a.m. the u.s. senate meets and considers a suicide prevention bill for debtor -- veterans. the house judiciary committee begins at 7:00 p.m. to begin the task of considering articles of impeachment against president trump that were introduced by house democrats on tuesday. on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m., the senate judiciary committee hears from the justice department's inspector general, michael horowitz on his report examining the fbi's investigation into russia and the term 2016 presidential campaign. coming up in 30 minutes, washington examiner's discuss the justice department's inspector general's report on the fbi. upcoming testimony before the senate judiciary committee. at 8:00 a.m., kimberly wehle,

university of baltimore law professor discusses the articles of impeachment introduced by house democrats. brooks i, congressman mo discusses impeachment and afghanistan. ♪ host: this is the "washington journal" for december 11, the senate judiciary committee hearing with the justice department's inspector general on the report released this week will start at 10:00. you can watch that on c-span 3. also look at it at c-span.org. if you want to download the radio app, follow along and listen to the hearing. the house judiciary committee which will mark up two articles of impeachment starts at 7:00 this evening. you can see that on c-span 2. you can watch at the .org and listen on our radio app.

we will take your calls on the two articles of impeachment laid against president trump, one on abuse of power and the other on obstruction of justice. here is how you can let us know what you think. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. and independents, 202-748-8002. if you want to text us your thoughts, do so at 202-748-8003. cant us at @cspanwj and you post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. the events of yesterday on capitol hill resonating in papers across the united states, kansas city star with a picture of the 5 committee chairman -- chair then with the headline impeachment articles, trump abused his power, this is the dallas morning news with the same picture, different angle, trump charges unveiled.

when you look at the miami herald, was a for that paper "betrayed u.s." they highlighted the events with a picture of speaker pelosi and that is how it is playing out internationally and domestically. when it comes to the events of today, the markup, the washington times highlights what progressives are looking for when it comes to the end results . liberal firebrand and longtime impeachment advocate alexandria ocasio-cortez said the articles of impeachment do not go far enough. i am in the camp where i feel there should have been more articles. obstruction of justice should have been an article and i am supportive of emoluments being included. you can read more of that in the washington this morning and politico highlights the work of

a small group of moderate democrats making an effort within -- other democrats within the house about not going the route of impeachment, but going the route of censure saying a group of 10 lawmakers including josh gottheimer, kurt schrader, anthony of new york, and ben mcadams of utah amongst those working on that, i think it is appropriate and might be more bipartisan, who knows when asked about the possibility of a censure resolution. he acknowledged time slipping by. more of that in politico. yesterdayaker pelosi at event in washington, d.c. sponsored by politico talked about yesterday's articles of impeachment and address the issue of the timeline. [video clip] criticismshe biggest has been the speed. seriously.

>> it has been 22 months, 4.5 years. >> there has been criticism about whether or not you should move forward before the end of the year or wait for the courts. why do you think now is the time to move? >> we are not moving with speed. 2.5 years ago they investigate -- initiated the mueller investigation. it is about urgency. the president of the united states was violating his oath of office by asking a foreign government to intervene in our election. if we did not hold him accountable, he would continue to undermine our election, nothing less is at stake than the central point of our democracy, a free and fair election, not disrupted by foreign powers and our founders were concerned about that and in

their wisdom, they gave congress -- the house of representatives not the opportunity, because i don't see it that way, the path to correcting that. this has been going on for a very long time. there is a sense of urgency. we saw the facts presented in the hearing with the foreign service officers, the facts made known to the public. the facts made known, the constitution as presented by the .onstitutional experts we dare -- if we allow one path,ent to go down this

we are saying goodbye to the republic and hello to a president king. host: we will show you the statements from president trump in a few minutes. we will take some calls looking at the articles of impeachment. we will start on the line for democrats, james in iowa. caller: good morning. guy.f the morning to you, i think it is high time for all the senators andk representatives to take a oath toation path -- the constitution. we will find out who is loyal to the constitution and who is loyal to the ussr. host: how does that relate to yesterday? caller: it says it all. host: you tell me, how does it relate to yesterday? caller: it says it all. host: independent line, hi.

caller: good morning to you. the united states president should be accountable, but the trump ishere is donald being accused of something he never did before. all these things with russia. when the russia collusion did not work out, they came to ukraine. there must be some improper things happen. trump says whatever he wants, but this is not breaking any law. presidentimpeach the -- it shows it is politically motivated. i think the congress has abused

their power and they are not doing the right thing. let the american people decide if this president is breaking the law or not. this is just a circus for me. host: we will go to new jersey, brenda up next. caller: good morning, america. i just have to say this about president trump, he is doing a wonderful job for the americans and i am so proud. i was always a democrat and now i am switching to republican. i am so disappointed on how they are going about hurting the president. he did nothing wrong. he is doing everything right for us right from the beginning when he became president. host: what about the articles of impeachment laid against the president yesterday? caller: i think it is wrong. they are impeaching the president and it is wrong.

they are out to get him and they are trying even harder and they want to get this done before christmas, rushing it through is not right. everying to the debates day, which i have when it was on democratsterrible, should be ashamed of themselves and i will tell you something, i am voting republican and he will get in for another 4 years because he is a good president. host: the process continues today with the house judiciary committee on proposed articles of impeachment. they mark them up. that process tonight starting at 7:00 on c-span 2 and you can listen on the c-span radio app for c-span radio and you can follow along at c-span.org. new york, penny, good morning. .aller: good morning, pedro

i think he should be impeached and i think what the democrats .id yesterday was right i don't know if people can remember, but when he was a running candidate, he offered barack obama at the time was a sitting president $1 million to ,roduce his birth certificate which was crazy because he was born in hawaii. these are the things this man is known for. i do believe there is a lot we do not know that he has done. he is corrupt and the whole republican party is a nightmare. host: particularly to the articles of impeachment yesterday, why do you support it? especially in light of the ukraine call? caller: for one thing, he tried to hide it. constitution, he has blocked every type of

subpoena that came his way. he has told people not to come forward. that does not show innocence at all. why would you suppress anything if you are so innocent? people need to open up their eyes and realize what we have as a leader. we need to go ahead and have a happy life. host: that is penny in new york. the hill picks up upon republican senators as far as their crafting strategy to what could end up as a trial in the senate and the possibility of not calling witnesses. republican senators and allies and members of leadership appear reluctant to drag themselves to a drawnout trial with messy, procedural votes when the outcome become -- that the outcome appears pre-baked. not going to be terribly popular

with either side, i think this will be a desire to wrap this up in a timely way. that is senator john soon telling reporters. he added while a final decision will not be made until closer to the trial, there will be a lot of people who will say i really don't want this to drag on. you can read more of that at the hill. from new york, we will hear from tom, independent line on the articles of impeachment. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on. caller: i wanted to say i believe we should keep trump because i believe the democrats have got something to hide. i think the reason they have been trying to get rid of them in the first place, right from the get-go. they have not had any facts or anything like that, it is all opinion and speculation and crap. i believe the only reason they

trumping this is because -- they ought to investigate pelosi and her impeachment crew and see what they have got to hide and i bet they will come up with something. trump as i am concerned, has been doing a heckuva job for this country. better economy, better jobs, everything is better. host: tom in new york. we will go to jerry in michigan. caller: good morning, pedro. crapnly speculation and has been coming from donald trump. what donald trump has been doing in a desperate attempt to hang in the airesidency

this guy has. he tried to use a foreign power to spy on political rivals in order to keep the presidency and i would like to add one other thing if i may, if you allow me. all of these white people are complaining about how donald selectiveeem to have amnesia. they seem to forget how he trashed barack obama. host: the president of the united states at a rally in hershey, pennsylvania, yesterday as part of his reelection efforts addressed the articles of impeachment. [video clip] announcedse democrats these two flimsy, politico, ridiculous articles of impeachment.

house democrats are walking back from everything they claimed announcement. they are admitting there was no collusion, no obstruction of justice, and no crimes whatsoever. they are impeaching me and there are no crimes. this has to be a first in history. they want to win an election and that is the only way they can do it. and they have nothing have turned the somber process of impeachment and impeachment word the good news is we are having the best times in history in our country. is word impeachment, to me, a very ugly word. i is a dark, ugly word, but have to tell you, as bad as it

is, it meant something. when you had serious high crimes and misdemeanors, it is impeachment that would happen every 50 years, 40 years, 100 years, this was a big deal. they are making it like let's do it every 6 months. they have cheapened the process. host: usa today lays out how the impeachment charges against president drumm compared to president clinton and president nixon. the charges against president trump, abuse of power pressuring ukraine to investigate a political rival, lack of cooperation with the house increase into the ukraine matter. when it comes to bill clinton, perjury for lying under owes about an affair with a white house intern and instruction of justice adding president clinton was acquitted by the senate and richard nixon, three charges in

1974, obstruction of justice, abuse for the watergate break-in surveillance of private citizens and campaign-finance practices --contempt of congress adding that president nixon resigned before the full house voted on the charges. this is bob in michigan adding to the conversation on obstruction of justice and abuse of power are not a high crime or misdemeanor. vicki saying if the president's office would release the call archived on a separate server outside the white house and allow his inner circle to testify, this whole thing would go away if he is really speaking the truth. you can text us at 202-748-8003 and if you do, add your name, your city, and your state. from south carolina. as you have been

requesting the other callers, about the charges yesterday of withchment having to do what he did to cause this, which as we all know, was asking a foreign power to help him finding the evidence against his once he wasval and discovered denying it, trying to i'd -- hide evidence, but refusing congressional subpoenas for evidence and for people to come in from the white house who had first-hand knowledge of what he did. republicans are using the fact these people were not able to testify. to --ss has not been able these articles of impeachment

republicans but the and mr. trump are downplaying it. last night, he had this rally and he was saying it is a light impeachment, not real, congress has not proved anything, this is typical for him to do this, he is manipulating the truth or out and out lying. the thing that bothers me most is watching this -- the rally, it appears people in the audience think they are witnessing a reality show. they don't realize this is the president of the united states and he is controlling their whole future, not only their whole future, but their children. host: if you want to watch the rally, you can go to our website and do that. from daytona beach, craig. caller: how are you doing? host: go ahead, you are on. caller: i am on.

good. i am totally on. host: you are on c-span, go ahead with your comment. caller: thank you, it is about time because this is a scam, this is all a scam. why don't we talk about the chemtrails going on in life? host: diane is next from kansas, hello -- brian is next from kansas, hello. presumingrst of all, the articles of impeachment past the house and go on to the senate, i view the decision to use articles of impeachment as opposed to obstruction of justice. i see that as political genius on speaker pelosi's part. senators, i think, love power

above all else and in our division of government, when it ,omes time to hold the trial that puts republican senators in a position of defending congress potentially more power to the executive branch. that is my thought on that, basically. is in washington -- bill is in washington state. caller: thank you for taking my call. and i be kind of quick completely take all the air out of the democrat case. some on disputable facts. number one, biden is not -- neither one of them above the law. it just because they are running for president does not put them

above the law. second on disputable fact, the president is the chief law enforcement officer. third, the president is also the chief diplomat. is favors andacy quid pro quos. get over it. may, somebody needs to read the treaty on c-span between the u.s. and ukraine regarding corruption. host: with those five points in mind, how does that specifically relate to yesterday? caller: there is no case, it is all a nonstarter. i don't even want to save pelosi because she is not smart enough, she gets her strategy from strategists and focus groups.

