to secure that $400 million of security aid. he will be critical, he will be able to speak directly to what it was like, what he interpreted on that july 25 phone call between trump and zelensky. host: talk about the pairing.

at 9:00, it is he and jennifer williams, aide to vice president mike pence. why that pairing in the morning and then the second pairing of kurt volker and tim morrison? scott: republicans have had a chance to submit their list of the initiald witnesses will be democratic witnesses. the second group with volcker and tim morrison will be republican called. the reason republicans want to call these individuals is because they want to ask them, was there anything illegal on this phone call that you heard, was there anything that -- have you had specific conversations with the president of the unit it states about this ukraine arrangement and what republicans are hoping, based on previous testimony, these individuals will say they heard nothing illegal, they heard nothing impeachable.

that is the significance of those individuals. the threee are two of republican witness requests that were granted by chairman adam schiff. it was a list of eight or more that was submitted by republicans. who is the other one republicans want to testify? scott: i don't remember the other one specifically. host: david hale? scott: possibly. the initial request included hunter biden himself, who was on the board of the ukrainian oil company as well as the whistleblower, the unnamed anonymous sub lower. republicans made that request and wanted to get the whistleblower in front of the committee, and a public setting. we don't know the identity of the whistleblower and adam schiff and the democrats have been very protective because the whistleblower's attorneys believe that because of the

threats made against that person, that individual, that person's life is at risk. host: a view of the white house here, we have already seen the president tweeting about one of these witnesses, jennifer williams. what are they anticipating? is there a witness they are most concerned about? vivian: it is not so much they are concerned as they are trying to discredit all of the witnesses, especially those like the lieutenant colonel who has come out. he is military, he is expected to be in full dress uniform when he goes to testify. his identical twin brother is also going to be sitting in full military uniform in the courtroom. there is a lot of optics here. host: the committee hearing room. vivian: sorry, the committee hearing rooms. i'm getting ahead of myself. they're going to be sitting there as well. the optics of this is something the white house does not like and the president has gone out in full force trying to discredit people like alex and

jennifer williams, calling them never trumpers and insisting that they actually have no reason to know anything about his arrangement with ukraine or what was taking place. yes they were nsc officials and were listening in on the phone calls because they were mandated to do so based on their says iibilities but he don't know them, they don't know me, so i would a have any idea or have any authority to go out there and testify? expect to see a lot more of that, the white house really focused on one person's testimony during the closed-door portions, tim morrison who we will hear from today -- this week, sorry. tim in his closed-door session insisted that while there were concerns about the conversation that president trump had with president zelinski, he did not feel anything illegal took place

and this is something he discussed with nsc lawyers and others and that is something the president really latched onto immediately and said thank you tim morrison, there was nothing illegal that took place. he really wanted to convey that message. inwill be interesting to see an open hearing, especially with the former ambassador to ukraine, a lot of times they can be very gripping for the public to see. those are the ones that ultimately could have a major impact on public opinion. it is a really important week. host: the president up and tweeting this morning, about 42 minutes ago, saying never has the republican been so united. this is a great fraud being played out against the american people by the fake news media and their partners the do-nothing democrats. the rules are rigged by pelosi and schiff and we are winning and we will win. the president from earlier this morning. taking your calls this morning. call in if you have questions

about a very busy week. week two of the open inquiry hearings. we are going over it all with scott wong of the hill and vivian salama of the wall street journal. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202)-748-8002. throughng, we walked tuesday, let's walk through wednesday's slate of witnesses and what is expected to be the highlight. big name wednesday will be gordon sondland. he is trump's friend bassett are for the european union. he is sort of at the next is of all of these events. he pops up on various phone calls with the president. he is there in the july 10 meeting with the ukrainians in the white house, this is the meeting if you remember where john bolton storms out of the

meeting, because he does not like what he is hearing from sondland, where if you let it -- if you investigate the bidens, and help president trump, we will release the aid. he is also on the phone call, july 26 phone call with president trump where he is in a restaurant in kiev, holding the phone up to allow other people at the dinner table to listen in on the conversation. they hear president trump's voice and there are staffers who have testified behind closed doors already that what the president was talking about was asking about the investigations, the quote, investigations, presumably about the bidens. he was very engaged and at the center of this entire episode. today,he lead story

sunderland is the pivotal piece to the puzzle. scott: and if you think about have to -- how democrats have set up the testimony, you will have folks coming forward on tuesday, who will be able to testify about sondland's involvement, what they heard sondland say at various points. , it puts a norma's pressure puts -- that puts enormous pressure, it puts sondland in a box as he tries to figure out what he is going to say on wednesday, whether he is going to stand by the president and say the president did nothing wrong, that he never heard the direction toe this him, or if he throws the president under the bus. host: and the week ends on thursday, with fiona hill of the national security founts -- formerly of the national security council.

why end with her? fiona was one of the first people to testify during the closed-door sessions. she had a purview of the incidents that happened in the lead up to the phone call on july 25 with president zelensky. she was very knowledgeable about some of the activities taking place as early as march, where rudy giuliani was turning to pop up in ukraine policy and a lot of national security officials were starting to get concerned about that. julyas there until about when she departed from the national security council. tim morrison stepped in. he was there for the fallout with the call but fiona completes the narrative that tim morrison will be offering earlier in the week. the two of them together with their senior roles at -- as director for europe and russia, they really had an important purview. host: plenty of questions, plenty of calls. iris is up first out of

michigan, independent. you are on with scott wong and vivian salama. caller: it seems like the president can rub his stomach and head at the same time, he tweets while walking and talking to the press. nobody has asked him, are you doing the tweeting. sarah huckabee sanders says it is not him, that is misleading. i've never seen him walk around with the cell phone. i never know who is who or what is what. there is so much concentration on what he is tweeting when we can hear him saying what he is saying all the time. i thought it might be interesting to see all these photos of this lady ambassador walking with the crowds in ukraine. she is ukrainian and they showed

a picture on tv yesterday of her walking with a crowd wearing a t-shirt. host: do you want to know more about marie yovanovitch? caller: she spelled out the conditions in which she was going to answer the questions. and they listened to her. they did not approach any of the things she didn't want to talk about. she has a new job. ethic the government is paying her. she had a lot of choices in this matter. host: iris in michigan. scott wong on marie yovanovitch. scott: a very credible witness. democrats wanted her to come across as a sympathetic witness, somebody that could pull at the heartstrings of the people watching this testimony. got wasp the democrats the president's tweet him -- itself when he was attacking her credibility and her service, particularly in somalia.

