this is how the future will be. invention and early detection. susan: we end on that message of hope. azra raza, thank you for spending this hour with us. dr. raza: thank you. ♪ announcer: all "q&a" shows are available on our website or as a podcast at c-span.org. announcer: next sunday, former wall street trader turned photojournalist chris discusses his travels documenting the plight of people living on the margins of society in america in his book "dignity." that is next sunday on "q&a." announcer: "washington journal" is next. debonoennett and mike

discussed the house floor vote on articles of impeachment. and alan durso which on his opposition to the impeachment of president trump. ♪ host: the house of representatives is slated to vote for two articles of impeachment for president trump. the president will stand trial in the senate and the new year. we will begin with your thoughts. should the president be impeached and removed from office? democrats (202) 748-8000. you can go to social. you can join us on c-span or facebook.com/cspan and you can

text us your city and state at 202-748-8003. we will begin with a new poll out by fox. trump's approval picks up. found.look at what fox takeob approval rating that from october -- ticked up from october. his approval rating is at 43%. take a look at the impeachment question. in late october, 40 9% favored impeachment and removal from office. 4% said impeached, but don't opposednd 41% altogether. say impeach, but don't remove and 41% say do not impeach the president. that is our question for all of do you think should

happen? well.t with a new poll as what the npr-pbs poll found. 48 percent say they input -- support impeachment. republicans, 93% of republicans say do not impeach the president. independents, 46% support it, 49% opposed. what youking you think, this played out on the sunday shows yesterday where on one of theas

sunday shows and talked about what comes next and what he thinks the senate trial should look like, which would happen in january. [video clip] >> it is clearly leadership will be in lockstep with the president. is there anything you can do? prescribestitution senators when they sit trial, they have to pledge to do impartial justice and here you have the majority of the said it say he will work hand in glove with his defense attorney it is a great -- it is a subversion of the constitutional scheme. we will have done our duty to protect of the national security i hope they will do their

dirty -- their duty. the president solicited, blackmailed a foreign government using funds appropriated for military aid to a country under invasion by russia and there is virtually no controversy and he ordered everyone not to testify to cover it up. is this is a subversion of constitutional order and if he gets away with it, future presidents of either party will be able to really change the .ature of our government

this week on wednesday morning, the house of representatives will take up two votes to impeach the president. beth in ohio, democratic caller, you are up first. what do you think? i have been a lifelong democrat, but i am thinking of changing parties. to me, president trump kind of like santa claus because i feel like he knows us better than we .now ourselves i would not even mind living under a dictatorship because democracy is too hard. we have to think a lot and make our own decisions, which i am trying of -- tired of doing.

i think trump said it best when he said i could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and nobody would do anything. he has declared himself to be above the law and he is. thank you, president trump, that is all i would like for president. host: democratic caller, what do you think. should he be impeached and removed from office? caller: i think he should be impeached. when bill clinton set i did not have sex with this woman -- he even had his own lawyer come against him. there is a lot of things this man has gone to not only violate -- as a man,l laws i have daughters and i have

wives. every man should be offended when he feels he can grab the genitals of my daughters or sister or my wife. host: we will get more calls coming in and take your thoughts in a minute. i want to show you what the senate minority leader chuck schumer, democrat of new york when he putst night out a letter outlining what he would like to see in a senate trial. he wants witnesses called, chuck schumer requested witnesses in the senate trial, mick mulvaney, blair,lton, robert michael duffy, the associate director for the national security office of management and budget, and also wrote in "i propose the

swearing in of the chief justice and senators occur tuesday that after preparation and submission for trial, they be recognized on to make their followed by the presentation of the president's counsel. " documentation, a longer hearing, witnesses called. ,e have heard mitch mcconnell who is talking to the white house, would like a shorter trial. lindsey graham was on face the nation to talk about what is expected when the impeachment

goes to the senate. [video clip] >> what is best for the country is to get this over with. i have clearly made up my mind. i have disdain for the acquisitions and the process. the president can make a request to call witnesses, the president can make a request to call mike pence and pompeo and joe biden and hunter biden, i will vote on the underlying articles. >> the president says he would love those individuals to testify, he wants evidence, he wants to make his case. why are you opposed? ifi would tell the president somebody is ready to acquit you, get out of the way. they will start calling mike pence and secretary of state pompeo. i don't think that is good for the country or the senate. you need 51 votes to get a witness approved, i want to make my decision based on the trial

record established in the house as a basis for impeachment, that is me. is a general desire by a lot of senators to not turn this into a circus. i understand the president's frustration about being shut out in the house, but i need to do what i think is best for the country. host: lindsey graham saying he did not want to hear from witnesses. the senateer wants trial for president trump to look like the senate trial for president clinton. the washington times notes in 1999 then senator chuck schumer opposed the process for bill clinton's trial, he opposed bringing witnesses. chuck schumer was a house member his first when he won senate term. he was a house member until impeachment in the house. he is a new freshman member.