she is trying to make the senate look bad for the next election, that is all eight is. you will of the names hear if you watch the senate judiciary committee hearing --

job is thebecause my vp of quality for a fortune 500 company. if you bring the elites from universities, they have no hands-on experience. job have never worked a

basically in the intellect type ivory tower colleges and universities, you just lost 80 going overour family to vote for trump, we love him. he has been rude, crude, and vulgar, but he is draining the swamp. int: that is andrea pennsylvania. barbara in california calling on the independent line, hello. caller: good morning. i do support the articles of impeachment although initially i was disappointed they did not include the obstruction of justice charges made clear in the mueller report. i am one of the oddballs in the nation that read the entire report. i understand why they left it off because if you cannot get the people cited in the report to testify, there is really no point. have toine, democrats

do what they are doing because you simply cannot reward bad behavior. if you do, you are facilitating more bad behavior. the house, they don't have the luxury of being lazy parents, they must do their duty, they must hold him accountable even foregone is a conclusion he will be removed. host: do you think the democrats have a sound case from what you have seen and heard? caller: absolutely. and i have listened to every word of all the hearings. i am a retired lady of leisure and i have the luxury of being able to absorb this information. host: what do you think is the strongest aspect of their case?

caller: both articles are strong. they would be stronger if they could get people to testify, that people -- the people the trump are blocking from testifying. the facts are the facts even if they cannot get people to show up. they have got a good case just to say he did wrong, he did wrong enough to justify him no longer being president and he should move forward because it is the right thing to do. host: jodi in ohio, good morning. caller: good morning and i love c-span. i think people may be forgetting joe biden was vice president when this was happening, not a candidate. if my democrat friends would consider, joe does not really have a shot at being the democrat candidate and these investigations may be why he is running so he can run with his

political rival. with the it is a sham articles yesterday, but the silver lining is the usmca was passed and that will help everybody in america. host: that announced yesterday, ratification having to take place in the senate and the house, but that was also an event that took place yesterday. in north carolina, you will be the last call for this segment, democrats line. caller: good morning. with the two articles of impeachment, i think they are broad enough to cover exactly what was done and the messaging was there is no bribery, no this, know that. i can't recall the two. obstruction of congress

was one of them and the first one was -- you stumped me, too. the words escape me. i will find them. go ahead. caller: yes. he has done those things. notas mandated that people testify and these people bring it down to very black-and-white thinking, it seems. there is no real smoking gun, no real proof, but if you have witness after witness that can come in and tell you did not do these things, why not allow them. host: the first one, by the way, abuse of power. caller: abuse of power. how is our system set up that the president can say somebody cannot come and testify? you take the rights of the person away from them and that is ok?

host: go ahead and finish. isler: yes, so i do think it horrible abuse of power and he knows he has this power and he feeds on it and it is sick. host: that is from rocky mount, north carolina. if you want to watch the hearing that will take place 7:00 tonight. go to our website, all the information about how you can aboutr at 7:00 to talk these articles laid by democrats yesterday and a potential load happening thursday in the house. we will go back to this topic in our last hour of the program, but we will change gears and talk about the release of the inspector general report taking a look at instances of the fisa court and other issues with jerry dunn leavy.

he will join us to walk through the report and what it means for the future of the fbi and later, e about thehl articles of impeachment unveiled yesterday. all of that coming up on "washington journal." ♪ on q&a, anight professor talks about her book. the rooftops right now, that we have gone from basically sentenceuniversal debt

to curing cancers today and only 22% of people died. with both groups, though treatable and nontradable, i asked the fundamental question, , 68%,ople we are curing my frustration is why are we approaches these of/, poison, and burn. we have $2 billion of research gone. why are we not finding better ways of treating cancer? >> house democrats move ahead with two articles of impeachment against president trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of congress. read the text from the articles of impeachment now at our website, c-span.org/impeachment.

members of the judiciary committee will convene to write the final language. watch c-span 2 throughout the markup process, debate on amendments and moves to -- follow the process live on -- listen onine the c-span radio app. "> "washington journal continues. , he: this is jerry dunleavy covers the washington examiner here to talk about the release of the report. good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: what was the initial purpose of the report? guest: this stems from the use of christopher steele, former dossiermi-6 agent, his surveillancen fisa warrants against the trump campaign associate carter page.

christopher steele had been hired by fusion gps, and opposition research firm in washington, d.c. they had been hired by the clinton campaign and the dnc in 2016 and so the fbi used the dossier reporting on trump and russia in surveillance warrants beginning in october 2016 all the way into the summer of 2017. dossier theys the were using was salacious, but also unverified and a lot of problems and controversy stem from that, especially when it was published by buzzfeed. host: the results were released to this weekend there will be a hearing, two main tracks, one about the political motivations of the fbi at the time and the other about the process of the fisa application and the

mistakes made. guest: inspector general horowitz did a very thorough job. he did not uncover evidentiary document dated -- documentated evidence of bias motivating the actions. however, he was limited in what he was able to do, he does not have subpoena power and was only able to talk to fbi employees and that sort of thing. host: a smoking gun, as it were. guest: there was no smoking gun in terms of political bias uncovered by him. however, he was -- when you read the report, he was shocked by the significant errors and omissions, there were 17 significant errors and omissions the fbi made when making these heings with the court and basically concluded that fbi agent's work substituting their

own judgment for fbi rules, substituting their own judgment for what the pfizer court -- fis a court might want and leaving out evidence that claims being made in steele dossier about some grand conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia. the more work they did, the more doubt was cast on that and those doubts did not make their way to the fisa court. host: our guest joining us to talk about the release of the report. if you want to ask questions, republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. is it to have so many mistakes related to an application process like the one seen in this instance?

guest: it is a great question and probably one we do not know the answer to because the fisa process is so secretive. we know more about the process targeting carter page and the trump campaign. ae know more about this fis than any other one and glaring with the huge flaws steele dossier and a series of omissions in fact. they had confidential human sources talking to members and associates of the trump campaign and the human sources were bringing back to the fbi information -- exculpatory information, basically denials from members of the trump campaign that they had anything conspiracy.he those denials were not making their way to the pfizer court. they were talking to christopher steele's sub sources and they were casting doubt on his characterizations on what had

happened, casting doubt on the credibility of the claims he was making. .ven the most bombshell claims the fbi knew pretty early on that there was doubt about that and yet this information was not making its way and the fbi continued on and on with the process. host: there will be a hearing today featuring the inspector general. what does he face as he talks about the report and its findings? guest: horwitz is careful in these hearings. viewers might remember he conducted a very large investigation into the clinton email investigation conducted by the doj and the fbi whom -- fbi. that hearing took place last summer and he was careful and measured. he will face questions from

republicans who want to know why with all these glaring errors and missteps and flaws and problems, why that doesn't show some level of bias. he said in his report there were questions that were left unanswered, he was unsatisfied with the answers he was getting about why fbi agent did not seem to know the basic rules about how they were supposed to be carrying out such an important process, especially in a high-profile investigation. the real problem and issue is by not doing their due diligence, the fbi allowed doubt to be cast on a really high profile and important and sensitive investigation and that is troubling. is jerry- host: this dunleavy. the washington examiner is his publisher and he is a justice department reporter.

our first call comes from louisiana, democrats line. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i disagree with you. yesterday, the russian in onador popped president trump. president trump sitting in his chair with the russian ambassador sitting over him, this is not the united states of russia. this is the united states of america. wynn has russia been able to just pop in on our president? president trump allows president trump to do anything and everything. instance that an happened yesterday. specifically about the ig report, do you have a question or comment about that? caller: i want to know why he doesn't think the president can talk to a russian representative

and he cannot talk to the president of ukraine? an important thing to keep in mind about the 2016 presidential election is the intelligence community concluded the russians did attempt to interfere in the election through cyber attacks, targeting democratic email systems, providing emails to wikileaks for dissemination, social media disinformation campaigns. russia did interfere in the 2016 presidential election. during the campaign, president --racted make comments president trump did make comments that were considered by some to be russia-friendly comments. there was that going on, but the fact the russians interfered in 2016 does not necessarily mean somehow the drum campaign was

someved or that there was sort of conspiracy and special veryel robert mueller's thorough investigation concluded the russians interfered in a systematic way. russian military intelligence meddling in the election, but did not establish criminal conspiracy with the trump campaign and the russians. basically, the ig report effortss a lot of the of the fbi was undertaking at the time seem to be based on this presupposition conspiracy exist. host: bobby off of twitter asks wasn't carter page of interest's ? guest: cover page is an interesting -- carter page is an

interesting figure. one thing we learned about carter page is prior to him becoming the subject of this fis a investigation in 2016, he had been approached by russian intelligence before and communicated that to the u.s. government. carter page for a time had been considered essentially a source for a government agency that was not the fbi. it was thought that it may have been the cia. the fact that carter page, not just that he has been approached, but that he had communicated that he had been approached, the fact he told the u.s. government about that, that fact, which the fbi was told about before the first fisa application and was reminded never made it to the fisa court.

when the fbi was reminded in 2017 about carter page's prior -- when the fbi was the fbi lawyer changed the documents to say carter page the next source and -- carterewal was page is a complicated figure because of dealings with russia, but it is the steele dossier that horwitz concluded pushed the fbi over the edge to get a fisa on him. host: republican line from michigan, leroy, good morning. caller: good morning. i am worried if the house and

they have evidence to do it, the not impeach him and -- thets under the republican will lose power in the senate as well as the house and the presidency. host: we will hear from rich next, independent line. caller: the report will dossier and stuff like that, i understand -- my understanding a british a report by operative and it was a report and took this as a part of why they should investigate.

was other collaborating stuff going on. the candidate for president suggesting to a foreign power to hack into an american citizen's .mail for dirt on her that with this report and other things were enough evidence to substantiate investigation. it wasn't just based on the report from the steele dossier and things like that. flawed,the dossier was it was part of the consideration the evidence to be investigated. host: thanks. guest: that is an interesting point and it is actually a point that horwitz's fisa report

finally cleared up. there is a big contention about the role the steele dossier played in the applications. it was a big controversy in early 2018 when then chairman of the house intelligence committee, devin nunes released when he contended the steele dossier was essential to the pursuit of fisa applications against carter page. then ranking member adam schiff released his own competing memo where he essentially downplayed the role the steele dossier where almost two years later and horwitz's report is clear. he saves the steele dossier played an essential and central applicationsas against carter page.

that question about what role the steele dossier played has been answered and the role it played was central and a central according to the ig. host: several people commented on the release of the report, including the attorney general, we will play a portion and get you to comment. [video clip] >> in his harshest criticism of the drum campaign, attorney general barr said started with and kept pushing until it went nowhere. >> there has to be some basis before we use these potent powers in our first amendment activity. i felt this was very flimsy. host: not only what he said, but the fact he is commenting on it. now iswilliam barr right carrying out his own investigation into what happened .