that was her first post when she was a young diplomat. the president essentially blamed her for the botched military raid that was made famous in the movie black hawk down. she was there years before the 1993 raid. there is no evidence that she was directly responsible. i think what that did was, as she was sitting up there testifying to some of these events, testifying about the unusual back channel policy that was being conducted by rudy giuliani, the president's personal attorney and folks in ukraine as well as in washington, that tweet really helped democrats underscore this idea that she was a believable credible and synthetic witness. host: vivian salama, we have talked about the tweets already but can you explain what is going on in the so-called war room and what the response is there and how it is changed by

real-time presidential bid hearing tweets? vivian: that is a good question. it was a slow start to put it simply. the white house really wasn't sure exactly what approach it wanted to take. on the one hand, the war room --uation is ideal they have had some semblance of a war room where they had a team able to handle the messaging on this issue and let the white house focus on policy issues. for a while it was not really clear what the white house was going to do because of the end of the day, donald trump likes to be his own messenger and speak for himself and it is hard to get ahead of him when it comes to any kind of messaging because of incidents like you described were he will go out and tweet mid hearing and it could cause a little bit of a kerfuffle. that has been an issue. determined that they did start a war room and brought in

a former treasury department spokesman who is going to be handling a lot of messaging and also the former attorney general of florida involved in that effort as well. what they are trying to do is steer the messaging. points tot talking republicans on the hill and elsewhere to try and unify the message, talk about never trumpers, the fact that the conversation contained nothing illegal in it. you mention, which gordon sondland earlier, one issue they are focusing on now is that a lot of these roads lead back to gordon sondland. putting words in the president's mouth has been a challenge for the democrats until now where you have the president explicitly demanding a quid pro quo of any kind. you have a lot of narrative with allegations that gordon sondland was blunt about quid pro quo but not with the president. only since friday when we heard from david hale did we start to

hear about the phone call where the president was overheard asking about investigations. that was the first time we got any glimpse of what the president was thinking or saying behind closed doors. it remains an issue. the war room is focusing on this saying no one can connect the dots to president trump himself. that is going to be a challenge moving forward. int: to keep our davids order, david holmes is who you are talking about, david hale is testifying leader. your thoughts and your questions and your questions instead of -- on this topic. john out of michigan is next, democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. not john, donald. it's ok. inquiry is going very well so far.

as they are saying they don't trust the hearsay, the hearsay is coming from career to the twon the nsa -- these are not your run-of-the-mill people saying that they heard this. problem,o solve the have trump testify, have the nsa people on the phone show the transcripts and take it from there. if trump is innocent and he says ax, come to the people, swear to tell the truth and take the questions. pelosi did leave that opening for the president yesterday, saying he is welcome to come. vivian: it is a great idea in theory but actually getting it

to happen is another story. we saw something similar layout during the days of the mueller investigation, having the president come in and testify and give a statement in person. a couple questions were answered in print by his lawyers but to have him in person was another story. host: what about mick mulvaney? is there a chance he could testify? vivian: at this point it looks like no. a number of white house officials including mick mulvaney and a couple formers deputy,n bolton and his all of them saying that there is a conflict now between the demands of congress and executive privilege which they are adhering to. they want the courts to decide whether or not there is any daylight between those two issues. host: and if they do come in, scott wong, that would set up

possibly a third week of open impeachment inquiry. could you take us through the road ahead of what you expect to happen after the 11th and final witness testifies this week? scott: it does not seem like the democrats want to drag this out into a third week of hearings. we are going to have the second week of hearings this week and then we are into a thanksgiving recess. congress will take a break at that point, presumably that is the point where adam schiff and his committee, the intelligence committee will write the report about what they have learned during the closed-door depositions that have not been released to the public as well as what is transpiring in these public interviews. for democrats to take a pause and regroup and forward that report and the recommendations to the judiciary chairman, jerry nadler of new york who will then decide and it is an open question at this point, do they take up a whole

other series of hearings or do they quickly move and write the articles of impeachment themselves which they will then convey to the house floor. host: in the resolution on how the impeachment investigation would be run, it would pass on a partyline vote. didn't say that the president would be represented at the judiciary committee part of the impeachment effort? what does that representation look like if you are not holding open hearings? scott: let me be clear. there will at some point be a public markup of the articles of impeachment. host: so what the president's lawyer be at a markup? scott: if they choose to do so. i have not been through this process. i wasn't here during clinton and certainly not nexen. it remains to be seen what exactly that will look like. it remains to be seen whether they will participate. i assume they will want to have their say.

maybe vivian could speak more to the white house angle. that is why it is so fascinating because a lot of the stuff, we are learning and experiencing on-the-fly. that is why that is going to be a historic process as well. vivian: i don't think they have a plan yet. i think they are coming to the realization that the chances of him getting impeached are increasingly high. we asked the president himself on friday, in the roosevelt room. he was asked quite bluntly, do you think you will be impeached. he responded surprisingly, well i shouldn't be. it was the first time it felt like yesterday to come to the realization that this could happen. they have not established a concrete plan on how they will have the articles of impeachment vote. host: talk about what we know

about the president's unscheduled medical checkup that took place over the weekend. vivian: it is shrouded in mystery. over the weekend the president had no public scheduled -- suddenly there was a movement with the motorcade and it was to an unknown destination. he ended up going to walter reed. later on, the white house insisted that the visit was because he is going to be so busy in 2020, they wanted to schedule his annual physical a little earlier than normal so he could get that out of the way. they said he remains healthy. obviously a lot of questions surrounding that. the white house is not answering something -- whether or not something happened or if there were any issues. it was a couple hours in the making, so maybe not an emergency but whether or not there was actually a health problem or concern of some kind, we are still asking about that. is your schedule, win

or we going to see the president next? vivian: he has no public schedule. no events on sunday or monday. nothing public today. he has some -- he has some closed-door meetings. a number of questions being asked, when can we see the president? this is something that a lot of journalists have been pushing for. host: coming up on 8:30 eastern this morning. we are chatting with vivian salama of the white street -- of the wall street journal, washington -- white house reporter along with a senior staff member at the hill, scott wong. taking a look at the week ahead in the impeachment hearing. bill, on our republican line. caller: thank you for your time. sayingto start off by that i am very concerned about think thisia and i is another example, what you are

conducting here, that if we lose the media, we no longer have a free republic. the tweet by intimidation is laughable. play thesk that you ask you congresswoman from new york. heruld ask that you play questioning to when marie yovanovitch was questioned about &a before theq senate. i would ask that you be fair and play that this morning. i want to finish. instead of the intimidation by tweet, i would ask you play that. host: i don't have that clip queued up right now. caller: host: how convenient.

can you explain why you think that was important? in and she was practiced she was informed about burisma and joe biden. i would let the audience -- the audience should be interested in hearing that instead of the tweet over and over again, that is the propaganda i am listening to. no disrespect, but there is another side to this story. it is another example what i am hearing from these two fine people and you, also, the guests -- you are all members of the media. we are losing the media today. we no longer have a free republic. it is not going to be fair and objective. host: bill in pennsylvania. this is steve out of illinois, independent. ask a fewjust have to

questions. i am wondering how hunter biden cushy job. job, it looksushy =toojoe biden has dirt, -- dirt, too. it is sad to see everyone in america has so much hate for each other. don'treally sad and i know what else to say. everybody is so decisive, it is pathetic. host: hunter biden was on that request. guest: he joined the board of burisma, a ukrainian oil company had, inime joe biden

his portfolio of work, ukraine, which has been in a conflict with russia. that is significant because the appearance of it, and hunter biden acknowledged this himself, the appearance was not good. hunter biden said if my name was not biden, i probably would not have gotten that job. host: is that a recent interview? guest: there was a televised interview after this came out. the bidens recognize there was an appearance of impropriety, but there has been nothing proven based on federal law that hunter biden did anything illegal himself. the argument goes if congress wants to address the issue, they should pass a law preventing this stuff from happening. republicans, -- do you want to go ahead? guest 2: the prosecutor general in -- conducted

an investigation and found there was nothing. it has been looked into in terms of from the ukraine side and u.s. side. i want to assure the caller that reporters do continue to look at the issue very seriously and examine whether there is something we do not -- there is definitely a lot of reporting being done on both sides as well. host: this is joan, a republican. caller: i wanted to address the .ovanovitch testimony like the guy said, i think it was from pennsylvania, she looked very coached. the got -- the part where they got to burisma, she played that off as if someone had coached her. she turned my head 90 degrees when i saw that because how is