here he is in january 1999 making his argument of why he opposes witnesses. [video clip] case seems to me no good has been made for witnesses. house purpose, as the manager stated, for witnesses, disparitiese the and facts, they would have called a different list because the number one witness who is involved in factual disparities is betty curry and she was not called and with sidney blumenthal, there is no factual disparity at all. i think the real goal of the house managers is unfortunately to bring monica lewinsky to the floor of the senate. hasn't this poor woman been through enough? to bring monica linsky to the floor of the senate, i find that to be a goal that would

certainly risk the dignity of the senate, the necessity for looking at factual distinctions in the case. monica lewinsky has been called 22 times and said the same things each time. they interviewed her and found no disparity in her testimony with previous testimony. this poor, young woman, who has been through plenty, if the house managers have their way, will be brought to the floor of badlynate and i feel very for her. 1999, auck schumer in freshman senator talking about why he opposed witnesses during the impeachment trial. as lindsey graham said in the video we showed you, it takes a simple majority, 51 senators for the process in the senate trial to be approved.

there are 53 republicans. all eyes are on these two republicans, senator lisa murkowski and senator susan collins, republican of alaska and maine and what they would vote for. the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, can only afford two defections to get something approved to how this senate trial should work. do you think the president should be impeached and removed from office? bill in new jersey, independent caller, you are next. caller: good morning, greta. will impeachment help or hurt president trump in 2020? the question has to be looked at in the current political climate meaning before trump and after trump. the trump and his supporters up is down, down is up, good. this changes everything, we are living in a parallel universe,

one i have no idea how we are going to get out of. the scary thing is i believe we are headed for a trump supporters versus trump detectors civil war. indiana, hi,n kevin. caller: that last caller, i don't know. think hey, i don't will get impeached. does he need to be impeached? look at the history of all of our presidents, do they all need impeached? onhink we need term limits our senators so they cannot grandstand and talk about our country and how the voters voted. i want to note another thing to that last caller. only 150 million people vote. you still have another 150 million people.

if they impeached trump, which i hope they do, on one fact. if you impeached trump, it proves to the other 150 million that don't get to vote that it is a rigged system and it proves is in office, who the senators get their way. the reason this country is not growth isn china on for one simple thing, senators push welfare,le, push people down. the senators need term limits. the senators need a reality check. impeach trump and you will have with that last caller said. host: david in maryland, a democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning, greta. this has been an interesting conversation and i think what is going on today in america is a

ofat ongoing experiment democracy and nobody ever says it is a perfect system, but the founders crafted it perfectly thenow we have to see if -- people should not be overly depressed, i have confidence in the system. i believe the president has done wrong not only on this issue, but many other issues. i think he should be impeached. i think it in. beit appears he will not convicted, but he forever will be noted for what he has done, this is a precursor for the election that will come up. hopefully people have stayed awake for the arguments and the people will ultimately make a decision.

this is the same reason why president trump was elected in the first place, people outside of washington wanted to send a message to say to washington, the house and senate, that we we need anough, radical change and we have gotten what the people wished for. i am optimistic, i think we will get past this. i don't think -- i don't like this man, he is an embarrassment in america and throughout the world and hopefully we will move on and continue to exist in a democratic society. host: the house judiciary committee released a 600 page report on the articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of congress, you can find that report if you go to our website. they lay the groundwork for their arguments that the president violated the constitution and that is why

they are moving forward with articles of impeachment. for the first time, they talk about the president committing crimes as well. although president trump's actions may not rise to the level of criminal violation to justify impeachment, his conduct was criminal. the anti-bribery and wire fraud statutes underscore the extent to which congress and the american people have broadly condemned the use of a public position of trust for personal gain. as this committee observed decades ago, nothing is more corrosive to the fabric of good government than bribery. public officials who solicit or obtain bribes. the wire fraud statute imposes -- this imprisonment say-bribery statute, they starting with this statute, criminal bribery occurs when a

public official demands or seeks anything of value personally in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. the public official must carry out these actions corruptly. instilling -- the supreme court confirmed the statute governing honest services fraud applies to bribes and kickbacks and noted the concept draws content from the federal anti-bribery statute. public officials who engage in bribery may also be charged with honest services fraud. the judiciary committee saying the president violated the constitution and they are arguing committed crimes because of these statutes. republicans have said the president has not committed a crime. your thoughts this morning. dan in michigan, republican caller. i am a graduate student

in history and my folks bought me a tv and the only channels i 3.ch our c-span 1, 2, and this impeachment is great, but i go to the major networks and it .s all we talk about howand night, we all know this ends, he is not going to get impeached. i turn on the tv, i want substance, let's talk about china, health care, social security. we have 17 veterans a day killing themselves and this is all we talk about day and night and it is the most frustrating thing. i hope he gets impeached, but it is not going to happen. i wish we could talk about different things. c-span does a great thing, but on the major network. host: there will be other debate this week. on the house floor, the speaker, nancy pelosi, has set up this week so on tuesday, the house

has to vote on a continuing resolution, stopgap spending bill to keep the government funded. on wednesday, she scheduled this impeachment vote and on thursday, the house will vote on to pointe deal, nafta out, the united states-mexico-canada trade agreement. on c-span will happen every single day this week in the washington journal leading up to the house gaveling in as well. ron in new york, independent. morning i would like to address the previous information you put out about the president committing a crime to bribery, that is pretty outrageous. that describes joe biden's well publicized spectacle with his

son bragging on how he got his son the job and had people removed from office. getting back to the trump issue, i watched from the beginning and i am sorry, democrats have nothing. the president cost exact words were could you do me a favor and look into this, i would appreciate it, let me know what you find out. no aid was withheld. i will jump into correct you a little bit because this became an issue during the house judiciary committee where democrats were quoting the president saying can you do me a favor and republicans -- democrats are saying can you do us a favor and they say the president was referring to us as the united states. us was i don't believe used, i believe it was me. host: what do you think should