president trump earlier in the fullgave barr declassification authority to genesis of thehe trump-russia investigation was far, horwitz's report is out and horwitz was unable to establish political bias and concluded in his view, the launch of crossfire hurricane was adequately predicated. all you really need in his view and according to fbi rules is some sort of factual basis, a to clear. low bar william barr is basically saying hold on a moment, hold on a second, u.s. attorney john durham is able to look into more

than just what this slice of what the fbi was doing. john durham is able to look at a broader scope, is able to look at what the cia was doing, what other intelligence agencies were doing, asking about information from intelligence agencies and governments around the world and basically barr is saying there is more to this or very likely more to this and it is too early to say this launch in july of 2016 was done, but there might be more information. when you now look at the breadth of information and the conclusions they are able to reach, there was very little there in terms of any sort of evidence of a conspiracy between trump and the russians. host: john durham commenting on the release of the ig report.

how unusual is it he did that and when do we expect to hear or see the results of his investigation? guest: great question. all of this is unusual. the big thing to keep in mind is everything we have been dealing with is highly unusual. investigation into hillary clinton and her private email server and that is being carried out while she is running for president, highly unusual. peopleall the exact same running that investigation were simultaneously running an investigation into trump and any connections with the russians. this entire thing is unprecedented in the history of report and so horwitz's on the clinton email investigation and the trump russia investigation, unprecedented as well. we are sort of in uncharted territory on what the attorney

general should be saying or the u.s. attorney running an investigation should be saying. john durham himself -- william barr revealed he is taking his time, being very careful. barr said yesterday it is possible we might not get any sort of conclusion until the spring or summer of next year, right in the middle of the next election. host: from san bernardino, california, this is bernard of the washington examiner. point. your nothing he said this morning -- your point of view is false. nothing he said this morning with the ig report. there were 17 inconsistencies. hello? host: you are on, go ahead. everythingst of all, he said this morning's first. host: we already got this -- got

that part. caller: there were 17 consistencies in the fbi. there was nothing criminal, they made mistakes and furthermore, attorney general barr said there was no wiretaps, there was no physical people following around the trump campaign. i feel like the president needs to be impeached. there were 17 what he called significant errors and omissions and some of them are pretty big. information they learned about steele sources, casting doubt on the way they characterized what he said and steele himself calling one of his sources an

embellisher. that never made its way to the report. thating back information was almost universally members of the trump campaign denying major claims in the steele dossier about what they were theosedly doing -- and denials which are considered exculpatory evidence, those did not make their way to the pfizer court either. there were a lot of big omissions that we don't know whether the court would have signed off on it or not. that is information that should have been provided especially because in the fisa process, there is no defense attorney present, it is just the

government going. the government has an extra responsibility to make sure they are providing the court with all the evidence possible and it is true criminal charges have not been handed down, but it is believed and fbi lawyer who altered a document that would have revealed significant information about carter page actually providing information to the u.s. government about russian outreach to him, that was concealed because in fbi lawyer altered a document and it is believed that fbi lawyer is currently under possible criminal investigation. strzoke have heard peter and lisa page, what roles did they play according to the report? guest: peter strzok played a lead role in the clinton email investigation and the crossfire hurricane, the trump-russia investigation.

played a strong supporting role as well in both investigations. textsne knows about the between each other which seemed to indicate obviously a strong distaste for then candidate and president trump as well as horwitz previously concluded a suggestion they might be willing to act on the political bias when one texted the other what are we going to do and the other said we will stop him. whether any actions were taken by them to stop him is a big question of controversy. they at least indicated they might be willing to act on the political bias they were showing. the: lisa page suing

department of justice and the fbi over the release of her texts. guest: peter strzok and lisa page have lawsuits against the justice department, as does andrew mccabe. there is a lot of litigation that will be going on and my guess is the justice department is going to respond by explaining in fuller detail about why they decided to release the texts. they were being sent and received, i believe, most of them, on fbi issued phones and fbi issued devices and they were talking about fbi business and so there is not necessarily this expectation that your communications like that are going to be secret forever. host: from kansas, diane, go ahead. caller: i have two specific

questions. the first is with regard to the limitations of mr. horwitz. was he able to interview anybody fbi wasn't currently at the while he was investing -- conducting his investigation? there were a lot of people fired and gone. not only that, but he could not talk to carter, papadopoulos. i would like to know what his limitations were in that regard. the second question is with regard to the fisa court. it is my understanding they are appointed by the chief justice. who rules over them? anything or would they do anything with regard to the information before them now about the information given to them? host: thanks, caller. guest: those are two other very interesting questions. in terms of limitations horwitz

had, he was limited. he asked to talk to the founders oppositionps, the research firm that hired christopher steele and they declined an interview and that is that in terms of what horwitz is able to do. he wasn't able to compel testimony. there were state department officials that had interactions with christopher steele who declined to be interviewed. in terms of the information he was able to get out of people. for instance, he interviewed james comey and jim baker, a former fbi top lawyer during this process and neither of them have security clearances anymore. he offered, horwitz data, to reinstate security clearances so he could ask questions about classified information so he could refresh their memory was classified information to try to

get as wholesome answers as possible and both of them declined to have their security he was limited and what he could ask them about. he was limited in the new information he was able to provide to them. there were limitations in his investigation. in terms of the second question chord itself, it is very independent. the chief justice is the one that appoints the judges. i believe that all of the judges that signed off on the fisa warrants were republican appointed judges themselves. it is a very secretive court. in terms of what reforms they are going to take, that does remain to be seen. however, not just in this specific, narrow type of fisa process, but in the process in

general, there have been recently been revelations about other significant missteps or flaws in terms of the due diligence that the fbi and doj are required to do. isa court is believed to be instituting some reforms to fix this. in this specific instance, what they are going to do remains to be seen because it is a very secretive court and it is hard to get an insight into what they are doing. host: you can read our guest's writing about the fbi report at washingtonexaminer.com. thanks for your time this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: coming up, we are going to take two perspectives on the two articles of impeachment that were released yesterday. and later on,le, we will be joined by congressman mo brooks of alabama.

♪ >> c-span's studentcam 2020 competition is in full swing. all across the country, middleton high school students are hard at work creating their short documentaries on the issues they would most likely candidates of 2022 address. take us behind the scenes and share your photos for a chance to win additional cash prizes. still working on an idea? we have resources on our website to help out. page hasing started" information to guide you through the process of making a documentary. c-span will award 100,000 prizes

-- one hunter thousand dollars in total cash prizes. all eligible entries must be uploaded and received by january 20, 2020. >> you are never too young to have an opinion, so let your voice be heard now. >> for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. "washington journal" mugs are available as c-span's new, online store. check out the "washington journal" mug and seals. and see all of the c-span products. wehle, ouris kim university of baltimore law professor. thank you for joining us. guest: happy to be here.

host: the route that the democrats took yesterday, what do you think of them directly as the plan of going forward? guest: it makes sense in terms of the record, that is factually, there is not a coherent counter narrative to what gives rise to the abuse of power allegation as well as the obstruction of congress allegation. bribery was a little more complicated because of the supreme court case law under the criminal bribery statute. of course, the mueller report, for most americans is a bit in the rearview mirror in terms of what they care about in this moment. i think there is room in those articles to bring that up in connection with obstruction. host: the case that has built up, do you think it is there and why do you think that? guest: i do think it is there because with respect to abuse of iser, the question there whether the person in the office of the presidency can use the power, massive power of the presidency for his own personal benefit and not for the benefit of the american public.

in this instance, the record shows that there was a request of ukrainian president zelensky to announce investigations of joe biden, not necessarily undertake investigations. at the same time, there was withholding of $391 million of aid that ukraine needed to stave off russian aggression. everyone who testified in the government stated that the ukrainians needed that to protect their democracy. that was good for the united states. that action, which to the state, is unexplained by president trump, withholding that aid was really bad for national security in america. we have this moment where there was an action taken that was good for mr. trump, but not good for america. that is the core of this question of abuse of power. there is some rumblings that he had a legitimate basis for asking for the investigation because of alleged ukrainian interference in the election, but that is really a false

narrative in this moment. everyone who has looked at that has undermined that is actually accurate. we don't have an alternative set of facts. that is abuse of power. on the question of obstruction of congress, there is also no factual ambiguity that this president has essentially said we will not cooperate. including turning over a single document. this is not we will cooperate but hold back executive privilege, this is we will not cooperate at all and that makes it really hard for congress to do its constitutionally clear prerogative to impeach. we have to have the branches work with each other to ensure checks and balances. idea.s the whole the framers didn't want any one branch getting so much power. the problem with obstructing congress as we have a presidency now that is growing. the belt and suspenders of that office is growing so big that the question is regardless of can check that office? if no one can check that office,

that means individual rights, regular people will eventually be bullied. host: you heard the republican witness last week make the case and pushing back against some of the philosophy of the democrats. he writes in his blog, this is the thinnest record created in the shortest amount of time. he goes on to say, rather than wait and build a viable case, securets are moving to at least one decision. guest: professor charlie is -- turley is michael legal analyst. i agree with him that the democrats should have been in moving to compel clients of these subpoenas. the law is squarely on their side. i disagree with the professor in terms of we need more evidence for the sake of evidence. when pressed, it is difficult to pin down what additional facts we need, except perhaps the president himself saying, i

admit to this. is quid pro quo which any defense lawyer would admit that this is not something you typically see even in the criminal justice process. in addition, for whitewater, which i worked on, there was can start. there was amended -- ken starr. there was an independent counsel that had months to develop an intellectual record. for that to happen, bill barr would have had to us so -- appoint someone. when he heard about this whistleblower complaint, made the determination not to even turn it over to congress. for bill barr, we would have had no investigation. i really believe it is important for either side to know what is going on in the upper echelons of government, otherwise, we have no way of maintaining we the people government by ourselves, as being our own kings and queens of our own government, not having the power entrenched in someone who is already in office. host: kim wehle joining us until

8:30. you can text those thoughts as well. massachusetts starts us off. you are on. caller: hi. good morning. i just wanted to say that for your previous guest, he did not mention that the steele dossier was actually first funded or supported by republicans. i just wanted to point that out. also, i just appreciate what you're guest is saying right now regarding the articles of impeachment. i read the mueller report, i read the transcript, i watched all of the hearings. there is no disputing the facts. this is a pattern of behavior that is very troubling that our president, during his campaign asked for russian assistance. he is doing it again. we cannot wait because if the

election is interfered with, what are the american people to do? argument wasley's that you need to build a case in order to wait for more evidence when the president is obstructing witnesses testifying. the president also obstructed don mcgahn from testifying in the mueller report which had 10 credible offenses of chargeable justice. it is very troubling that the administration is really clouding our laws. guest: a number of great points. i want to congratulate you and share the importance of actually reading primary source documents. we are in a world where there are false narratives being peddled on the internet. it is really important that we educate ourselves, read the source documents and make your own determinations.