she trying to go after corruption with ukraine and avoiding what happened with biden and his son? i don't understand that with biden, either. investigateden be under the circumstances? was there money being given to burisma to increase gas outage? coming out of ukraine because of biden's son being on the board? host: we lost joan. why don't you jump in more on hunter biden, what else should we add here? guest: simply the idea that president trump was not talking about corruption in general, he

was talking specifically about joe biden and hunter biden, joe biden being at that time the person he perceived as the biggest threat to his reelection. argument from democrats is taxpayer money should not be used to force a foreign government to investigate your chief political rival, that is essentially putting their argument in the simplest of terms. people are looking at this through their own lens, weather it was appropriate for hunter biden to be -- whether it was appropriate for hunter biden to accept this money, folks in the press have concerns about that themselves. impeachment and president trump, the question is should the president have been focused so much on investigating his chief political rival. host: my producer trying to find that interview with hunter

biden. abc news from october 15, hunter -- the story noting the 49-year-old maintained a low profile as the president has allies targeted him for his business in ukraine. he wishes he had anticipated future attacks from his father's political rivals about it. the headline if you want to read about it -- hunter biden hits back at trump taught in abc news interview. george in rhode island, a democrat, good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: i am calling about the girl that has been in there 33 years in ukraine, she has been so credible, it is not funny.

33 years, he lets her go. he thinks he is on the "apprentice" show. he doesn't listen to anybody and this lady said she got coached, what coach? where are his taxes? the court ordered him to turn in his taxes from new york and he has not turned them in yet. what does he think he is doing? i don't understand him at all and now he is going to the hospital. host: vivian salama on president trump's taxes. waiting.still we have not heard the audit response in a while, but for a long time he has said it is a customary audit, so we will not see the taxes anytime soon. he has maintained he is not

required by law to show his taxes and why should he? on year 3, we have yet to see his taxes. host: is that another topic reporters ask about? guest 2: there are so many we keep asking about. trade isment, is it -- a huge issue and it will continue to be an issue, we are waiting for him to sign a deal with china and that is important because we are going into an election year and a lot of people want to know will they have their farm products purchased -- a lot of people pushing on the trade deals as well. host: in terms of what we are waiting on this week, a potential continuing resolution to push off a government shutdown that would happen thursday if the senate and the president do not come together. explain where we are and what thatimeline looks like for continuing resolution we have been talking about. guest: the house and senate look

like they will move forward that will take funding through december 20. the reason that a significant is we will be put in another shutdown situation around the same time we anticipate based on our best guess that the house will be voting on impeachment. votesill put two major around the same time on a parallel path. it could be a collision course because we don't know what the president will do. he could be in a mood where he does not want to sign a bill that does not include funding for his border wall, which is what congress likely will send to him. the president could decide maybe i will shut down the government again. he has done so in the past over a fight over his border wall and obviously he has it in the back of his mind this is a house of representatives that is going to impeachment. host: vivian salama -- signing

that december 20 continuing resolution? guest 2: we don't know. he wants his border wall and this has been a sticking point with congress for a while. one of the incentives, perhaps, of delaying is the vote would run into the house impeachment aquiry and it could cause little bit of a conflict in terms of trying to get everything done before the end of the year for congress and possibly delay a vote. i think that is the hope for the white house. a delay is a little bit too their incentive. host: another topic we will keep an a on on c-span and you will do it in your jobs as well. tyler, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: my question is just this. do you seriously expect the

democrats -- the american people to care the president asked to investigate joe biden's literally crackhead son for being on the payroll of our global enemies? host: tyler with his question into --ers, this is lou luinda. watch to the president over the last couple weeks campaigning in louisiana and it brought back to me the things he said to the police like don't shield their heads, let them miss -- let them hit their heads. that reminded me of having to watch my father get beaten to a pulp and the police bring him home. no one knew what happened, no those typething and

of things that president trump is talking about, this is bringing all of this back and that is why this guy did not win in the louisiana because poor no whatnd poor blacks happened, especially people my age, they know what happened and they remember. i am sorry, i am kind of emotional about it. thank you for listening. host: thank you for calling. inian salama on the election louisiana and before that, kentucky, back to back defeats serve as a warning to trump and republicans. what is the white house thinking about these elections today? ? guest 2: the president really made a push in louisiana and kentucky and virginia before that and did not really see the results he hoped for. one interesting thing before the virginia and kentucky elections

was he went on twitter -- at a rally in kentucky and told them of vote for these guys is a vote for me and he was accusing the media of essentially turning it on him if the republicans lose and saying you don't want that to happen, so you will go out and vote for these guys. i think he takes it as a referendum for his work and he is paying attention to what has been happening. there are some really tight races we are going into next year and it will be very interesting to see, democrats, we are not yet in primary season, so i think a lot of things will be clearer the next couple months. definitely something the white house is paying close attention to and hoping the impeachment inquiry will rev up the base and make them come out in full force in 2020. host: do you want to talk about john bel edwards' victory in

louisiana? guest: there is a concern from republicans in these tight races. do i want the president coming to my state and holding a rally when that has not worked out in bevins case and in the republican challenger's case, running against the democratic governor in louisiana. these are real questions being asked right now as republicans reassess the landscape and see whether or not, they are against the backdrop of this impeachment hearing. we looked at some polls this morning, abc-ipsos had a new poll that said 70% of voters -- theof voters said president's conduct was wrong. still divided as a whole over whether the president should be impeached and thrown

out of office, that is sort of where we are, the landscape right now. left just about 15 minutes , here to join the con -- if you want to join the conversation, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and 202-748-8002 for independents. john out of knoxville, tennessee. good morning. host: good -- caller: good morning. how is everybody? host: doing great. caller: i have a question in regards to the biden situation and to have your two guests reflect on the idea. when joe biden made his comment about being able to hold back a certain amount of money until some prosecutor was fired or let go, that was done, i believe, ofn biden had the security thinking hillary clinton was going to be the president of the united states. i never hear anybody pose any question along the lines of why

he made that comment when he made that comment and never received any blowback. the second thing i would like to see your guests talk about and it has been common amongst a lot of my fellow friends and associates about term limits and why doesn't c-span spend time on that question and get the feel of the american people in regards to this idea of people being in political office all , all relying on people to support their campaign with donations, lobbying groups, all of these people who influence their decisions and why it would be better for this country if we had term limits. host: we have done several segments on term limits including when a piece of legislation was on capitol hill in the last month or two, we had a pro term limits and anti-term limits guest who ended up

testifying at the senate hearing later in the day and they talked about it for an hour on c-span. go to our website, search for that. it is a question we occasionally ask viewers although there has been so much news, it is hard to get to those questions. on biden's comment from withholding money -- you can talk a little about that and whether you think he regrets making that statement. host: i need to hear the statement again, i don't recall the statement he is talking about. face a lot ofto questions about this issue, obviously, in terms of coming out and explaining the role his son played and what -- how he felt and whether there was impropriety or he was using his father's position for financial gain. at the last debate, former vice

president biden actually said he wanted to let his son speak for himself, his son had given that he wantediew and so to focus more on issues and insisted president trump was --ing to divide that has been his general stance .n the issue guest: the prosecutor biden had was somebody the international community had seen as corrupt and was trying to remove. this was not just joe biden himself intervening in a situation. it joe biden was there as part

of the international community thiswas trying to oust individual the community saw as being corrupt. this was not joe biden acting on his own. host: about 10 minutes left, this is gaye out of kentucky. caller: i wanted to let you know, i am a born and raised democrat all my life, 72 years old and for the first time this a straighted republican ticket and it is because of all the corruption i am seeing on the democrat side. i have never seen such attacks in my life on the president of the united states that our country should treat with respect. that is why he fights back and says the things he does because he is treated with such disrespect, it is appalling. i am shamed of the way people think.