happen? caller: i think they should play out and do serious investigating to the people bringing these allegations and write down the line, you have a lot of perjury that is evidence. i think the president should be witnesses, testimony, 23 against 17 the whole way is ridiculous. republicans did not stand a chance. i would like to wrap it up and who i voted for and why i voted for the president last time around. to conspire me or persuade me to vote for anybody other than donald trump -- onam getting a little people telling me i am not aware and why in's history voted for him. he is doing a great job in my opinion. i have never seen the economy

stronger in the construction business i am in. i think he should not be impeached, they should drop all of this and let's get to real issues. mary in michigan. what do you think? caller: i think he should be impeached, he has broken the laws. he has a obstructed -- he has obstructed congress. there is no doubt about it. that you have got to turn television down, that is what causes confusion. tom, republican. caller: good morning, greta. you look beautiful today. host: here is the one thing we are not talking about. shadow government set up by the prior president or he set up a white house down the street from the white house, followed him

after ourhe world president was elected. to get ames comey leak special investigator. we have joe biden's own confession. over in the ukraine making money. our taxpayer dollars are going andhese people's sons owney'ss and daughter put these people in jail and loretta lynch gave a special visa to send somebody to campaign.p trump's

there is so much corruption running around. america needs to ask themselves what is going on when you have an ex-president sitting at the white house? paul ryan meeting people over , civilians going there. host: i am going to share text messages from our viewers as well. textingm massachusetts trump should be impeached. nancy pelosi needs to hold the vote and then holds -- hold articles of impeachment. mcconnell and graham need to recuse themselves. that is an argument some are making after the majority leader met with white house counsel to talk about the trial. tweet, debbie with a absolutely not, this impeachment is a farce. democrats are so scared he will

sway democrats and independents to change parties. impeached, should be and removed, should have happened after he had that private meeting with russian oligarchs in our white house. ais is another text from tony -- tonya. tooprocess is sloppy and fast, it is demeaning to america. that viewer talking about switching parties referring to the congressman from new jersey the weekendes over he intends to become a republican next week and others were announcing their plans as well. it has been written in the papers and the hill noted quit on theis aides announcement he would become a republican. he was in a district the

president -- had won. the new york times notes other democrats who are in trump districts. they won their seats, but the president won their area. represented of collin peterson was the only democrat to vote against formalizing impeachment. he would most likely vote against impeachment. there are two democrats the new york times is featuring. ,ason crow and antonio delgado who faced -- who face tough reelection battles and they say they would support impeachment. a group of more than two dozen freshman democrats are quietly lobbying for represented justin amash of michigan, an independent who left the republican party to serve as one of the 6 or more impeachment managers to present the case against mr. trump.

papers, he ishe apparently open to the request. however, there is speculation nancy pelosi would not have justin amash as one of the ,mpeachment house managers leaving that to democrats instead. justin amash was tweeting on friday he was critical of mitch mcconnell for meeting with the white house and critical of what lindsey graham has had to say about having his mind made up for the senate trial and justin on friday the out oath senators will have to take at the beginning of the senate trial. this is what senators have to , "ion the senate floor solemnly swear in all things of

pertaining to the trial of impeachment of donald john trump , president of the united states, now pending, i will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help me god." .ery in michigan, you are next should the president be impeached and removed? caller: yes. i think you should be impeached, but my call was more about your first caller. if this lady would not mind living under a dictatorship, i am sure venezuela and north korea has room for her. as far as the impeachment, they are going to do whatever they are going to do. likek more at what he says the parking lot press conferences. five weeks ago or so, a reporter asked him about the tax breaky gave to the rich and when he said what he said, then they

asked him what about a payroll tax cut? that man actually said the country is doing great, they don't need one and this is the problem with this guy, he wants who he willchoose take care of and who a his not -- who he is not. that is a third time i have heard a republican say they would not mind living under a dictatorship. i am sure there are republican senators that will feel the same way. whatever they are going to do, they are going to do. bronson, your turn. caller: good morning, america. good morning democrats and republicans. host: we are listening. vietnami and a disabled -- and a disabled vietnam veteran born in mexico.

donald trump is a racist and a bigot, descendent of nazi germany, draft dodger and a ,oward, keeps children in cages calls all mexicans ray pests calls all mexicans rapists. social programs already passed by the house. mitch mcconnell and lindsey graham are lapdogs. they need social services and republicans are keeping -- they have not passed a single social program. wake up, democrats and republicans. host: let's go to george in michigan, what do you think?

caller: greta, this is your buddy george from michigan. host: hi, george. caller: i waited 30 days. every time i come on, i make a video of my appearance and i take a video -- of greta laughing and send it so they know i am alive. i have been watching your show since 1979. i don't think i can watch c-span anymore. all we see -- seem to have are , legalizedists corruption, basically. they are getting to the lawmakers and the lawmakers are whistling to them. taking no different than a bribe as far as i am concerned

. all the people in congress i am theirave advanced financial status after they have during their time in office with the connections they have made. you never seem to have normal people on this program. onhave spent so much time this impeachment thing. impeach trump, then they get pence and then they get pence and then what happens? they get nancy pelosi. are we ready for nancy pelosi as president? she came from a mafia family. about thewe talk senate recognizing the armenian genocide? why don't we talk about a or aeman or plumber

youtube video teaching people how to build a house from start to finish? fan club,dent of your but i get so frustrated, you don't get normal people talking on your program. the lobbyists, the think tanks, .hey are all purchased lobbyists are forming their opinion based on who is forming their paycheck. host: we get normal people and we take phone calls from all of you across the country. there is not another show that incorporates a conversation with the decision-makers in washington, d.c., b it members of congress or -- be it members of congress or think take people. republican, pennsylvania. tina? good morning. one last call for tina.