don't listen to me or professor turley. on the question of the inspector general report andy fisa at -- and the fisa application, the take away there is that the inspector general determined that from his perspective, there still was a basis for actually issuing the warrant. aftersa court was created 9/11 and does have low standards because congress determined that the intelligence agencies need the ability to basically get access to information to stop terrorism. the third point that i wanted to pick up on the colors, it has to do with the election. the reason in this moment that impeachment is important is because the framers included impeachment specifically to deal with the presidency that is trying to basically distort an election. there was a conversation during the constitutional convention about, wait a minute, why do we need impeachment if you can just

have the voters vote someone out of office next time? the framers decided, wait a minute, that doesn't work because of the president is using their office to stay in office, the election itself is not going to fix that problem. that is precisely why impeachment in this moment, regardless of what happens with this president, important to at least hold the lever of oversight so that the constitution retains congress as a legitimate branch of oversight for the president. host: from west virginia, carl. caller: sir. man is auditioning for a job at msnbc. if he can't see there is nothing political about what took place down there, then he didn't read the text message between lisa page. host: so we have moved on from the inspector general report. we have moved onto the articles of impeachment.

what do you think about those? caller: i think it is a sham. i really do. i think it is a sham. schiff can prevent the republicans from calling witnesses. they say it is fair because they have a vote on it. naturally, he tells all his people to vote no on the request 's witnessesblican and they vote him down. the democrats can call any witness they so desire. this is a kangaroo court. that is what it's all about. i know you have to be careful because if you say anything wrong, you would not have access to some of the big politicians. i understand you have to be careful what you say. host: we are neutral regardless of whatever guest is on our show. guest: with respect to the rules

of how this goes, the way the constitution works is the house sets their own rules and whoever is in charge sets the rules for that particular body. when it goes to the senate, the republicans will be in charge of the rules for how the trial goes and there will be votes on those. the party in power does set those rules. what is good for the goose is good for the gander. is important to keep in mind that the president of united states under the house resolution governing this process, had the ability to ask to call witnesses last week, this week, on monday and declined before the articles of impeachment came down. a lot of people talk about the articles of impeachment being like an indictment in a grand jury. the way a grand jury works, people sit and listen to evidence presented by a prosecutor and decide whether to indict someone who could end up in jail or even executed in our country. no person who ends up indicted gets the ability to have their

lawyers show up before the grand jury and make an argument, listen, don't indict me. the president of the united states got that option and declined it. mored more process, ability to defend himself against charges then even you and me, regular people who could go to jail or be executed through a similar process in the criminal justice system. the question of fairness and process is off the table practically speaking by virtue of the president's own decision not to engage fully and has rights in connection with this process. host: independent line, glendale, arizona, matt? guest: how are you doing -- caller: how are you doing? this is a little bit off the beaten track. what year did they get rid of the 13th amendment where lawyers were not allowed to serve in congress? i just wanted to know what year

that was, if you know. guest: i'm not familiar with that. the 13th amendment ban slavery, actually. there are plenty of lawyers in congress, jim jordan is a lawyer, although i don't think he is barred. adam schiff is a lawyer. eric swalwell is a lawyer. we see a lot of good lawyering by members of congress on both democratic and republican sides through this process. interestingly, it will be members of congress that will decide to act as lawyers on behalf of the american people in connection with impeachment in the senate trial and will actually be prosecuting the case. host: were you surprised at the amount of time that house councils had? guest: yes. anyway, that was may be a thoughtful determination to lessen the politics of it. i think if you compare it to the kavanaugh hearings where there is a lot of anger, screaming, table pounding -- i am exaggerating.

that sort of anger, we saw a fairly measured process on both sides. i thought that that was beneficial. lawyers are trained to pay attention to the facts and trained to pay attention to the rules. i trained lawyers, i am a lawyer. we can't get out from underneath that. having the process of function pursuant to those kinds of guidelines i think is good for the american people. host: here is james from virginia. caller: good morning. i have two questions. first question, i listen to this burisma and the alec arc that ran it -- aligarch that ran it. it doesn't seem like there was ever an investigation, or it quit back in 2014 and 2015. there has been

no interference from ukraine, but there has never been no investigations except reporters supposedly going over there to check it out. last time i checked, reporters aren't law enforcement. tohave a treaty with ukraine join as far as corruption. there has never been an investigation except reporters going over there. the last investigation actually stopped after the prosecutor got h vanishedthe oligarcc with $28 million. that is a lot of money ukraine could have used. guest: i believe the senate intelligence committee did do an investigation and essentially determined a bipartisan that there was not any ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. scale thenot on the massive, widespread interference that the russians engaged in an 2016.

that is number one. the second is, i think we have to be careful about worrying about investigating other countries internal corruption. the question here i think that people scratch their heads about is why did the president of the united states ask ukraine, even if he had a legitimate reason, which doesn't appear to be established in the record, why did he ask ukraine to do the work of that american intelligence officials, certainly american intelligence officials sometimes ask foreign countries for help, but there is nothing suggesting that the process of going through treaties and laws to say we are going to start something internally because we are worried about america's interest and we are reaching out for help. that didn't happen. americanog over intelligence officials and reach out directly to ukraine, that is just bizarre. the elephant in the room is rudy giuliani. we need to be careful as americans about endorsing people in office essentially

handpicking private parties to do the work of the state department. appointments clause in the constitution that said the ability to agree with, essentially the president's choices for important positions in the federal government. that gives the american public basically essay, voters essay -- a say in who has important power. just president gave it to rudy giuliani. he operates outside of the constitution, the ethics rules, other laws that govern behavior by federal employees. that is really problematic going forward. mary asks what your opinions were with democrats in the house with giving republicans their own minority hearing. guest: as far as house rules, that piece, i didn't see in the resolution that governs this particular procedure insofar as

fairness. i am definitely a believer in fairness. i'm not so sure given that the republicans were in the closed door depositions, not all of them even showed up. they had the full ability to cross-examine those witnesses. able too were cross-examine and ask questions of all of the witnesses in the open hearings. i'm not so sure republicans didn't get essentially the ability to develop the actual record that they believe is necessary to potentially exonerate this president. the record is not there. i think going forward, we have to say to ourselves, not so much what are the facts, but what do we do about the facts? the answer might be, we don't do anything. if we don't, we have to understand the repercussions of that. that baton could be handed off to a democrat if you are a republican or go to another republican if you are a

democrat. either way, it is best for america to have the powers of all elected officials confined. when they run a red line, they get a ticket. that is what we are talking about. if there is no tickets for running red lights, people run red lights, people speed. that is human behavior and that is what we are talking about. host: and for their efforts, you should note that the house of freedom caucus is still looking for that hearing. the hill reporting this morning that when it comes to the senate side, there is talk amongst republicans about not calling witnesses. what does that suggest to you? guest: that suggest to me that there is not a strong counterfactual narrative. there isn't really another story here other than the story that gives rise to the articles of impeachment, that is that this president attempted to get announcements of investigations into joe biden and withheld a white house meeting, which they still haven't had. the russians got one yesterday, but the ukrainians, zelensky has still not had a white house

meeting. the aid that was released accepted $35 million. things,sts to me two one, there is not a factual counter narrative. two, i think a lot of people believe this is game over already because there is no way that senate republicans, regardless of the facts are going to impeach this president. texas, independent line. caller: good morning. i love my american people. that trump people, they want trump to be exempt from anything he does. i talked to them and they say that he has a right to do anything that he want to do. just like you want to usingigate his opponent foreign relations. they say that is ok because he

the president. he is able to do that. there is nothing wrong with it. biden beenen, but trying to investigate anybody, his opponent to win something effective like that. the other thing is about that russian that come to the president, why is that he is able to be only with russian --ple, like when he gave host: specifically to the articles of impeachment, do you have a question to our guest? caller: that is still the same thing. when trump doing things against theican people and establishment, he is signing is over, in my opinion. guest: the color make some of

the great point. this idea of unlimited power in the presidency. we do here this, unfortunately from certain elected officials. it is just not the case . the framers of the constitution fled a monarchy. ther the english system, king's power comes from god, essentially. the king has unlimited power, you could not impeach a king. the king could do no wrong. the king was above the rule of law. people fought and died in our country for unlimited government, for the ability to decide for ourselves what our own rules are. there is no way to do that if there is somebody in power who has unlimited power. the idea is that it is human nature. the framers understood it is human nature to amass power, to entrench the power once you have got it to hang onto it, and ultimately to abuse of power. in england, it was a matter of the king's people coming into your home and rifling through

your private stuff for no reason. they called it a general warrant is because the king was curious about you. the framers said, we don't want that. we have to, as americans, regardless of political party, hang onto that concept. if we allow under this president, the presidency to run amok and basically become above the law, our children and grandchildren will feel that, for sure because it is human nature to alternately abuse power. even if you like this president, we have to be careful about confining the power of the office. in my mind as a constitutional scholar and a parent, that is what is at stake in this moment. that is what is so crucial, to make sure that tickets are handed out for speeding. host: there was a viewer that asks about the senate side. should it take up the proceedings, saying can chief justice john roberts overrule an innocent verdict. i am thinking she thinks if the

senate doesn't decide to convict the president, should it go that far? guest: the rules are not clear with respect to what happens with the chief justice. the chief justice will preside over that process, and i think that is a good thing. he will make sure it is measured, thoughtful, fair. that it goes in a way that respects the dignity of the office. we don't know whether the le on a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment. does that hold or does he have, can he make evidentiary rulings? does the senate then vote on those? can the senate overrule the chief justice? presumably, yes, but there are political implications there. i think it is virtually impossible that if the senate were to remove from office or the senate were to acquit that the chief justice would reverse

that decision, the court is really careful about embroiling itself and what are called political questions. questions that are clearly for a political branch. the idea of for there to remove a president from office, i think the supreme court would not touch that ashton with a 10 -- question with a 10 foot pole. host: our democrats line. caller: i agree that the president needs to be impeached and i love that they have kept it simple and the two articles. my question is a little different or hypothetical. i know you don't need to have a crime to write an article for impeachment. were a crime and the president was acquitted, after he is no longer president,

could he then be indicted? thank you and i will take my answer on the television. guest: the answer is, constitutionally, yes. there is nothing barring the president from being indicted if he is a private citizen. but there is something called the statute of limitations. the idea is that at some point, the government cannot bring charges against a potential criminal defendant. for federal crimes, that statute is five years. if he were to be reelected in november 2020 and have eight years in office, any potential crimes that were committed in the first few years in office, by the time he is a private citizen again, the statute of limitations could have run on those crimes. he would, by virtue every election escape the statute of limitations as a private citizen. that is one of the reasons some people believe the november 2020 election is very important,

particularly for those concerned about the contents of the mueller report, the federal campaign finance allegations that sent michael cohen to jail, for example. that category of facts would not come into play if the president were to get a second term. host: this is kim wehle. she wrote a book and is a law professor at the university of baltimore. thanks for your time. we will get another perspective from republican congressman mo brooks from alabama. he joins us next on "washington journal." ♪ >> house democrats move ahead

with two articles of impeachment against president trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of congress. read the text from the articles of impeachment now on our website, c-span.org/impeachment. today, at 7:00 p.m. eastern, members of the judiciary committee will convene to write the final language. watch c-span2 throughout the market process. follow the impeachment process live on c-span2, online at c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app. ♪ the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country, so you can make up