this lady, i would like to say to her, you have not seen that tape of biden bragging how he stopped and insisted they fire this prosecutor or they did not get the money? he is bragging about it and cursing? are you that uninformed? host: i actually wasn't sure which one he was referring to. host: he meant the council on foreign relations. guest 2: i am familiar. i take everything she says to heart in terms of the attacks and everything that has been happening. on a personal note, i had been working overseas. i was a foreign correspondent until 2016. it did seem like a very heightened atmosphere for combativeness when i came back and it was eye-opening for me to

experience that and have to report on it after a long time of being away. i would not say who started it because i think it is just politics in our day in age -- everybody kind of fires shots at each other and i think the president is partially to blame for that, as is everyone. host: where did you report when you are a foreign correspondent? many placesave too to list. last -- the last position was baghdad bureau chief. i was on the front lines when isis took over the country and i came from that to covering the campaign in the white house. definitely a change in scenery, but an intense beat. host: how many years did you send -- spend overseas? 13.er: the -- guest 2: politics has always been a tough game, but the 2016 campaign was

definitely on another level and it has not really died down after the election, so it is something we see a lot. your point taken for sure. host: how long have you been on capitol hill? guest: i have been on capitol hill 9 years. i worked at politico first and then moved to the hill. before that, spent time at local newspapers in san francisco bay and the arizona republic where i captured -- cover the state capital and phoenix city hall. host: in your time on capitol hill, any thoughts on the change vivian salama was talking about? itst: when obama was here, was a divisive time, you remember the tea party movement. politics since then has been divisive. the difference under trump is trump punches back at anyone who criticizes him. that was not necessarily the style in the case of president obama.

anyident trump will not let attack go unanswered, if you will and that, in my observation, is the biggest difference between the presidents. host: wanted to get as many of your calls as we can, natalie has been waiting in washington. thanks for getting up for us this morning. caller: just a couple of things. i have been watching the hearings and i have been so impressed by these people, just that they are servants to the country. political pundits, congressmen, -- where youd leave your politics at the door, you do the business of the people, we could learn from those folks. i have not heard a lot about it -- now that stone has been convicted -- it has been proven with the testimony that the

president did lie on his written answers and i would like you to talk a little bit about that and -- may possibly being a road to an article of impeachment. host: scott long on roger stone. guest: i think the timing of his conviction was significant. several of the seven counts he was convicted for was lying to congress. the doj sent a clear message that if you lie to congress, we could come after you. that is sending to desk a message to people -- that is sending a message to people testifying on capitol hill, including gordon sondland, who has been somewhat inconsistent. at one point he said he had aver had conversations about quid pro quo and a week later he

revised his testimony to say based on other people's testimony, my memory has been refreshed and i recall a conversation with ukrainian asking forbout investigations in exchange for giving the military aid. mindis in the back of the of a lot of these people coming to capitol hill. if i lied to congress and it is clear, there is a chance i could be prosecuted for perjury. host: teresa out of little rock. caller: hello? host: go ahead. making thisybody is impeachment process about what might or might not happen next year with the republican and democrat election and how they are doing the bribery and whatever against -- trump is

using to go after biden. isn't that kind of what democrats are doing? i have heard several democrats say we have to get him out of office because he will win next year. aren't they doing the same thing on trying to have an impact on next year's election? my last item is would you agree with my theory or not that about 85% of the media, print, online, is to the left of center. that is what i was curious about, thank you. guest 2: two your first question, you do here a lot of folks talking about the risk of president trump -- democrats talking about the risk of president trump getting reelected and the fact we are an impeachment process should be eye-opening. the rhetoric i hear more often is one that encourages people to go out and vote -- and vote, the best way to get them out of office, if that is what people

want, is to go to the polls and democrat. whether or not impeachment is the solution, don't forget that if he is impeached, he is not necessarily removed from office. thes not necessarily solution some democrats want and that is why voting is the emphasis of the argument to say if you do not want president trump to be elected a second term, you have to vote him out and it will not be through an impeachment process. is oftenk there misunderstanding about how the impeachment process works. if you are going to get impeached, will he be out of office? that is not the way it works. the election is more of a solution if they want a new president. as far as your question about the media, i hope not. we are doing our best to be

objective as possible. whether or not you believe the media tends to be left-leaning, it is something -- there is a stigma the media tends to be a little bit towards the left, i can only speak for myself and say i try every day to be as objective as possible. host: eugene, independent. caller: i have a question for both of your journalists. i believe at the beginning of the trump administration, i heard the administration had given ukraine some 80, but it was only conditioned on the fact ukrainian government drop charges against paul manafort host: do either of you want to jump in? it's that question of loyalty for the present despite

everything that he has gone through, and the president still says he is a really nice man and he was essentially framed for these issues. host: vivian salama is a white house reporter and scott long at the hill, we do appreciate your time at the beginning of a busy week for both of you. up next, stick around we will be joined by jonathan turley talking more about impeachment and the legal issues, and that begins in just a minute air on "the washington journal." ♪ >> for 40 years coverage of the white house, congress and the supreme court and public policy events from washington and around the country, so you can make up your own mind, created

by cable in 19 79, brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span your unfiltered view of government. >> a look now at some books being published this week, and anonymous author presumed to be an official in that trump administration with a look at the president and a warning. of the economic debates of the 19 60's to those that are happening today, and in black radical, a chronicle of the life of the early editor and civil rights activists william trotter. on how several detroit residents were affected by the city bankruptcy in 2013. and a law school professor details how the electric power

industry has changed over the past 40 years in the book "pollution politics and power." look for these titles and watch for many of the authors in the near future on c-span two. this week the house intelligence committee and chair adam schiff continue they impeachment inquiry beginning tuesday morning at 9:00 eastern watch live testimony from jennifer lieutenant colonel alexander been to men. and ambassador kurt volker, a special envoy to ukraine and white house aide tim morrison. on wednesday, testimony continues with an abbasid or to the european union, gordon sondland and then debbie assistant secretary of defense laura cooper and david hale

under secretary of state for political affairs. on thursday at 9:00 a.m. eastern the committee hears testimony from fiona hill, border security council saturday --senior director for it watch the public hearings in their entirety on our website. you'll also find transcripts of testimony and procedures for the interestplus and feature identifying key moments during the hearing. ofs week watch live coverage the impeachment inquiry hearings on c-span three, c-span.org or listen live wherever you are with our free 80 lap. radio app. welcomeways glad to jonathan turley back to the desk. professor, in your latest column on the inquiry, you called the current effort perhaps the

narrowest impeachment in history. what is the difference between a narrow impeachment and a wide faced impeachment? iesco -- building this inquiry is comparable to building a building, and the tallest structure you can build in the constitution is the impeachment of a sitting president. this would be the narrowest in the history of the country. they are proceeding on an abuse of power there he based on one controversy involving ukraine, nothing from the russian investigations, none of those crimes will be part of this impeachment. likemeans it will be more the impeachment of andrew johnson than richard nixon. that was the gold standard ironically because he resigned, but it was such a strong case that he did resign. it was broad, had a lot of different types of criminal