let me move on to texas, democratic caller. caller: good morning. he should be impeached. the president of the united states is the president of everyone. he is not the best friend of russia. russians had the ambassador, all these russian bosses in the white house standing up, looking at them, and being proud. it used to be the party that was against russia. russia was the one that attacked our election. last weekump just have a visit from the ambassador of russia and he hasn't had a of ior from the president thought ukraine was our allies?

i thought we gave them that money to fight russia? all the republicans, if you want to be under putin's rule, you want to be part of the communist party, god bless you because i don't. i want america to be like it was in the days of nixon, when wright was right and republicans democrats decided to take him out because he was wrong. host: i believe he will be impeached, she writes, he will be removed. liberals should savor their empty victory while they can. there are some house democrats -- the impending vote has shown attention on the 30 house democrats to represent districts wister drum carried in 2016 and

might bear the most political risk by backing impeachment. at least 10 of the 31 democrats said they would side with party leaders and support impeachment including 4 who announced plans on friday over the weekend. the staff would leave the party and become a republican. david in georgia, independent. caller: good, c-span. i thank you so much for washington journal. this is crazy. c-span1 of the few credible networks for giving this information. even you all, all the air is observed -- absorbed out of the room. it really is sad, there is so much more to talk about, so much more to get accomplished in congress although you have a

president that through it all is accomplishing -- and he is a trump supporter. a new york collar says even though you corrected him and what the president said about do us a favor, he refused to mediae it because of the -- that is how ridiculous it has gotten. theiryou for c-span for being an outlet that gives us real information and factual information and it is sad even on a credible network like this, all the air has been taken out of the room because of this crazy process and i thank you all for that. in chicago, democratic caller, you are next. caller: good morning, greta. how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: the president should be

impeached, but i don't think he will be removed. trial, you to the have the chairman of the trial, lindsey graham. you have mitch mcconnell, they have already stacked the deck against impeachment. the part of what i don't understand is why they won't step up the same way democrats did in trump districts that they might lose, but they are going to step up to the call. also, you have to look at the the president has done. he just got find thousands of dollars for fraud on the charity and the school. and he believes he can kill somebody and get away with it. i just don't understand it. i don't understand how people

let him do what he wants to do. host: bob in texas, what do you think? caller: good morning, greta. significantmost fact that has not been established in the record that the democrats have made is the relationship to 2020. the record says this is all investigations from the past, so it is from 2016 and yet both articles of impeachment are really directed towards the 2020 election. trump asked for evaluation, investigation of the 2016 election. my reason for calling, the biggest reason is what is omitted not only by mainstream media but c-span. everybody focuses on mitch mcconnell and lindsey graham and how impartial they will not be. you have five senators running for president from the democratic party that have

already come out and said trump was guilty and he should be impeached, five of them. it,an doesn't talk about mainstream media doesn't want to talk about it. i think c-span made a major the ig by not airing report and all the fallout from that, you had a whole hour on it on the day or before, but you did not talk about it after all the information has come out. c-span needs to include all of the information, that is what i am concerned about. host: you brought it up, that is part of this. if you bring up things like the 5 senators running for office and that they will have a vote you rightly point out in the senate trial as well. joe in massachusetts, independent. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: i am doing well.

caller: i just want to point out at a time when the news and the media in this country is probably at the lowest point it has ever been, c-span is the gold standard. anybody that goes on air and says they are not getting it on c-span, i would hate to think where they get their information from. you guys do a phenomenal job. i am recently retired and i got a chance to watch the entire hearings on what i could not help notice of the 8-10 witnesses, all career diplomats. under the penalty of perjury, all seem to support what the whistleblower said. probably don't need him or her as a witness, but everything was corroborated and i try to have an open mind. i have voted republican and democrat, but the evidence seemed to be clear. i guess it is no surprise

republicans want to hold onto this and they are worried trump is going to take away their base , but it is what it is. what i saw is what i believed. i think out of we live in a country people can call up from all different viewpoints and voice their point of view and i am glad for c-span and a couple things before i run away. we are about to pick a new leader and there are three things i think people need to consider, we need to be aware of any leader who offers simple answers to very complex problems. we need to worry about any leader who attacks everybody and anyone who disagrees with them, even former allies and the biggest one is we need to worry about any leader who seeks to eliminate the free press because that is the fourth branch of our government. host: i will remind viewers of what minority leader chuck schumer put out last night in a letter to the majority leader of what he would like to see in the

senate trial, he wants witnesses called, mick mulvaney, 1, the acting chief of staff as well as blair,lton, robert senior advisor to mick mulvaney and michael duffy, associate director for national security office of management and budget. sayingority leader is let's have the same set up we did for the clinton impeachment in 1999 and as we showed you earlier in the washing -- and the washington times points out, then senator schumer, who was a freshman, he had just won his senate seat, he voted against the set up for the clinton impeachment trial and the witnesses, etc. now he is saying let's use that as a model for the senate trial against president trump. he is also saying i propose a pretrial housekeeping measure adopted monday, january 6, that