your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. "> "washington journal continues. host: this is representative mo brooks. he serves on the armed services committee and as a memory of the freedom congress -- caucus. good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: what do you think about the track that republic -- democrats have taken. surprised. very much at first, i thought it was a joke or a trick. keep in mind, where the democrats have been coming from. first, it was going to be russian collusion. it was going to be violation of federal election campaign loss. that is not one of the articles. apparently, there is no evidence to support that. then, they floated in a trial

balloon, the word bribery, which does meet the constitutional requirement. bribery is not an article of impeachment. i'm very much surprised that they have gone with trying to impeach a president of the united states for acts of the don't constitute a crime in the united states code. host: one of the statements made yesterday in announcements was the ability not to have witnesses directly from the ministration testify. guest: we have these kind of dispute on a regular basis. if that was the standard, barack obama would have been impeached and removed from office. there are plenty of occasions when republicans were in charge of the house and tried to get information from is negative ranch. they didn't get it. what we did was go to court and try to get coat -- court orders which is what nancy pelosi should have done. if there is a violation of the court order, or the court is forced to solve a dispute, then you have something to go on. thesemocrats, under

circumstances haven't even tried to get a court order, that i am aware of that resolves the executive privilege issue that the president has advanced. the democrats have no footing at all to make this kind of obligation as a grounds for impeachment. host: one of the things that you and follow caucus members were calling for in this process was your own hearing. what is the status of that? guest: adam schiff and nadler and the house speaker have not responded in any way, shape or form that i am aware of as of yesterday. it does not look like they are going to comply with the house rules that is the minority -- gives the minority party the right to have that kind of hearing. host: if that were to take ways, what do you expect would come from it and who would you provide? guest: i'm not in a position to answer that because i'm not on the intelligence committee or judiciary committee. i suspect that it would involve the calling of witnesses that adam schiff, nancy pelosi and chairman nadler have refused to allow the republicans to call.

i'm not one of the strategist who would make that kind of decision. host: to the idea of witnesses at least appearing, your previous guest talked about the president or one of his councils being invited to at least give their side or witness during this process. they are refusing that. do you think that was a good move by the white house? guest: i'm not going to judge whether the white house strategy is sound or unsound. i am a litigator in a courtroom. you have to make a lot of decisions, for example on the criminal does fence -- defense side. on the civil side, there are always issues about who you call as a witness and who you do not. there is a lot of room for second-guessing. i think what the democrats have to do first is establish what we would call a prima foshee case. it seems to me they have failed to do that as evidenced's articles of impeachment that do not allege any criminal activity on the part of the president. there are hundreds, if not thousands of provisions that

outline what is a crime and what is not. these articles of impeachment don't cite a single one of them. the constitutional standard is very clear. bribery, praise and, high crime or misdemeanor. it has to be a criminal offense. democrats have not alleged this in these articles of impeachment. that is why i was somewhat surprised and thought it was a joke or trick. they come back with the heavy artillery later on. to date, there has been no heavy artillery. host: this is representative mo brooks running us, republican out of alabama. if you want to ask him questions, you can do so. us, too.ext as a sidebar to the conversation we are having, "the washington post" releasing several stories in the last few days about information given from the effort in afghanistan from previous ministrations.

-- administrations. guest: this is an endless war in afghanistan. as long as we stay there, there will be a war. when we leave, there will be a war. that is the history of afghanistan and the location it is in in central asia. if it had been me, if i had been president of united states when osama bin laden was executed by american forces, i would have declared victory and left. i don't believe that we should be in afghanistan for nationstate building purposes. we were attacked by al qaeda elements that trained in afghanistan. there is a motivation for going there. i would have punched him in the nose, taken the taliban out of power, killed the al qaeda folks, killed osama bin laden, declared victory and i would have left that place in shambles and let them work it out themselves. as it is, we are spending a lot of money and losing a lot of lives without making a lot of progress primarily because of

ideological reasons that the inhabitants of afghanistan tend to have that makes them naturally suspicious to the values we have in united states of america. it makes it much more difficult to work with them long-term. host: one of the assertions of several pieces -- sort of a rosy presentation of our status of afghanistan. would you agree with that as far as what has been told by several administrations? guest: our military has been doing a superb job in afghanistan. the problem is not with the military. the problem is with the constraints and goals that the politicians in washington have set up. in my judgment, it is virtually impersonal -- impossible to establish in afghanistan a republic that shares our values. and also has the kind of rights that we enjoy in the united states as evidenced by the bill of rights and the constitution. that is not the culture that afghanistan.

there is almost always going to be tension or friction between us and afghanistan because their culture is so much different than ours. to me, what we should have done is declared victory when barack obama and his administration were successful in capturing and killing osama bin laden. we should have left at that point. for the life of me, i do not know why president obama decided to stay after we had achieved our principal goal, which was eliminating al qaeda as a threat as best we could and making sure that there was justice for osama , given that he was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks that killed thousands of americans. host: modern-day, would you say no troop presence in afghanistan? guest: i believe it is time for us to withdraw because we did achieve our principal objectives that i think are reasonable and achievable. that was making sure that we punched afghanistan in the nose hard enough for them to understand that they do not want to be another base for an attack on the united states of america.

we also killed osama bin laden. mission.our this idea of nationstate building given their culture, i think that is an impossible issue and and is not fair for our military personnel to be asked to achieve what is impossible to achieve. host: we have calls lined up for you. this is from lincoln, nebraska. mark joins us. go ahead. caller: yes. what i was wondering is why don't they file the rico act and fileunter biden the oppression of office against joe biden? i'm not in the executive branch, i'm not in the justice department, i really can't answer that. i do think there is just because of for an investigation into hunter biden and joe biden based on two bits of evidence we know

to be factual. one bit of evidence is that hunter biden was being paid, according to the media anywhere from $50,000 per month to as much as $1 million per year. no one knows for sure. i would love to find out if he was actually doing work or if his job for this ukrainian country was to provide foreign policy through his father. you have a video of joe biden, his dad, who is boasting that he successfully withheld $1 billion in foreign aid to ukraine in , whonge for a prosecutor happen to be investigating hunter biden's employer. that prosecutor being fired within six hours of joe biden having made the statement that if you don't fire him, you are not going to get the $1 billion. i would like to know more about that. it might be that the bidens are totally innocent in all of this,

and that what they were doing was proper and appropriate. on the other hand, an investigation might reveal unethical conduct or perhaps corrupt conduct. to me, there is a lot of smoke there and i would like to discern whether there is fire that goes along with that smoke. if i were a prosecutor, that is something i think warrants investigation. if nothing else, to clear the bidens' name if they have done nothing inappropriate. host: matt, virginia. caller: i have got two quick questions and a comment. my first question is, congress creates criminal law, so who is supposed to prosecute criminal law? wouldn't that be the executive branch? why wouldn't we create laws that the executive branch would have executive?e for the sense.the make any loss that they are putting out that the president set obstruction of congress wouldn't be criminal law because the president couldn't prosecute themselves.

of course, it is not going to be in the criminal law, these two things the democrats brought up, but they are high crimes and misdemeanors is laid out in the constitution. guest: you are wrong. it.uestion about the constitution says that it has to be treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors. we, as a people have decided what those crimes are. they are embodied in the united states code. the constitution does give the house of representatives and the united states senate the ability to prosecute those criminal acts if they are committed by a president of the united states. the tool that we have is impeachment and conviction thereafter and removal from office. you are right in that the judiciary, or judicial branch -- let me get that straight.they and understates department of justice, which is a subdivision of the executive branch, that that is responsible for prosecuting everybody else.

with respect to elected officials, we have in the constitution, specific provisions for impeachment of the president, the vice president and other identified public officials. carolina.rt in north independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a question. do you believe donald trump is an honest, uncorrupted man? considering everything that we know about him? guest: i'm not going to pass judgment on that. i appreciate you asking me the question. i have seen a lot of politicians here in washington dc, who unfortunately, are not completely candid and do not always tell the truth. i do say that i am supporting donald trump for reelection. i am his cochairmen for the state of alabama, and i am doing it because of his position on other policy issues like border security, free enterprise versus socialism.

he is the one standing in the breach trying to protect us from what i believe are very bad policies that will lose or cost americans their lives. i'm supporting donald trump against the democratic field for that reason. host: robert, do you have a follow-up? caller: if you have children and grandchildren, you want to be ashamed of yourself because you know he is lying. the republican party was not behind donald trump in the primary. they got on his back after, and now none of you are standing up against him. the things that he is doing to this country, he is ruining this country and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. guest: how is he ruining this country? we have perhaps the strongest economy in the history of this country, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, and he is roughly trying to save american lives each year, roughly 2000 americans who are dead at the hands of illegal aliens, who these illegal aliens have been captured for the homicides they have committed.

the president is trying to save those lives. you have another 30,000 lives lost each year from overdoses just for heroin and cocaine, over 90% of which comes across our southern border. he is trying to secure our southern border and save those lives. i would respectfully disagree with you. i think the president has done great things in a variety of fields. i wish we had more support on capitol hill so that we could do more things. i believe in border security, i believe in free enterprise, the there.nt is strong i can go on down the list on the things he has achieved on a public-policy basis that i believe help make america a great nation. host: your thoughts on the announcement of a deal on usmca? guest: i haven't seen it. we have the usmca that has been advertised for weeks and months, over a year. and then, we have the one that nancy pelosi is boasting about.

she claimed the plow of the republicans, is basically what she is saying. i want to see what that language is before i am in a position to where i have to decide how i am going to vote on it. host: are there standout concerns about whatever version ends up? guest: absolutely. there is one provision, my number could be wrong, but there is a provision in the usmca that prohibits the united states congress from dealing with these social media groups and the censoring that they engage in of the ideas and beliefs of the american people. i don't think that that is appropriate. facebook, twitter and some of these other conglomerates can be a 1984 george orwell-type situation where they control what we think by controlling what we. communicate. to me, that is a clear violation. the ideas that we can put them into the public forum and

advance them, i'm very much concerned about a provision in the usmca that warrants the ability of congress to help ensure that our first amendment freedom of speech rights are respected by these social media conglomerates. host: if you see that or other concerns, would you vote against it? as a hypothetical? guest: there are circumstances in which i will look for it and against it. i really need to see what it is. this new version has only been out for a day or two. i'm not even sure if it has been reduced to writing or has been transmitted to the public. i am going to wait and see. i hope the leadership will give us enough time to actually review what we are doing so that we can make a more informed decision. there is always the risk that they will just try to jam it down our throats before the american people and we as officials have times to -- time to digest it. host: republican representative mo brooks. let's go to the republican line.