conduct and a very developed record. this is more like andrew johnson. articles in that impeachment, but they were based on the tenure in office act and the firing of the secretary of war. it failed in the u.s. senate of course. it is a concern, if you want to see tricksy removed instead of see --if you really want to prostate removed, instead of impeached. host: compare this to the recent effort, the clinton impeachment, was that narrow or wide? guest: it was narrow. i testified as part of the hearing of experts on the impeachment standard and it was narrow. there's one big difference, and that is clinton was accused of a criminal act. a judge later said that he

clearly did commit perjury and that is something that thousands of people have gone to jail for. even though it was narrow, it had a strong criminal element. i think that narrowness did play against it. i think that's one of the reasons he was acquitted, and it is a warning for house managers not to build these tall impeachments, if you want to take out a sitting president, you will need something broader. host: one of the theories that nancy's losey --nancy pelosi has specifically designed this so it would fail. explain this. anomaly, yous an have others who have been saying for three years that impeachable and criminal acts are now well established by the president, stemming from the russian investigation. the democratic leadership made it clear that they did not want to see in impeachment on any of

the russian investigations and that is not the part of the inquiry thus far. that creates a strange anomaly. you have been telling us for three years these are clearly established impeachable offenses, and one of two things are true, either they are not clearly established or you don't want to remove the president. take your choice, but you would think you would broaden the impeachment. what we do know is that the speaker has been opposed to impeachment. she has been the primary force that has slowed it down. that created an odd situation. for three years the democrats have not made steps towards impeachment significantly. testifiedhoto -- i month ago and said why aren't you getting an impeachment vote and proceeding? you are running out of runway. they did it, but now they want to vote by the end of december not only will this be the narrowest in history it is also

the least developed evidentiary based. we will have relatively few witnesses and this will be a pretty slender base to go to the senate. host: nancy pelosi is not using the term bribery. is that impeachable? guest: most certainly. it is one of the named offenses. but this is not it. adam schiff also raise this argument that it is bribery. that dog will not hunt. if they try to argue that that is bribery, this will come to a crashing conclusion because it will undermine their credibility. you can impeach someone on abuse of power, and some republicans have said you cannot impeach him on just that. you most certainly can and you can impeach him on quid pro quo. that is just not the strongest basis because there is a lot of debate about that. this is not bribery. the chairman said bribery meant

something different back in the constitutional time, and i chuckled because it suddenly sounded like an originalist, but fortunately for adam schiff, he is wrong, that there was a different meaning of bribery, but it was not this broad definition that he is suggesting . in the constitutional convention mason had an exchange with madison or mason said we cannot bribery, treason and and instead he wanted to introduce a broader term, maladministration. madison then said that is really broad, what does that mean? crimesded up with high and misdemeanors, but the record contradicts with the chairmanship said, that they did not you bribery as this broad concept. on narrow and

wide based impeachment efforts, the hill newspaper, his column last week, are democrats building a collapsible impeachment? and you can see all of his writings there, and the phone numbers if you want to join us this morning, (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202)-748-8002. lots of colors waiting for you. a democrat from michigan, good morning. i watch you on tv, a pretty smart guy, no doubt about that. if you can up each the president, what else is there left to impeach anybody about, this is a small thing, a very low thing, and i don't get it. last question, i heard that , the ones assent

to ukraine, there was a clause in the contract, they are not to use those against russians. what is that about? not too sure about the muscles or that clause -- about the missiles or that clause. your first question is a really fair question and a lot of people are saying, if clinton could be in pitched --impeached about lying about this affair, then why isn't this an impeachable offense, i think the argument that will be made by the legal team and by many people is that lying under oath is a crime. there's not a real strong argument that this is a crime in terms of quid pro quo, but that does not mean you can impeach him on it. you don't need a crime but you need clarity. if you don't have a crime you need a clear line as to what type of actions a president can

be removed for. i will note this as well and it may not go over well, when i testified in the clinton impeachment, i said that clinton could be impeached even though i voted for him and agreed with his policies. i disagreed with my colleagues at that hearing that it depends on what the subject is that a president is lying under oath about. i did not and still do not accept that. if a president lies and commits perjury it is most certainly, must be impeachable. there's nothing more dangerous than a president lying under oath. we put thousands of people away in jail. he is the head of the executive branch that does that, so i never bought that argument that certain types of perjury are different from others. host: this question is from emme makes thewhat president different? why cannot he testify? guest: he could certainly choose

to do so. one of the differences is that demandedendent counsel an interview. he was not going to force said --andsit, and clinton certainly resisted, but that was part of a grand jury proceeding. they avoided at the confrontation over whether the president could be dragged into a grand jury. the law was against clinton. that isn't a grand jury, is playing that role here, but the president could test of a and i would --testify and i would prefer that rather than daily twits. -- daily tweets. day, harming himself every this attack on the ambassador unbelievably and poor judgment. a lot of people were very unnerved by that tweet. host: what is your take on

whether the president has a right to confront the whistleblower? agree with the democrats on that. i do not believe the president has a right and certainly at the house stage there is no confrontation showing --confrontation right in the impeachment process. there was a recent professor who argued that the house had already violated the constitutional rights of the president by holding closed hearings and not having counsel present. i think the democrats have been too heavy-handed in holding closed sessions and restricting evidence, but i do not agree with the republicans that there is a constitutional right to confrontation particular at the house stage. also i think the republicans are wrong when they say this is different from the past in the sense there were no sealed proceedings. that is not true. nixon had sealed proceedings and

of course much of clinton was handled in the grand jury which is sealed. where they are correct i think is that the republicans say there is less of a need for seal hearings here and i think the democrats have altered the rules in making this a less public and giving a little more power to the majority that they had before. if you look at the clinton impeachment and even the nixon of achment, there was more flow of witnesses or the other side did get more of their witnesses. ust: jonathan turley with until 10 :00 today. this is our republican out of wisconsin. caller: some things the democrats have done have gotten a very upset for the good of the and who the people elected, donald trump, and the day after he was sworn and they

already started talking that all we've got is impeachment, i think this was a very ugly attempt to subvert the process of the people for political reasons, not because he did amething independent, criminal act like nixon or others. orthis was not an ongoing new situation during his campaign, so they did not have anything to impeach him on so they started a fishing expedition. and if you look long and hard enough at somebody you will find something that they did wrong. sayingi think what he is is a the you shared by 50 percent of the country. they are divided right down the middle on impeachment and that goes back to the original question, what do you need to remove a sitting president? it's not just that this

impeachment is so slender and narrow and that's why it seems designed to fail, but it is also the fact that they have not moved the needle significantly in terms of getting people to support the impeachment. part of that problem is that after three years of not a lot of movement, the democrats are saying we need a vote by the end of december. the reason that that nixon impeachment ultimately did so well from the house perspective is that there was some time of maturation and saturation and people caught up to congress and they saw the witnesses. eventually the vast majority of people did support the impeachment of richard nixon and he resigned. the democrats are not giving any time for that. even if they make the case, they are not giving the time to make it. and: does this maturation saturation happen faster that we

are in now in this world of social media? guest: i don't think so. i think things do move more quickly, not that. this is about people making up their minds, people who are resistant about this concept, and they should be. there's also this anomaly again that the democrats for three years have been saying over and over again have clear criminal offenses, but they did not move towards impeachment. nancy pelosi was known to be stopping that, yet none of that stuff is part of this impeachment. peoples the conservative like this seems basically you're just moving on to the next available target, but the narrative remains the same. host: here's our independent out of california. caller: first of all, i would like to know how nancy pelosi

and adam schiff to will be held accountable if this turns out that with all of the noise in the media, that this is a political based impeachment could there's a lot of corruption in the government, that is well-known. i've never seen it to this , one example is the way the ambassador of ukraine was televised, when chris stewart was asking the two questions, was there bribery or this criminal act, and she answered no to both of those. i had to go to my computer to see the full interview to see how she answered it.