the swearing in of the chief justice and senators occur on tuesday, january 7, and after a period for preparation and submission of trial briefs, house managers be recognized on thursday, january 9, to make their presentation followed by the presentation by the president's counsel also for a period not more than 24 hours, that is what he would like to see. the majority leader has said he will have discussions with chuck schumer about how the senate trial would be conducted. more to come on that this week. steve in louisiana, democratic caller. caller: how are you today? host: i am fine, go ahead. for donaldm all trump being impeached and mitch mcconnell should be impeached for obstruction of government. democrats have been putting

senate bills, senate bills and he is not wanting to bring them to the floor. he is doing everything he can to hold back the government and i believe mitch mcconnell should be impeached along with donald trump. thank you. maryland,sville, curtis, independent. caller: good morning. how are you? the president should be impeached and removed from office. you see -- calling and saying this man is so good, i voted for him. is the downfall of where you see the dictator around the globe. nuc these people who love the dictator. america has been a good example for many years. now this is the test. if they leave this man in

office, america is no better than those third world countries. i say -- i pray we remove this man from office and america will continue to be a good example for the world that we need to follow, that is my prayer. host: debbie in arizona, inc. you for calling in. what do you think? caller: this impeachment thing, he needs to be impeached and i have read the reports, i read the mueller report, some of the other reports and if you look at it and really reads it, he has taken liberties no other president has and i don't understand what everybody is -- i was kind of embarrassed by debbie lesko in the house because i was like why is she defending this? you can read it.

it was quite embarrassing to see andjordan and matt gaetz collins and ratcliffe overly dramatizing himself the way they were, it was quite embarrassing. host: you said you read a lot of this, there is more to read, the house judiciary committee releasing their report on articles of impeachment, it is 600 pages and you can find it at the top of our website. we also have a special page if you click on the top right hand impeachment including that report i am talking about. the impeachment process kicks off on tuesday at 11:00 a.m. eastern time when the house rules committee will have debates before them about the floor structure, the floor debate in the house on wednesday, they will be debating this and we will have coverage

c-span.m. eastern time 3, c-span.org, or if you download the c-span radio app. get it on your phone because you will be able to listen as you go along, same with the house floor on wednesday when they take their vote. in madison heights, virginia, republican. caller: inc. you for taking my call. working all, i will be -- voting for the first time november of this year and i am voting for donald trump. going to win just like last time because all of these callers do not think right. they do not think 4 or 5 years down the road, they are acting emotionally. they don't know what trump is doing for the country. they are listening to cnn, msnbc, nbc, and the rest.

there -- they have been so brainwashed, there is no return. democrats have no policy. let's see the economic policy. lawlesse become the party, the party of tax hikes. during the 8 years of obama -- americans are being kidnapped all over the place and trump is trying to bring everything right and people are saying impeach him. if the republicans come to power for the last time as congress and they say democrat president, do not tell me in three months he will be out of office.

jay in florida, independent. i am going to vote donald trump -- host: we can hardly hear you. there you go. caller: i support donald trump a lot. he has done a lot for us, he is bringing our jobs back and i am of the senators because they are good people, too and they work hard and they are trying to do the right thing . host: hard to hear you, so we have to let you go. spence in west virginia, democratic caller. iller: i would like to say

believe people are not going to believe it, but somehow this man .as sold out to the russians there have been so many examples of where they have benefited from his actions, tom brady cheated in a football game. as much as we all like tom brady , there should be some type of penalty to exclude this man because he did cheat. may i ask you a personal question? i would love to know how old your child is. and a: i have a 10 seven-year-old, two girls. host: we will go to kathy in republican. good morning -- caller: the liberal vote will do. we will have open borders, the cartel will love you, no more tunnels today, walk right in and

sell your goods. if they don't get paid, they can hang you on the golden gate bridge like they do in mexico, pelosi will love that. they don't want police officers, they hate us, they don't want to help veterans, the homeless people. i live in california and up and down the state, there are homeless people, but they want to give health care to illegals and give them a free drivers license and the people in this country, veterans, waiting for health care and some of them die waiting period if you vote for a liberal, they will raise their taxes to pay for all the people here, they don't care about anybody else but freeloaders, good day. host: kathy in california, republican. take a look at this whole -- poll released and they asked if president trump should be impeached and removed from office. 49% in late october said

impeached and removed and now 50% are saying that. impeached, now say but don't remove and 41% are saying you not impeached. they ask other questions in this poll i want to show you as well. has president trump abused his power? 53% said yes? committed bribery? 45% answered yes while 47% said no. do presidents typically ask for leaders to investigate political rivals? 58% said they do not. 22% yes and 20% said they were not sure. republican.s, a good morning. dems need thishe impeachment scam to go because what are they going to run on?

they are going to run on open borders, giving medicare and social security to illegals and kill a child at any stage and tax people to death. they have no real campaign and sham to try tois take on donald trump. there is no other reason why they are doing this. he released these five taliban for a traitor. accusationsve bogus --are you still there? host: we are listening. caller: when you think about --t happened with hillary she bought in from --

disinformation from a foreign leader and used it against trump and gave it to the fbi. there -- they are the only ones that had russia collusion going on. people that are not informed are going to fall for the roting goingpar on. it is a big smokescreen and -- secure the border, have a reasonable amount of taxes, have people working, this .s the last thing they want talking, i you were was finding questions from this poll and one of them piggybacking off of what you are saying a gap -- about democrats. are the democrats running impeachment fairly?