caller: thank you for taking michael. i have two comments. one on afghanistan and the other on the impeachment. as far as afghanistan, if i remember correctly, we had less soldiers die under george bush, president bush than obama when obama was in office the first four years of his presidency. we surpass to the 2000 mark. dying iners afghanistan, which is a complete disaster. the media basically stopped reporting on afghanistan when obama became president. -- oneas the impeachment of the articles that democrats are impeaching president trump for is the abuse of power. the transcript and i also saw the hearings. one of the things the democrat lawyer was talking about and the democrats was the fact that the

president, president trump never mentioned corruption, and therefore, he was more interested in his personal gains in withholding aid and everything else. in the transcript, when he talks president of ukraine investigating the 26 teen election, crowd strike, biden's and then joema biden firing the prosecutor that was investigating his son. after he mentioned all of those points, he specifically said to the president of ukraine, that sounds awful to me. when he said that sans awful to me, that is the same thing as saying, that sounds like corruption to me. why the republicans didn't come back at the democrats during the hearings about that when they were insisting that he never mentioned corruption, tested that phrase alone, that sounds awful to me, is corruption. host: ok, we will let our guest

response. guest: i applaud the president of united states' efforts to try to spur investigations of what appears to be unethical conduct and corrupt conduct by the biden family. president'sith the request that ukraine conduct an investigation, bearing in mind that an investigation, in and of itself is not good or bad. you don't know what the results are going to be. that investigation might clear the bidens of having committed any wrongdoing. on the other hand, it might provide evidence of significant wrongdoing. i would add another point. if there is an investigation with a result that is not favorable to the biden family, that doesn't help president trump with his election. that helps elizabeth warren and bernie sanders and pete buttigieg. right now, donald trump's campaign is with the other

democrats. the president's campaign is going to be whoever the democratic nominee is. we will see who that -- how that plays out. certainly, there are a lot of democrats supporting other potential nominees for president of the united states that applauded the president's request for an investigation. host: this is from rhode island, jerry. caller: thanks for having michael. benjamin franklin -- my call. benjamin franken was asked, why should we have impeachment? cheating. you can't cheat to win the next election. they also said, what if they ever asked a foreign government to help in our election? you would have to remove him for that. those are impeachable things. what do we know? case in russia, if you are listening, they did what he wanted, he got the information for him, then he used it to win the election. he said china, will you help me

cheat in the next election? then he said, ukraine, will you help me cheat in the next election? we have to impeach him so he can't cheat to win the next election. he is the unindicted co-conspirator for bribing someone so they can win an election. that is also impeachable. host: ok, we will let our guest answer. guest: i disagree with the premise. that sounds like a lot of made up hooey to me. i would like to see this alleged quote by ben franklin. i give it a one in a million chance that that is what he said. under the constitution, there has to be a criminal offense. you can talk about all of the ideas that the people who wrote the constitution had, but it was the convention itself that decided what was in fact going to be in the constitution. that constitution says bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors.

we have got a federal criminal code that outlines all of these high crimes and misdemeanors. abuse of power is not one of them. if that was a basis for impeaching a president, barack obama would have been impeached. recall that he issued work permits to illegal aliens and direct federal conflict with statutes. we chose not to do that. we litigated that in court where the supreme court ultimately can decide whether he exceeded his authority or not. the reason we did that is because in our judgment, that is not a high crime or misdemeanor. it is a dispute from what his authority and powers are in the proper way to dissolve it is in our judiciary system -- judicial system. that is why it is there. it is not to trash the votes of over 60 million americans. that undermines our republic and democracy and cannot be tolerated under the circumstances we are seeing right now. host: representative brooks, the

federal court decided yesterday that pre-$.6 billion in military constructive friends could be used to build the president's wall. what do you think about the decision and talk about these military construction funds. guest: there are statutes that decide when certain military funds can be used for border security. i have read those statutes. it is clear as day. there are other statutes that restrict that ability. we have legal disputes. there are some circumstances you can and can't. it also depends on which pot of military money you are dipping into. what will really count in this legal dispute is what the united states supreme court says. as you know, we have had a lot of lower court rulings that have gone one way or another. the supreme court, the ultimate arbiter is the final say. i'm not really worried that much about lower court rulings. i will abide by the whatever the united states supreme court says

because in the nine states constitution, they are the final authority in interpreting these types of disputes. protestant -- protestant -- president then statutes? correct guest: i know there are some that expressly permit the nonstate -- president of the united states to divert certain military assets in certain pots or buckets to border security. there are others that don't. conflicts, and i don't know the particular pot that the money was coming from and if it permissible ones or in permissible ones. they also itemize of the things that you can do with that money. there might be a dispute as to whether the president has exceeded his authority as to what he did with that money. i am not in a position to agree or disagree with this federal court decision that came out yesterday.

i do look forward to the united states supreme court ultimately resolving this. host: one more issue as far as congress. spending runs out december 20. what is the potential of some kind of bill to keep going past that point? guest: i'm confident that we will not have a government shutdown. i don't know if the remedy will be a continuing resolution like we had in the past which unfortunately hurts our national security and very significant ways or if it will be an omnibus our minibus that provides appropriations bills type funding for the remainder of the calendar year. there is still significant disagreements to work out. one of those has to do with border security. the democrats are for open borders. that is the effect of the policies that they advocate. on the president's side, he wants to save american lives that are being lost. that goes back to the roughly 2000 americans dead every year at the hands of illegal aliens. they have been apprehended for

commission of those homicides on american soil. i would love to save those american lives and have better border security in order to minimize the heroin and cocaine that is resulting in over 30,000 a year overdose deaths. i would love not to have that kind of competition that is undermining the wages and jobs at a live american citizens. there are a lot of forces that want to ring in and she alien labor in order to undermine. american labor i hope that we will have money that will protect those interests of american citizens in these appropriation bills. we will find out next week. host: let's hear from spring hill, florida. democrats line. caller: thank you for having me. hello, mr. brooks. good morning. i have a few questions for you, sweetheart. has aresident trump history of throwing people under the bus that speaks out.

with this impeachment inquiry dong on, can you tell me or you have more of an idea, does he have something on the republicans decides having something on him because he may throw the republicans under the bus? wall, we haveder a floridian here in florida that just did a report on the news. he went, because on the border wall from where it ended all the way to where it began from where walked,uilt, he literally walked, camped out just to see all the havoc and everything trump has been preaching about. he didn't see anything. host: apologies, we will have to leave it there and let our guest response. guest: let me address the border

wall issue. there are millions of illegal aliens in the united states, anywhere from 11 million, according to the 2010 estimate. our recent yale study suggested there are 23 million. what we do know is that it costs american taxpayers at the city, state and federal level over $200 billion per year in net tax losses. for is about $600 and $700 every man, woman and child that is an american citizen. instead, we are having to spend that money because of the border security problem we have in the southern the problem on the southern border. i don't know where this gentleman was camping out. we have had thousands of illegal aliens across the border. the first step is to thumb their nose at our constitution because they have chosen not to abide by the legal process. findings released.

guest: i am troubled. i don't know if they were just bumbling or if there was bias but it looks like both. everyone involved in this process, either bumbling or engage in bias should be fired. that is the only way to catch the attention of these government employees to ensure this situation does not happen again. motivation is important, whether bias or ineptitude, but regardless of explanation, of motivation, they should be terminated for having put the u.s. through this russian collusion fraud, perpetrated by a number of people for political reasons. host: representative mo brooks from alabama on the armed services committee. thank you. guest: thank you. host: in our last hour, you can comment on the impeachment

articles, this report on the fbi russia inquiry. both those topics up for discussion. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. calls whene your washington journal continues. ♪ >> the student competition is in full swing. students are hard at work creating documentaries on the issues they would most like the 2020 candidates to address. behind the scenes, share your ntcam2020 for#stude the chance to win additional prizes.

we have resources on our website to help out. the getting started page has info to guide you through the process of making a documentary. c-span will award $100,000 in total cash prizes including a $5,000 grand prize. 20, 2020,y january the deadline for submission. >> do not be afraid to take your issue seriously. you're never too young to have an opinion. let your voice be heard. >> for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. >> washington journal continues. host: you can talk about the impeachment articles or on the inspector general's report. hearing taking place today on that report, starts at 10:00. on that on c-span3, monitor www.c-span.org and download the

free c-span radio app featuring michael horowitz, the inspector general for the justice department on the russia fbi inquiry, at 10:00. 7:00 this evening, impeachment oficles, next phase, markup articles on abuse of power and obstruction of congress, the house judiciary committee, see that tonight at 7:00 live on c-span3, www.c-span.org or the radio app. impeachmento about available at our website at www.c-span.org. if you want to find that information -- for the next hour, we will take your calls on either topic, impeachment articles or the ig's report. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. . text us if you want at (202)-748-8003.

our twitter feed is available at @cspanwj or post on facebook.com/c-span. kevin mccarthy talked about the articles and what he said were the democrats' motivation. [video clip] democrats called those who supported president trump, deplorables. democrats cannot get over the fact that the president won the election and they lost. last week at this podium, nancy pelosi pointed out, they created a timeline to impeach president trump that started 2.5 years ago. when they took the majority, they had to decide who would become chairs of their committees. who could win? jerry nadler campaign that he would be the strongest member to

lead potential impeachment. on the day of swearing in, these new freshman that gave the majority, a few hours after being sworn in, the congresswoman proclaimed, we are going to impeach. that if theytting did not impeach president trump, he would win reelection. today, we watched them introduce articles of impeachment changing the course of congress to take away due process, is where we are. this is a fear alexander hamilton had that came to fruition in this caucus. i hope no congress ever repeats this. they have a lot of members on their side. from the moment they started changingnt, seeing, the term of what they thought was out there. host: we will start with lewis,

north carolina, democrat line. caller: good morning. impeachment of donald trump. we have seen the havoc the gentle man placed in the oval office, constantly, day after day. compulsive liar. everyone knows he is a liar. he continues to do the same thing over and over. sounds to me, the man has a reprobate mind. look at some of the reveals -- you might have one republican, mitt romney. the russians are here. they are going to do it again. this president continues to call on foreign help and he don't even trust these republicans, white old republicans to help him out. he would rather go to a foreign

country. yes, if we don't stop now with this rhetoric, he will continue to do it for four more years and we haven't really gotten anything done because mitch mcconnell won't take up the bills congress already voted on. sharon,ed, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a republican now. i have been a democrat in the past. i have been a republican in the past. the thing most disconcerting to me is the total lack of jurisprudence we have seen through this thing. i understand it is not a courtroom trial. i have sat on jury. i have been in a courtroom a number of times. the total lack of any kind of , if anyone of us were in a courtroom on trial and this saw forshenanigans we

or west week occurred sought it happened to a friend, we would be abhorred. maybe trump did do something wrong, maybe he didn't. the procedure has been nothing but a kangaroo court. i am totally upset about that. host: duane in georgia, independent line. caller: thanks. i am ashamed to be an american. this is unbelievable. i have never voted in my life. i am 68 years old. i have gone through the watergate trial, the clinton trial, the mistrial. this is unbelievable. you talk about the constitution all the time. where does it say in the constitution, where every elected official votes on party

lines? everything is party lines, party lines, party lines. that is all y'all do. y'all passed some law or something or some bill and it gets sent to the senate and the senate plays the same game the house of representatives does. is there any way you know that the house of representatives and the senators can have to forfeit their paychecks for all the sham they do to us, the american people? the senate minority leader chuck schumer yesterday also reacting to articles of impeachment from house democrats. [video clip] >> gravity of charges and our sworn duty to uphold and defend the constitution demand all senators put country over party and examine evidence uncovered by the house without prejudice,