constituents get their information from the news, and it is so biased. clash --therst and first question was about holding nancy pelosi and adam schiff accountable. be heldhey will accountable by the voters. you don't impeach house members. i think the problem is that people do not know who to believe. i hate to say this but i would say leave no one. work off original documents. watch the testimony. i think the media tries very hard to get this right. 's on thate president media is un-presidential. i think there are examples in the media of a loss of independent judgment and objectivity.

you watch some cable programs and it seems like it's just basically the case against trump , so people don't know where to go. ecothey have is this journalism like fox or msnbc and we need a source that they can trust. the only thing that i can suggest is you watch these hearings and look at this material and reach your own conclusions. there is a lot of dishonest stuff going on in washington. that doesn't surprise anyone. about thepoint statement about the ambassador, i get her point, she did in fact i don't see anything criminal or impeachable. in fairness to the deck emits -- democrats, were not looking to to decide that. she would very likely to be the first to say that. i thought she was remarkably poised and credible and

forthcoming in her testimony. that doesn't mean what she was describing was impeachable. we will have to come up with some notion of what abuses are impeachable and what are not because my concern is that what will come out of this very narrow impeachment is a lowering of the impeachment standard. when you have a president warren or a president sanders, the republican say i want to look at some of the transcripts of your conversations with these world leaders or i'm going to say the action you took over here was designed to give you a little than a fit. we do not want to be on that slippery slope. the framers did not want that. they wanted a high standard that gives breathing room for the system as a whole. host: you say watch it for yourself. our viewers can do so all week long. in the live coverage

first hearing at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow, and then on wednesday testimony,e have again split up into two different panels. that happens again at nine :00 a.m. and 2:30 on wednesday. on thursday the on a hill, the former senior director at the national security council at the end of this week, all of this happening on c-span three, c-span.org and are free radio app. we have a democrat from nevada, good morning. caller: can i just point out some dots to connect to trump about just being a lying president that needs to be overseen for his actions. meeting with the

russian connections and he lied about it for a year, and then they said it was for child adoption when it was really about hillary clinton. then you have men afford with the connections --paul manafort with the connections with ukraine and then you have russian connections, and we recently just had roger stone who lied to congress and was just recently convicted, seven counts of lying, keeping wikileaks secrets. the president has done nothing but lie ever since he has been in office about contacts and every person who has been with him in his administration he throws under the bus, and then he says as soon as they get caught, i don't know them, i had no beatings with them. no meetingses out --

with them, and then it comes out that they do. now you have this phone call, and if i was a bank robber, and i didn't get any money, i would still be a criminal. you have the same thing with president trump and ukraine. first of all, i think what i would say, and he raises some valid concerns here about this record with the president in terms of the statements he's made, but you don't impeach them for just lying. sad statement about the politics or the constitution, but most residents have light on important subjects that most people in that building called the capital building do this with great regularity. dealers.all self the question is what constitutes an impeachable offense and that goes to the last point that jake made, what does it

take to impeach someone given this history. regularly example -- burglary example has come up before the problem is the law is based on original crime. we know that robbery is a crime. we know murder is a crime. there is not a clear crime here. if a quid pro quo existed, i don't buy for a second that you can twist this into bribery or extortion. that dog will not hunt. that doesn't mean you cannot impeach on abuse of power but that something that is noncriminal. i think the problem with that analogy is it oversimplifies the path ahead. if we look at the impeachment of a president and his potential removal, we need to have this conversation as citizens. i think there is no clear crime

here. there could be impeachable offenses, but we need to come up with an idea, as to how we separate abuses of power from impeachable abuse of power. not every abuse is impeachable. so i think that is a conversation we have to have. the analogy that this is like attempted murder sort of falls apart. are color from california, can the president be impeached if you like to congress in his written questions? yes, that is an impeachable offense. most of that concerns what he said about russia, but that democrats have been saying that there are a married of crimes that they say are proven and established and certainly they

are conspicuously and suddenly silent. they are not bringing those up for impeachment. that has a lot of people scratching their heads including suggestions that some of his written answers were false. most certainly lying to congress cannot only be impeachable, it is a criminal act. host: about 30 minutes left before the program ends today and we are spending all of them with jonathan turley a law c-spanor and frequent guest. we appreciate that. loretta is in mississippi, a republican. theer: i have watched about prosecutor in ukraine, and he was charged with nothing, the one biden had removed. the one that replaced --replaced him, and she told him verbally what people, that she did not

want him to investigate. john solomon has investigated, glenn beck has reported it and has court records of proof of , and heit is on youtube has reports about people being convicted in ukraine for working for the dnc and being convicted for corruption and working against the election in 2016. guest: i think what she is capturing is part of the problem a lot of citizens have is that the democrats are saying look over here, this is really serious, but don't look over here, at the 2016 crane in connections, don't look at hunter haydn. biden, but let's talk about this. from the very beginning i've taken the position that i think

all americans should take, a think should all let the --they should all be investigated. i think there was a need for the special counsel investigation, but i also think there is a need for what is the investigation into the 2016 russia investigation. it can only help us as citizens to know more. otherer one party or the says there is no need to look into that. that is when you've got to put away your partisan interest and say this is a time where we need transparency. on the ukrainian thing, i think the aspect about have narrowed this is. alone,go up on ukraine the only way to remove donald trump is to beat him with the dead body of joe biden because that is what you're going to have to do. hunter biden would be clearly material, he would be relevant. if the president is saying i

wanted it investigated because it was corrupt, does your view change about the significance or the meaning of that conversation if you agree with him that the contract was corrupt? a clearly is something that would be allowed in a defense which means if i was counsel to the president, of course i would call hunter biden. let me say this: i don't agree that joe biden had this prosecutor fired to protect his son, i just don't think the evidence supports that. however, that contract was corrupt. there was no non-corrupt purpose to it. it was a classic influence peddling. i've written for 30 years about this loophole. people give contracts to the toldren of joe biden influence them. this was an example of that. it is not going to look good in a senate trial. that trial take place on the floor of the senate. explain how that would work if the president's council wants to call hunter biden.

guest: we both took the case of the judge. very place to have a trial. smaller than you would think. having a very weird jury to have. it is going to be even weirder if you have a trial with 100 south dealers. all of this is going to be odd. but you can have live testimony. in the clinton impeachment, they opted to rely on videos and prior testimony. ultimately, that was a mistake of the house managers. i thought it was a huge mistake at the time. that, monica lewinsky said she was basically told to lie by

people that were associated with bill clinton and that she was offered a very lucrative job around the same time. that is the type of thing you get in live testimony. so in many ways the clinton impeachment seemed almost that if they were really going to try to nail bill clinton, you wouldn't have live testimony. but it is up to the senate. the senate decides what the rules are. the rules of evidence don't apply. my opposing counsel in the last impeachment was a guy named adam schiff. we had colossal fights about the rules of evidence. adam always seemed to cite the rules of evidence until he didn't want to. thosef us try to make trials look as close to the criminal trial as possible but the senate sets the rules. if there is an objection to things like relevance. let's say you call hunter biden and there is an objection that he's not relevant or material,

it goes to the presiding judge. john roberts would decide. decision iserts' decision not final. the senate can overrule him. host: in terms of setting those rules to begin with, is that also a majority vote? guest: it is. when we did the last trial, we had hearings where we met with them and fought over the rules. we had no leverage because we are representing a judge. i think the white house wants even more leverage because they have the majority. host: hot springs arkansas, republican. hot springs arkansas, republican. caller: good morning. i have been watching c-span all morning and i tried to call several times. now that you are on, i'm glad you are. is, theant to ask you first thing, it is so horrible that people out here, we love our president, we have never seen anything like this.