42% said no. within that margin of error, people are split about whether congressional democrats are running impeachment increased fairly. better washington gamesmanship, 41% say speaker pelosi is better at this, 37 percent say president trump and 13% say both or neither. let's go to william in ohio, .emocratic caller i think crooks, politicians, and the government has a three ring circus. what they should be investigating is trump's ring that hassex been going on for years and years. host: randy in west virginia, republican. caller: yes. host: good morning. caller: good morning.

i think the democrats should have never started this because it ain't nothing but a fishing expedition. presidentn the only in office that has made his promise of what he would do and is trying to get it done. they just don't want it to be done. host: we are going to take a break. when we come back, dig into this week in washington and talk with brian bennett and mike debonis and talk about this week's impeachment vote, the status of government funding, and negotiations on both ends of pennsylvania avenue and later, attorney and law professor alan dershowitz addresses his opposition to efforts to impeach president trump.

we will be right back. ♪ >> our c-span campaign 2020 bus team is traveling across the country asking voters what issues should presidential candidates address. >> one of the issues that i really wish the candidates for 2020 would talk about more often is the issue of mental health. it's been a controversial topic for the past several years, and a lot of politicians may say, oh, we're going to do this, do

that, but i feel like not a lot is being done about it, and now no one is talking about it as much anymore. i would like to see that issue have more attention again, because it's a very serious issue that's plaguing millions of families all across this country, and i would like to see mother health programs help people that are afflicted with unfortunate mental health problems. >> one of the issues that is for me is immigration. i would love to have the candidates from either party speak on the topic of immigration and immigration reform, as well as the current laws and the current climate that immigration has played a part in our country, because as we know, america is a melting pot, so i feel like that's something that truly has to be addressed because you can't ignore what's currently going on, as well as we can't hide the fact that there are issues that need to be addressed when it comes to immigration. >> president trump recently recognized jerusalem as the

capital of israel and transferred the embassy there. i wonder if any. candidates would call that and continue to recognize jerusalem as the capital of israel or if they plan to reverse it by presidential decision to return the capital -- our recognition of the capital as tel aviv. >> and i am interested in hearing more about what our presidential candidates plan to h.b.c.'s in our across the nation. as a graduate in south carolina state university, and now an employee of an hbcu, morris college right here in sumter, south carolina, i want to hear re about what the candidates plan to do. >> voices from the road, on -span.

>> "washington journal" mugs are available at c-span's new online store. go to c-spanstore dogg. check out the "washington journal" mugs and see all of the c-span products. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with two reporters to take your questions about this week in washington. how will impeachment work, as well as congress facing a deadline for government spending. mike debonis is with "the washington post." brian bennett, senior white house correspondent with "time" magazine, thank you both for being here. let's begin with the white house. what are they saying about how they would like impeachment to look? guest: trump right now, president trump believes that impeachment is breaking his way, that he really believes it's given his supporters some momentum and enthusiasm, and he initially was of the mind that he wanted the senate to -- once the house takes their vote, which looks like it's going

happen, he wanted the senate to take their time with the trial because he felt like it would be politically advantageous. well, at this point, it looks like he's been talked out of that. mcconnell, the senate majority leader, felt like he wanted a quick trial, but didn't want to bring in new witnesses and was able to prevail upon the white house that that was the best way to go. those negotiations are still ongoing and they're happening not only between the white house and the republicans in the senate, but also between the republicans in the senate and the democrats. but at this point it looks like they're coming in on trying to have a relatively speedy senate trial that doesn't bring a lot of new witnesses. president trump felt like maybe they could have brought in witnesses like hunter biden and others to try to expand the scope of it and try to push it for political advantage. well, at this point it looks like they're going in a different direction. and also what's happening this last week, president trump is

trying to push through as many deals as he can to try to look like he's being productive as the house moves forward on impeachment. host: who will represent the president? will there be witnesses for the president? what is the white house part of this? guest: the white house is talking with mcconnell's office right now on exactly how that's going to go through. one of the most recent ideas has been to have the white the counsel represent republican side in the senate. that still hasn't been ompletely nailed down. it would be unusual to have the white house counsel run the republican side in the senate. it would show a sort of collapse of the separation of powers between the senate and the white house. but mcconnell has said very clearly that he doesn't want daylight between him and the white house as the impeachment proceedings move forward.

host: mike debonis, when will or will they, the two leaders in the senate, actually talk and will they negotiate or will mitch mcconnell go to susan collins and lisa murkowski and say can you live with this, or other republicans who might defect? guest: we don't know. we started to have a conversation. i think that's going to probably begin in earnest as soon as the house votes on wednesday, perhaps before that. but both mcconnell and schumer know the situation here, which is, you know, there's these rules in place, and they were written in 1998, 1999, and they're not necessarily the best rules for this particular situation. for both sides. so, unfortunately in the senate, you really can't do anything unless everyone agrees , and that's going to be a tough order with something as divisive as this. back in 1999, everybody got it, literally got into a room and

hard out an agreement on the rules. and it ended up passing on 100-0 vote no. one really sees that happening this time. but what you did see last night was chuck schumer set out sort of a public marker of where he wants to sort of send this conversation, talks about the timeline of trying to get this started, week of january 6. talked about witnesses that democrats would like to hear from, and kind of sketched out the process as the beginning of this negotiation, which is probably going to continue through the week and perhaps almost certainly beyond that. host: he asked for new witnesses, mick mulvaney, john bolton. could that put pressure on moderate republicans to say we agree, we should hear from mick mulvaney and john bolton? guest: yes, and several of them have said that. earlier in this process, they said they'd like to hear from these people. you know, it's unclear just how influential they will be in