without partisanship. it is not lost on members of the senate that the white house has made a choice to block witnesses from testifying under oath and has refused to provide documents that might disprove the evidence against the president. we have not heard any rebuttal, let alone rebuttal under oath to the specific charges that the house has leveled at the president. this has left many in the country and those in the senate who could soon be judges and jurors in a trial to believe the president has something to hide. if he didn't have something to hide, why wouldn't he allow witnesses to come forward? why wouldn't he allow documents to be produced? if they exculpate the president? up with a coming

factual rebuttal, the president, his defenders in congress and the right-wing media machine have turned to wild conspiracy theories that have been debunked even by senior members of the trump administration, including yesterday, fbi director wray. host: that, you can also see on www.c-span.org. huntsville, alabama, democrat line, bruce. caller: thank you. from mo brooks the president, along with his supporters have been the most disruptive force it is country ever and people like mo brooks, who is my

changedtative, who have and goneught pattern with the flow. he started off as a democrat. then he went to a republican. just likemain lapdog, jeff sessions was when he was the attorney general. host: what do you disagree with him on specifically? touting of the president, the lack of character and the support of the president's lack of character is what i am calling them out on. they are hypocrites. virginia, "one thecle, the president has right to contest congress and the courts, which is what he has

done. again, not impeachable or an abuse of power." "he solicited the government of ."raine that fulltext is available on

our website, www.c-span.org. that text to be marked up tonight at 7:00. if you want to be able to watch the process, go to our website to find out more as the process plays out, you can watch it starting at 7:00 on c-span, go to c-span for more information on where to watch it. michael, ohio, republican line. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. donald my theory is trump, you know, when he made that phone call to ukraine, the facts of the facts -- donald hemp never, you know, withheld back aid for other corruptions going on. if there is no proof or whistleblower, how can we ever assume anything in life? we cannot assume he was holding back the aid for his own

personal gain. you cannot assume anything. why does people assume that? the people that don't like donald trump, how come they don't ever recognize he is doing great for the country? from did you gain anything the foreign secretaries you saw testify a couple weeks ago? caller: did i what? host: did you gain any insight from the foreign service dignitaries that testified several weeks ago? caller: yeah, i think they are all anti-trump. they proved it on several of them. common sense tells you they are going to, they are just some opinions, that is all they are. people, american people aren't stupid. they know they just hate trump. of course they will just sit there and say that. let's be honest about it. had they, if they weren't that, if they had proof, when they, when they, when the gentleman asked them if they had proof,

how come no one raised their hand? how can you impeach somebody, it is just like a court. how can you impeach somebody if you don't have any proof he did anything wrong? host: ok, that is michael in ohio. next, mike, arkansas, independent line. caller: good morning. a tip of the hat to the , from the frying pan into the fire. i will make a statement. no vice president has the authority to withhold on his own. it has been passed by congress. the point of view the representative used is not true. he did not do it on his own. no vice president has the with already -- has the authority to withhold funding passed by congress. donald trump stated he was withholding the funding because

he wanted the people in ukraine to investigate criminality or criminal actions. the problem with that statement he made his he had already authorized and given two times before to ukraine without asking for any investigation. number three and i will shut up after that, number three, when he asked for investigations, he pinpointed who he wanted to investigate, not the criminality in general in ukraine, but specifically to the bidens. what does that tell you people? republicans, open your eyes. host: mike, this one in new york, republican line. caller: hello? host: hi, you are on. caller: two things fast. the president will be reelected, when it gets to the senate. another 4 years. don't go on and on and on.

schumer on before. when i was on long island, we had a car show. i was the only dark one in the crowd in a predominantly white neighborhood. my grandson on my shoulders. somebody walking with his big boys next to him, they are down, they come all the way across the street to shake hands with my grandson. that is what a good boy he is. only dark one in the crowd. why are we against this? why are we against that? how doese, mike, mike, this relate to the articles of impeachment? caller: just shows you, shows you how full of it they really are! they don't do anything honest. host: pat, needles, california, good morning. pelosi gets on tv almost

every day talking about nobodies above the law, yet, nobody did nothing about hillary. pelosi and jerry nadler have broke the constitution too by seeing it one way. host: how so? caller: well, they want to impeach trump for their stuff but yet each one of them has shown abuse of power. host: that is pat. senate judiciary committee 10:00, at the ig report, c-span3. watch it on the web, listen on the radio app. op-ed in the wall street journal talking about perspective on the things.writing about

don't know if those specific questions will be asked but you can find out at 10:00 on c-span3, www.c-span.org and on the radio app. michigan, don, democrat line. caller: hi. convincedam impeachment is the correct thing to do.

disgusted with the democratic party right now and the pettiness that went on throughout these hearings. my only comment would be to the american people is, when you get a chance to vote for either party, democrat or republican, start voting the incumbents out of office. things have got to change. we have got to get some cooperation going on in this country now. we areon't do it quick, just going to fall apart. host: if you had issues with process, why do you think impeachment is the right thing to do? dider: i do believe trump coordinate with ukraine to go after biden and hunter biden but uh and as far as the obstruction

from congress, the witnesses, i mean, absolutely. what else can you say? it is the democratic party's prerogative to file charges on that. host: evelyn, mississippi, democrat line. caller: good morning, thank you. first of all i would like to say, i have a respect for the presidency office. i voted in every election i have been able to vote in, since i was able to vote. i heard a man say he had not voted and he is complaining. i voted. thatvidence is apparent this president has done some type of abuse of his power. dilutedven stated or that he is a king, that if he was on fifth avenue, if he shot

someone, no one would say anything. the evidence is clear. investigate biden, that china should do it, he suggested it. it is very clear. the last thing i want to say, i have watched c-span the last couple of days very closely and they keep bringing up the fact that the whistleblower should be brought out. be suretleblower cannot rated or brought out because as trump has done with other people or even the republicans as witnesses on the stand, he will be thrown under the bus. if there was protection of me, if i were to bring something to the attention of leaders, they would have to protect me at all costs.

i feel like the whistleblower, of course, should be kept shadowed or protected. finally, i just want to say thank you all for covering this and i agree that the president should be impeached. i support any president in office because once we have elected them, we have to work cooperatively for the nation. host: ok. talking about articles of impeachment. those hearings, everything leading to this point, where the house is marking up articles, you can find at our website, www.c-span.org, a special place on the website dedicated to that info. the judiciary committee will mark up articles, 7:00 tonight. c-span2,t play out at listen on the radio app and watch on the web. on the senate side, with the events of yesterday, the

majority leader mitch mcconnell talking to reporters answering questions about the next steps in the impeachment process. [video clip] >> [indiscernible] senatorsr mind, 67 would not vote to remove the president. after seeing articles introduced, do you still believe -- [indiscernible] surprised be totally if there were 67 senators to remove the president. that remains my view. however, we are obligated under constitution to turn to it when it comes over. we will. >> when do you expect you would meet with the minority leader to discuss the rules for a trial? next week? >> yeah. we will be talking about the way forward and see if we can reach an agreement. what i was outlining earlier is what i think makes obvious sense. you hear from both sides. then you make the decision. we don't have an answer yet as

to which direction you take. i cannot imagine that would be his view as well. we have not tried to sit down and work out a procedure yet. we will be talking to each other. >> [indiscernible] >> we will let you have a date as soon as we have it. [laughter] you are when you have to come back? [laughter] -- wondering when you have to come back? it will be around the time the bowl games end. how about that? [laughter] host: michigan. caller: thank you. i have been watching the proceedings and following the russian collusion thing. what confuses me is when a person has convictions, what is -- say,the russians

that will sway my vote to vote for someone who is not pro-life, who doesn't believe in the created order, man and woman, etc.? my vote for donald trump, yes we are all flawed individuals, human beings. he is a flawed man. look what he is doing. he is pro-life. he is forgotten on a ship. he is protecting our rights, our borders -- he is for gun rights. they are blaming him, they have been in office 30-40 years and not corrected any of these issues. i find it interesting. why vote for donald trump? it is based on convictions as to what i believe in. there is nothing the ukrainians or russians could say or do. host: wayne, louisville, kentucky, independent-minded caller: pedro, i hope you don't cut me off and don't take umbrage to what i am about to say.

number one. what is transpiring now is not right. it is not on any president -- democrat or republican -- saying that it is going to play out matter what. maybe, hopefully, in the end, the truth will come out. host: what do you mean? if, if just the, democrats and republicans both will set back, and they all they took an oath. yes, they took an oath. well, let's use that oath in the manner it was taken in and say look, ok, let's step back here, look at what is happening here, they are shutting down the

republicans about answering any questions whatsoever and they are not allowing anything in the republicans on their side too, they have stood up in both sets of hearings and blatantly out and out asked, hey, if you have firsthand knowledge, anyone on these panels, if you have firsthand knowledge, please raise your hand? at? us, where this is no one could do it. democrat or republican, i am sorry, i am telling the truth. no one stood up and raised their hand. host: you mean that hearing with the legal scholars last week? caller: yes, sir. host: ok. caller: and the hearings with the senate. host: ok. input on the articles. that for theabout

inspector general report on the pfizer court released this week, (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. comment on those things. a couple other things to talk about when it comes to trade, the usmca deal announced yesterday by the speaker in the white house, the washington post this morning takes a look at the losers from the announcement. when it comes to winners, they highlight president trump, saying it is a clear win. democrats ast the well. they also talked about labor unions.

last night during the rally in hershey, pennsylvania, the president spoke about usmca. [video clip] >> i am thrilled to report we are on the verge of ending the nafta catastrophe once and for all. [applause] congress will soon vote on my new trade deal, the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement, for usmca. [applause]

waiting, many many years, many many decades they have been looking for this, then we get it done and we have been waiting for a long time for nancy pelosi to announce, usmca -- [booing] and she did it on the same day they announced they are going to impeach. [applause] [booing] the 45th president of the united states and your favorite president i think. [applause] the reason they announced it on the same day, one hour later, they announced impeachment, few guys standing behind her, they announced impeachment and then one hour later she announced she will do usmca. you know why? it is a huge deal and it plays down impeachment because they

are embarrassed by impeachment and our poll numbers have gone through the roof because of her stupid impeachment. [applause] and think of it this way also -- the silverlining of impeachment and this witchhunt, that is the soson they approved usmca, that is ok with me. host: newspapers, including the wall street journal highlighting that the president met with the russian foreign minister yesterday. election interference did not come up.

portsmouth, virginia, democrat line, robert. caller: good morning, pedro. looky here. was talking too, sergei lavrov, there was conversation about the elections and it sounded so much like the republicans and donald trump. donald trump dismissed it. he said oh well, vladimir putin, well, he said very strongly they didn't do it. that is the same thing. exactly the same thing. they got away with it, ok? the republicans, about the impeachment, the republicans sounded an awful lot like the russians. trump seems, donald to be pulling things out of his hat. he did the central america deal

to the russians. syria to the russians. that is one for the russians. crimea to the russians. one more for the russians. when is it going to stop? he is giving everything to the russians, including our election and our freedom. host: new york, republican line. could be noel? caller: that is correct. thank you. i love c-span. watch it every morning. donald trump is going to be reelected in a landslide. democrats better suck it up and live with it. he has been the greatest president we have had since andrew jackson, i am sure. it is the fact. say that the current slate of democrats is never going to beat him.