i watched the documentary about what happened in germany. this looks like the start of it to me. what i really want to ask you, you are saying that this whole thing is about lying. i was watching when adam shift got up there before the whole world and lied before the whole world and read the president's letter and he was lying all the time. they should have come in there with handcuffs and led him out. guest: that would have made for good television. the media would have thank you for that moment, but first of now infamous speech was a huge mistake. he played right into the hands of the republicans, a was really ill-considered and i think he probably regrets it. anyone watching that would have thought he was reading from a transcript. he said he was clearly mocking.

andline between a mock reality today is really hard to discern and he should have known that. i think whats hirle -- whats shirley is saying is that not long ago, nancy pelosi would not allow impeachment to go forward unless it was bipartisan and had significant support. it went forward on a partisan vote and the country is divided 50-50. that is what makes this really dangerous, to go up with this type of very narrow in easement. impeachment can be very destructive to the country. in some ways they can heal and in some ways they can really aggravated a pre-existing wound. this may at great pre-existing wounds because it is happening so fast and it is so narrow, you're not going to change many minds. these are not many witnesses they are calling. this will be the thinnest record we have ever seen go to the senate on the narrowest.

of impeachment. that doesn't convince anyone. what is the real purpose here? is this designed to fail? if not, we should be using the iowa caucuses as the calendar for impeachment. we talked about trump testifying, that was one of the questions asked earlier. a couple tweets from the president in the past 40 minutes. guest: only two? host: "our crazy do-nothing infrastructure speaker of the house nancy pelosi who was petrified of radical left knowing that she will soon be gone, they and the fake news media are her boss, suggested on sunday that i testify about the phone impeachment witchhunt. she also said i could do it all in writing, even though i did nothing wrong and don't like giving credibility to this process. i like the idea and will

strongly consider it." guest: the president of course has certain fluidity to these positions. i'm sure that last line left most of the white house lawyers in fetal positions asking to go home. that he is going to testify but, my lord, what a moment that would be. the fact is he always has that option. his lawyers will throw themselves in front of the door. host: it seems to me you are saying that he likes the idea of doing it in writing. guest: writing is always a good option because it gets worked over by your lawyers. we are not likely to see anything new in writing. get a philadelphia lawyer to help them draft. i have to say, this president loves to be the author of his own case, but these tweets are

maddening because the president believes that his tweets are the reason he has succeeded thus far. successes, forse what there was in the rush investigation, was despite his not because of them. he has tripwires over and over again and these are self-inflicted wounds. he clearly views this as a strength. say, this is the most transparent president in history. this is a guy who plays poker with the cards facing out. he is so transparent that people in the republican party think, please be more open take -- opaque. host: is witness intimidation and impeachable offense? guest: it is. but what happened in that tweet was not witness intimidation from a legal standpoint.

it was damaging to the president. was the biggest benefit that the democrats got from that hearing. the republicans backed way off, they started to complement the ambassador. but that is not witness that type ofor criminal act. does that mean that it can't be an articleartoc;e -- of impeachment? the president has first amendment rights, he is allowed to speak to people who are alleging things against them. you don't lose your free-speech rights when you become president. where you get to intimidation is when you are taking official acts, taking things more directly threatening to a persons status of liberty, property, those types of things.

when you arey, telling someone to lie, to give false evidence. if those things were established, absolutely they would be impeachable a criminal. host: this is sophia, independent, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. that theng to say impeachment, what adam schiff has done so far is brilliant, excellent, unbelievable. mr. trump tweeted wednesday --ause adam schiff stopped he don't like that. host: what was brilliant, what did you think was the most early part? -- brilliant part? caller: because jordan and his group, they were trying to

destruct the same thing that they are therefore. , he couldn't handle them, he couldn't stop them. now, mr. trump was so happy anti- tw -- so happy and he tweeted. he is my president, i will respect him in the oval office. wednesday which everybody went crazy about mr. much, because so they couldn't stop. host: we got your point. jonathan turley, back to adam schiff. i love sophia's call because what sophia said, adam schiff is, and then there was a pause. neither you nor i knew if the next word was going to be a monster or a savior. and that is the problem.

we are so divided in this country and there is not a lot of listening going on with either side. you either view this as a hoax or you view the president as a criminal. life is more nuanced than that. the problem is these numbers are not. -- of these members are not. you've got people on either side in then a bunch of us in the middle. i think that the democrats scored a lot of points last week. they did a better job. one of the reasons for that is that they had a single narrative. they actually practiced for days in the basement of the capital. this is all a really carefully coordinated and well done production. and it should be, because this is an important part for our country. the republicans actually scored some points as well, but they

don't have that single narrative. a trial is like any good novel. you have to have a spine. you have to protect that spine with the jury. make sure the jury follows you on it. the democrats have that spine. host: isn't that an argument for a more narrow focus impeachment? guest: you can have other impeachment issues, but you want to focus on this narrative. how they all relate to each other. the problem with republicans, it is not their fault. i didn't see any discernible legal strategy coming out of the white house. twitter is not a strategy. they need to have a single, coherent narrative. what you saw liver publicans were members struggling because they are not being given that clear indication. the white house has had a lot of

statements that have been contradicted. this is a moment where you need clarity from the white house. host: this isn't a scientific poll but on facebook earlier today, we asked "have the public impeachment hearings changed your mind?" 16,000 people responded. 87% said no. just 13% saying yes. do you think there's many people out there willing to change their mind? guest: i think that paul is really the most enlightening because being in the beltway, you get this view that it is so much different from outside the beltway. west, you heart some of the voices you have already heard. people who are mystified by the effort to remove the president. this is not penetrating. this is not eroding that base.

you go to new york, people are --r flexing -- ever flexing people are mystified as to why the president wasn't removed three years ago. and by the way, the russian investigation probably didn't have much else. but the ukrainian thing is not the type of thing that is going to be transformative unless you can make a stronger case. so, you know, the question is to what extent are we talking to ourselves in the beltway? 13 million,out maybe a little higher than that, in terms of watching the hearings last week. numbers but the interesting thing is that many people watching are people who like echo journalism, many of them are watching with fixed views already. we are not seeing the needle move. host: the front page of the new

york times, "house hearings role on but many to doubt." -- tune out.' many struggling to discern what is real. of course, many americans have the opposite experience, they turn to the source is that they trust that tell them exactly what they already believe to be right. guest: and part of that theory that we talked about it the beginning is that some of us are not convinced that policy is a true convert -- that pelosi is not a true convert to impeachment. she wants trump wounded but alive for 2020. the problem is that she lost control. danger is that you wish you can impeach donald trump if only you could. the danger is that you stumble

over something impeachable. that is what happens. she lost control. suddenly, ukraine happened, a whistleblower happened, and she still resisted but eventually she gave up. but when you look at how they are developing this case, it does not strike me as a case designed to win. obsolescence,nned designed to be replaced. they are going to suggest the upgrade is them. host: just about 10 minutes left. chatting with callers in the last 10 minutes. new jersey, democrat, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. think people i don't change their mind because the ukraine election, it is from 1% to 2%.