enforcing the issue. you have a standoff where both sides have guns pointed to each other on these witnesses. the white house wants hunter biden and the whistleblower and what eople connected to characterizes democratic wrongdoing. democrats obviously want bolton, mulvaney, a couple of other white house officials who had firsthand knowledge of what happened, and haven't cooperated in the house. and, you know, unfortunately, the default here is not that everybody gets to talk, the default here will be that nobody additional gets to talk. if you're betting in vegas on how this goes, right now it looks like the default, the most likely resolution to this is that there's going to be no additional witnesses, and this is just going to be a trial where the house presents its case from its managers, the white house rebuts, and that

may be the end of it. host: over the weekend, "the washington post" broke the story about congressman van drew. why did he make this decision? what was behind it? guest: well, we haven't heard from congressman van drew. he hasn't returned any reporters' calls so far, including several of my own. what we do know from democrats who have spoken to him or are familiar with his sort of thinking is that his decision to oppose impeachment, and not only oppose it, but vocally oppose it, talk to reporters about it, go on cable news, including fox news, and talk about it, has really alienated the democratic voters in his district who support impeaching the president. we got a copy of a poll that his campaign had commissioned earlier this month. it showed that only a quarter of the voters, likely democratic primary voters in his district, wanted to renominate him. more than half, well over half, wanted a new nominee for the

second congressional district in new jersey. and i think that this was just simply an existential threat to his political career, and at the same time, republicans are eager to find any way to show that this is -- this impeachment process is backfiring on democrats, and i think the president saw an opportunity here. we know that the two of them met in the white house on friday. told there was a lengthy meeting that the president made the case for a party switch, and apparently he took it very seriously. and now we're waiting for him to actually make clear what his intentions are. host: and the white house likes this, right? guest: this is important to the white house. they want to show defections from the democratic side to the republican side, especially in the house. they want to be able to say that impeachment was not supported in bipartisan way. they're hoping that the white house's perspective that it's only democrats who vote for

impeachment in the house and that if the previous vote on the rules of how impeachment proceed, that is a road map for how the final vote goes, then we'll probably see a few democrats defect over to vote against impeachment. and the white house likes the optics of that and how that looks to their voters and their narrative that this is a partisan effort. now, i will say the downside to this whole impeachment thing, it's not all roses for the trump campaign, trump white house. the fact is trump doesn't want to be an impeached president. looks like he's going to be. he doesn't want to have that on his resume. and politically, it's better to run for reelection as an unimpeached president, than one who has been voted and impeached by the house. so it's not all positive for the white house and for the trump campaign. the other thing is the impeachment trial, as it goes forward in the senate, means

more headlines, more emphasis on trump's actions, what he did on the call with the ukraine leader asking for a favor that could be politically advantageous. all of that attention, there is concern amongst some political consultants that it could eventually change the tide of public opinion. host: the defections, mike debonis, what's the likelyhood that michigan republican active justin amash, who was a republican turned independent, becomes a house manager, that the speaker assigns him, along with other democrats to become the house manager? guest: there's a group of democrats, freshmen democrats, who want that to happen. they want justin amash as part of the house prosecution team, as it were. but it's a risky move. this is someone who hasn't really been steeped in the case. he's not on any of the committees that have been investigating this. he's tweeted a lot about it, but he's not been present in a lot of the meetings internally where they've talked about the evidence, how they're going to

present this case. i've been led to believe this is unlikely that he would be named here, but this group of freshmen has been very influential throughout this impeachment process in direct willing how nancy pelosi and the democratic leadership have handled things. so it's not out of the realm of possibility by any means, and it would be a very visible way for democrats to sort of rebut this partisan narrative. host: before we get to calls, where is the whip count with democrats? how many are saying they will not vote or leaning towards not voting for impeachment? guest: only two so far have said definitive noes. and that's jeff van drew and collin peterson from minnesota, who are both expected after they voted against the resolution formalizing the investigation back in october. host: all right. let's get to virginia, republican caller. we're talking about impeachment this week. the house scheduled to vote on wednesday. go ahead.

caller: yes. it's interesting. i think this whole impeachment process, the only people who are losing are the american people. it's what's going to end up happening is democrats have been after donald trump since he got into office. they tried to discredit him, find something to bring him down and every one of them has failed. they brought up stormy daniels, michael cohen, brought out his taxes. they all failed. they basically ran the whole russia thing for over a year, year and a half. that failed. and now out comes the ukraine issue. and that's going fail because he's going to remain in office due to the senate issue. what's going to happen, they're going to set a precedent. any time an opposing political party doesn't like the president who's in office, they're going to come up with some ridiculous sham, personal issue to try to bring them down, and the only thing that's happening is our country is not moving forward. that's the only thing that's not happening. host: ok, so brian bennett, take that.