ast: you are thinking as far a president winning reelection, is it only because of the field that could challenge them or are there other things that convince you? caller: he did everything he ran on. lowest unemployment and 50 years. economy going crazy. now and has a 401(k) the stock market is setting records everyday. he has done every single thing he ran on. that is why he was voted into office. elector landslide. he will do it again. they don't have anything to run on. they have nothing. host: you don't think articles of impeachment or the process will affect reelection in any way? caller: well, i think it will generate a lot of people that have would not, that would not have gone out to vote, to now vote for him.

they see the unfairness. this is just crazy. lunacy. these people have nothing and the things they are trying to impeach him for, obama did for eight straight years and no one ever said anything. and they have got, the democrats have got the press in bedlam. everyone of the mainstream they arec, cbs, nbc, all in bed with the democrats. when trump won election the first time, there was a lot of people that lost money because they were all lining up for the gravy train. hillary was going to provide this massive train inside the beltway. she was just going to continue it. a lot of people lost money. host: thank you very much. he spoke of the democratic field lining up, to potentially challenge the president next

year. a poll published tuesday showed a couple things. michael bloomberg earned 5% support from democratic leaning voters in the poll. joe biden leading the pack at 26% support, followed by bernie --ders at anyone percent and 21% and elizabeth warren following with 17% with pete buttigieg following and andrew yang participating in the next democratic debate next week. rob, independence, missouri, democrat line. caller: good morning. first of all, i want to correct the last caller about president obama. he was handed the most horrible economy any president has ever been handed in modern history. there were one million homes underwater. the economy was in depression. he turned around in eight years

and handed mr. trump a great economy to coast on. i am sorry. the current state of the economy has nothing to do with trump. it has to do with president obama, who did a great job. back to impeachment, i watched 90% of it. the one thing people are missing is that trump wanted ukraine to announce the investigation into burisma, not actually conduct an investigation. that is what i learn from watching the impeachment hearings. i want all my republican friends who worship trump to ask themselves one question. we know russia, the sworn enemy of the u.s., we fought a cold war with them for 25 years, what does ukraine have against the u.s.? why would they want to interfere in our elections? engage your brains. ask yourself that question. thank you. host: cbs reporting, michael

horowitz will testify about inclusions of the report released about the 2016 election, the president's campaign ties to russia and other related topics. the republican-controlled senate judiciary committee will ask questions about errors discovered and analyzed. that will take place at 10:00, somewhat filling up the room. watch the report as the inspector general testifies, it starts at 10:00 and you can watch it on c-span3 and www.c-span.org plus monitor on the radio app. florida, jacksonville, independent. caller: good morning. host: good morning. you are on. caller: well thank you. i am an independent. i have never had a party affiliation.

i have a fewyou gray hairs in my head over the years but i have never seen anything like this with impeachment. i watched all the hearings, 100%, available to the public. know, i just don't see why the democrats are pushing for this so hard. i really don't. from the testimony experts on the constitution, they came across as having a significant bias against trump. i don't know if it is all republicans or just trump.

i am really kind of disappointed. the russians would like nothing more than for this country to become divided. you know, we eat each other alive. that is exactly what is happening. host: kathy, massachusetts, republican line. caller: hi, thank you. i have a couple comments. i want to try to be, as the woman before me talked about bias, unbiased. i was a republican most of my life. i still am. because of president trump's attitude, i voted democrat this time. with these hearings coming about, i said to myself, you know, just because he is a pompous man, doesn't make him a criminal. i voted against them because i thought he was so pompous. the more i got to see his work in the government, there was a question i had.

when president obama, which i didn't mind him as president either, was president, i noticed i would tell my husband, how come there is so much leaks going on? if you go to war, there are people there before you are even there. to me that was a national security problem. when president trump became president, i noticed many of the went away and the national security was to our advantage. even though i thought he was pompous, i am seeing there is some good this man is doing. host: your thoughts on the impeachment process? caller: with the impeachment process, i don't know enough about law, to be honest with you but what i could see, i couldn't see there were much facts to go along with this. at whatam just confused

is right, wrong. have, inhe man didn't a sense, a fair hearing. i don't know him well enough. i didn't mind president obama. i thought he tried to do the best he could do. i don't know what i am going to do when i go to vote for another president again. host: i would invite you to go back in time, so to speak via the c-span video library, if you want to find more about these proceedings, the exchanges between the various legislators and witnesses they called, the announcements from yesterday, the reactions to that, all of that when you go to our c-span website. the articles of impeachment are posted there. read them for yourself, available to you on the website, www.c-span.org. mason, dayton, ohio, democrat line. caller: good morning.

i cannot believe the insanity i am hearing today. i would encourage the callers, if they haven't, to read the constitution. for the impeachment, you need host: -- two facts and we are done. they both come from trump himself. said, in the ukraine transcript, count how my, domes he says, i or me a favor, investigate the bidens. not the united states has a question about corruption. to getheld those funds those investigations and he also told the media that very same thing multiple times as well and asked china to do it. in a letter sent to congress, said we will not comply with congressional oversight. that is the first time an

american -- in american history, a president has said no witnesses, no documents, we are not cooperating, not going to happen. in essence, no longer recognizing congress is a coequal branch of government that works for the people, not a man. not donald trump, the man. host: ed in colorado, republican line. caller: thank you. if you read the transcripts, as i have, president trump is congratulating the president on behalf of the country. he also doesn't say, i want to make, have you do a favor. he says, can you do us a favor, representing our country? we have been through a lot, he says. he does not say, i have been through a lot. he says, we have been through a lot, which is our country. the man was just doing his job.

there is no i. it is us, the american people. he is trying to get to the bottom of the investigation and make sure this doesn't happen again in the future to any president. the democrats are really reaching because they have reached on everything to try to get him out of office, before he even got elected. host: the current charges against the president comparing to other charges from past presidents. president trump, the abuse of power charge for pressuring ukraine to investigate a political rival, former vice president joe biden, while withholding 300 and $9 million in congress approved military aid, for lack of cooperation into the ukraine matter.

that comparison, by the way, you can find that usa today. joan, toledo, ohio, independent line. caller: good morning. ok, on the situation with this transcript. that was a transcript summary. the actual transcript has been placed in that top-secret computer and no one seems to know whether or not they will be able to pull that thing out of there so the people can see really what was said. on that so-called transcript the president released, that was a

summary. it has a lot of little dots and things where stuff was said that was not written down and that is the first point i want to make. they need to get the actual one off that top-secret computer. the other thing i noticed, people seem to be equating the inquiry, the impeachment inquiry process with an actual trial. that is not a trial. that is an information gathering device they use and the rules the democrats are using are the same rules the republicans wrote under house speaker john boehner. they are using the same type of rules, almost precisely. host: lawrenceville, georgia, independent line. caller: good morning.

my original reason for calling was a guy earlier, several colors back, complaining about people who are against trump, not acknowledging the good things he has done. there are a lot of people -- i am a libertarian -- i am on the right in a lot of ways and i support a lot of the things the president has done. the supreme court appointees. the tax cut. the deregulation that has helped our economy grow, which goes to the point later on where a guy was complaining about obama credits. obama gave trump a good economy. trump expanded that. that is neither here or there. out of his own mouth, president trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. if you look up that term in the history of that term, it is about abuse of power. on, the debate that went the constitutional convention

between george mason and james madison. they touched on that in the hastings impeachment and process, at exactly the same , the impeachment of hastings, they are bringing up this very point about abuse of power that parallels exactly what trump has done. i can support the guy. at the same time, i can recognize the democrats hate him to the man, with the exception of nancy pelosi obviously. host: robert, key largo, florida, democrat line. caller: good morning. host: you are on. caller: i want to emphasize the fact i noticed the other day on outard engel, who pointed what is going on in syria and how the kurdish people are being

trumpyed because of what did. i think it is about his two towers he has in his temple. -- in istanbul. i think he should be impeached for that alone, what he is doing to the kurdish people. as far as the other one is concerned, i think he is in bed -- they are drilling in the arctic together. it is time for people to realize, if they destroy god's earth, there is nothing they to try tole to do justify -- host: got that. you are looking at the room where the hearing takes place, looking at the issues of the inspector general report that starts at 10:00. when that starts, you will have

to go to c-span3 to watch that. on this network, we will go to the floor of the house at 10:00. if you're interested in the hearing itself, go to c-span3, www.c-span.org or the radio app. the last caller mentioned environmental efforts. greta thunberg has been selected as the time magazine person of the year. there is the cover. june, california, republican line. caller: quick comment in question. i believe the higher ups at the fbi and the intelligence agencies tried to subvert the trump campaign and then tried to frame him with this russian crab. the question is this. what american citizen wouldn't do all it could to expose the people that tried to frame them

and point out corruption on the others such as joe biden and his son and all the money he was getting for doing nothing in ukraine and china? ask yourself that question. thank you. host: rhode island, democrat line, gary. caller: that sounded like fox news right there. if the president is so much against corruption, how come in 2017-2018, he was ok to send money to them when that was a corrupt government? this senator pat lahey, hearing set to start, senate judiciary committee at 10:00. lloyd, seymour, tennessee, republican line. should beam schiff charged with treason. the whole time he was head of infoboard, he used fake

and told lies his self. minnesota, independent. caller: good morning. you know, i listened to both sides. i listen to all news channels. as an independent voter, i have gone both ways but what i see through all of this and what i have seen just before donald trump was elected is complete and utter hatred for a man simply because he doesn't fit the protocol of a political office or political stance. he is a man who came in and defeated hillary clinton. the person that many many people thought was going to win. but you know what? i believe, although i did not

vote for him and i wish i would have, that he is the first in a presidential office who says that he is going to do, or who is doing what he said he was going to do. as far as impeachment, it is such a farce. when you have preached it for this long, when you have shown the hatred, when you have allowed, when the media puts on some of the statements that that that democrats have spoken about, the president of the united states, think of our small children. think of what they are hearing. host: that is mary in minnesota. washington post taking a look at one of president trump's

charities. decision, court ordered, for the president to pay out $2 million for misusing funding, the payment was ordered last month by the new york state judge in a rebuke to a sitting president. del, bethlehem, pennsylvania, democrat line. caller: i was just looking at that article in our local paper. he defrauded.

another one of his hundreds of thieving opportunities he has taken advantage of as president. [indiscernible] that is what i wanted to mention. why is that not part of the impeachment process? host: seminole, florida, matthew, the house about to come in. caller: good morning. yount to thank c-span and for being able to lay things out in a way that has been pretty fair from what i have seen. i really respect what you have done, especially with the guests you have brought on. itn it comes to the inquiry, really is quite laughable and lots of ways. -- in lots of ways. never go fishing with the democratic party. they don't catch anything. they have been fishing since day one.