, youust very surprised will become another professor, a staunch defender. guest: if you go on my blog you will find that the majority of columns are actually anti-trump. not anti-trump in terms of the presidency, but are critical of president trump. i have been highly critical of his statements and actions. burden of being an academic commentator is you really feel the need to get it right. i have written on impeachment as an academic. i did the last impeachment trial. know, this is a great job, but it comes with a burden. it right, you try to tell people what the standard is. that means that in many ways, you're not going to say stuff that pleases either side.

if you go onto the blog or onto the papers i write for, you will find that i'm being criticized by both trump and anti-trump people. that means i probably have it right. these are serious days. we can't act on impulse. i'm not defending trump, trump can be impeached on abuse of power. but we have to think very seriously about what standard will be left in the aftermath. you do not want a standard that is so low that any president can be impeached by the whim of congress because that is what people like madison struggled to prevent. we are living in an age of rage. whatever mistakes we have made in terms of the people that lead us, we need to leave the constitution out of it. that is the reason we are still here. host: republican, good morning. caller: good morning to both of you.

i have two questions. one, hypothetically, if joe biden was not a candidate coming up and he was just an older gentleman and that call happened be morene, would that of a reasonable call if he was not a political opponent? secondly, in terms of hunter biden's history or testing positive for cocaine and being discharged from the military, business in china with whitey then that recording of joe biden saying six hours or on going to remove aid. as the judicial person in the u.s., does donald trump have an obligation or a duty to investigate the vice president. would that be a reasonable line of questioning?

that goes to my earlier does it change if you believe the hunter biden contract is corrupt? there is a good argument that it is influenced heavily. that it was an effort to influence biden. i do not think that the president should ever be involved in it. i think the president making that call and suggesting the bidens was highly inappropriate. we have a justice department and it is investigating aspects of not just russia, but ukraine. this president has trouble with lines of separation. the justice department is an institution that is highly aggressive and highly professional. but i also think that those issues that roy raises are legitimate ones. i don't think that hunter

biden's drug issues or other questions will necessarily be relevant in terms of this contract, beth case. i also want to know more about what sean said earlier. if we are going to make any progress in his impeachment as citizens, we may have to be the adult supervision in the room ultimately. we may not be able to rely on a few parties. says you are like so and so, there is a tendency if you don't want to deal with the issue, you attack the person. and president trump has done that and i've criticized him repeatedly for it. but as citizens, it's up to us. we need to make it clear that we are not going to let people name called or attack individuals. we need to start responding to what people are saying and not they are. host: i wonder what your thoughts are on a different topic than what you are bringing up. negative advertisements in political campaigns. there's a lot of what you are salking about and negative ad

still happen every cycle. guest: i think they do work, they work for merrily to energize people already on your side more than convincing people. andink people are numb confused in some respects. i think it's hard not to be confused. you have diametrically different images being presented out of one network to another. one party as opposed to another. the dozens thing to be anyone in the middle who is actually doing the public's business. that is what is so funny about the south dealers. they all use their offices to advance their political interests. that is what makes this difficult. how can we draw this line to create a bright line? clearly there are some abuses of power that are impeachable.

how would we define that in a way that doesn't destroy the thing we're trying to protect? host: just a couple minutes left, this is sarah out of new hampshire. caller: good morning, i'm an independent. constitutionalists. i'm interested in the facts and the law. it really is disturbing when you see bias and education in the media. i would like to ask is you are a professor of law, so when donald trump asks the russians for help in his campaign while we are fighting the russians in technicalityy a that isn't treason, apparently, because it wasn't declared war, but we were in a war on terror. the meeting with vladimir putin behind closed doors, to me, that is fraternizing with the enemy. thethen we didn't have

definition of extortion which applies to the ukrainian thing. we should go back and look at the russia investigation just to have the facts. we are either turn state's evidence or went to jail by the connections with russia and ukraine. host: sounds like sarah is arguing for a wider -- guest: sounds like there is a lot to unpack there. if you believe that these things are crimes, certainly democratic leaders have said that, why aren't they part of this impeachment? i do want to say a couple of things. with all due respect, the president's meeting behind closed doors without interpreters or staff are not a good practice, but i cannot be impeachable by definition. that is a discretion of the world leaders. they often do have private conversations.

we have to be careful about expanding definitions for things like extortion and other things to fit these facts because those definitions will be used not only against future presidents, but also against us. if you start to expand definitions of crimes just to get trump, you could be undermining the criminal justice system in a critical way. ist i'm cautioning about just being clear and concrete as to what is an impeachable offense. you don't have to support what the president did to question whether this meets an impeachable offense. part of the problem in this age of rage is that when you raise cautionary issues of how we define impeachment, people immediately go ah, you just love trump! or if you say the opposite, you hate trump. that is really not what the issue is. he is not going to be our last president. we need to make sure we do no

harm as we go forward to our own constitution. host: illinois, this is larry, and republican. -- a republican. caller: john, i wanted to address you more than the professor. saturday is show, i tried calling and correcting. your post had a show on about the ambassador and what a good job he was doing. host had a show about the ambassador and what a good job he was doing about badmouthing the president. host: one of the guests on saturday or during the call-in segment? caller: what he reported was part of the call. but after he reported that trump was against the ambassador and brought her back, the current president of ukraine went on to say that he was glad that he took her out of there because she was backing the past president that was known for corruption.

so, the new president was glad that she was gone, i don't know how we are sitting here talking about how good a job she was doing everyday when she backed the past president known for corruption. host: that is larry in illinois. just about 60 seconds left. take us through what you're looking for for the week ahead. eight witnesses over the course of three days. guest: what is quite a surprise is that sondland may prove to be the sleeper here. he's the former ambassador at you --t thinking at the european union. he said earlier that there was no quid pro quo. then he seemed to step back from that and now we have a young diplomat said that he recalls theand speaking to

president. he could clearly hear the president over the phone talk about investigations. all, since other trump officials have been nailed for things said and restaurants, you would think that the memo would go out. this is not a real smart thing to do. it's pretty shocking that one of our top ambassadors would be having a conversation with the president or anyone in a ukrainian restaurant could hear him. the russians must have in saying this is got to be a trait, this is way too easy. but the question that most of us have is which way is he going to jump? you just had the conviction of stone, including false statements to congress. there is a shot across the bow for everyone who is coming forward to congress this week. , the question is, is he going to stick with the original or the 2.0 version that he gave? he could be critical. host: you can watch his testimony this weekend.

the testimony of all those witnesses this week on c-span3. listen to it on the free c-span radio app and also online at c-span.org. we want to thank jonathan turley. appreciate your time. for ourgoing to do it program today that we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. eastern, for i am pacific. a.m.e meantime, -- 4:00 pacific. in the meantime, have a great monday. ♪ announcer: this week, the house intelligence committee and adam schiff continue public impeachment and gory hearings. beginning tuesday morning at 9:00 eastern on c-span3, watch

live testimony from jennifer williams, aid to mike pence and director for european affairs lieutenant colonel alexander vindman. and that 2:30, former u.s. special envoy to ukraine and national security council white house aid tim morrison. wednesday, testimony continues with testimony from gordon sondland. at 2:30, deputy assistant secretary of defense for russian, ukrainian, and eurasian affairs laura cooper and david hale. thursday, the committee will hear testimony from fiona former national security council senior director for europe and russia. watch the first two public hearings in their entirety on our website. transcriptso find of witness testimony and procedures for the hearings. plus, the points