are they setting a precedent here, and could this, for democrats, backfire? guest: this is an argument republicans have made that all of the steps by the democrats have been because they didn't like the result of the election. they wanted a way to get trump out. i think the democrats especially have said, look, this is actually about protecting the institutions of our democracy, reining in the power of the executive branch. this is our duty as members of congress to make sure the president doesn't overstep. and they look at the actions of the president on ukraine. they look at the record of the phone call with president trump and president zelensky of ukraine and see a moment where the president of ukraine brings up javelin missiles, the military aid, and in the next moment president trump says i want to ask you for a favor, how about these investigations into the bidens and the d.n.c. servers? the democrats are saying, look, do we want a president who's

willing to push our national security interests into the american political arena? and they believe this is an important discussion that we should have. i think overall this whole process has given more information to the public about how president trump sandrates how he does his business, and it's up to the members of congress to decide if that's what they want in a president. it will be up to the voters if he remains in office to decide if that's what they want as president in 2020. host: what do you make of the report that was released overnight? hundred pages. they argue constitutionally they believe he has done something wrong here. but not only that, they added a word "crime" to this report in saying that he violated anti-bribery and wire fraud statutes. why would they add this? why would they be saying that he not only violated the constitution, but he also committed crimes? guest: there's a number of

republicans, a number of lawmakers, period, who have said there's no crime here. that's been a talking point. i think that they wanted to rebut this notion that there's no actual crime. there had been talk early on there had been a campaign finance violation, sort of a discussion about the constitutional standard for bribery and whether it was the same as the current federal legal standard for bribery. i think they sort of wanted to wash all that away and say this guy, if you think that there weren't crimes here, there were crimes here. now, clearly the president is going disagree that, if he were ever charged for this conduct, which i have no indication that he will be, but i think that he would be putting on a robust defense against any prosecution. but it does help to rebut this particular talking point. host: rory in california, republican, go ahead. caller: yes, the time for

impeachment i think is rrelevant. trump makes money. he wants to give them money. democrats want to take their money away and make everybody into a poor person. if they do that, then nobody -- and i mean nobody -- is going to work and make any money whatsoever. if you get rid of trump, you'll have pence, and pence is a very hard republican. if you get rid of pence, then you have pelosi, and he's going the -- or she is going the way of biden. she can't think or talk or act. and you'll have alzheimer's president in that case. no, you need to keep trump. a lot of people don't like him, but at least he's productive, and the democrats, they're all socialists or communists. that's it. host: ok, let's talk about the impact of this on 2020. both of you take the question

of polls and what is it showing. does this help or hurt the president? guest: internally in the trump campaign, they believe it's helping the prerks particular until battleground states he needs to win the electoral college. when you look at the larger poll, the number of people in the united states who support impeachment have stayed relatively static over the last month. so it's really just entrenched in current interests. so i think we're going to see, over the next three months, the result of this and how it plays out. guest: i think the national polls have been pretty static. there's been sort of right around 50% support for impeaching and removing the president. but i know a lot of democrats saw last week there was a marquette university law school poll in wisconsin that showed some pretty sobering opinions in that very key battleground state where voters seem not to be completely on board with

this process. the voters, democrats, need to get back if they're going take wisconsin back next year. there were a lot of eyes on that poll, put it that way. host: the president won it by 70,000 votes. guest: right. and that's the sort of stuff that gives strategists chills in the night. i think it also is why we're seeing this week not only impeachment on the floor, but usmca, the president's trade agreement which is supported by a lot of the democrats who are up for reelection this year. nancy pelosi wants to send the signal we're not just impeaching, we're working with him too and getting things done. host: that vote is taking place on thursday after they vote on wednesday for impeachment. how is the president going to respond to the house voting on it and likely approving, if she's putting it on the floor, one of his major initiatives? guest: this is a confluence of interests actually. you have impeachment creating a

moment where the democrats want to look like they're being productive on other things, on the people's work, pushing through important bills. and actually the president also wants to show that he's trying to get things done. ultimately he believes that it's to his advantage to look like he's also being product and i have getting through some of his initiatives. the replacement for the nafta trade agreement is one of those issues that he's wanted. he wants to show that he's delivering, and it seems like nancy pelosi is in a position where she and the democrats and house also want that. it's going to be down to the details. which group feels like they have more leverage in the end? that seems like a moment where both sides have a common interest to get this done. host: mike debonis, does the usmac pass in the senate? guest: yeah, we believe so. there was grumbling last week from some republican senators who said you noth this with nancy pelosi, didn't talk to us. about the the end of the day, if the president supports, it the republican members. senate are going to support it. it's got pretty wide democratic

support. you saw sherrod brown and ron wyden come out, who have been been very progressive on trade. sherrod brown has never voted for a trade agreement in his very long congressional career, saying that they support it. there seems to be a pretty ulletproof bipartisan accord in favor of this. there is one hiccup i should mention. over the weekend we heard there was grumblings from the mexican government they didn't like some particular provisions that were written into this that i guess the agreement hadn't been fully vetted or the language hadn't been fully vetted. that's something we're looking to see whether that gets resolved or turns into a sticking point that could put a cloud over everything later this week. host: joseph, california, independent. caller: good morning, greta. host: good morning. caller: been with you guys

since 1978. anyway, two points, and both have to do with the constitution. the first thing is the problem that we're having here is it depends on what's in the president's mind. what was his intention? and nobody knows that. so the people who support the president are going to give him the benefit of the doubt and the e was doing it for right purposes, for the country. and people who don't agree with him are going take the other side. now, the second point constitutionally, everybody seems to think we're going to lose our republic if this thing doesn't happen. what they don't realize is let's assume that -- first of all, they should have gone to court like they did with nixon,

and, of course, nixon had to turn in his papers. so if trump defied that, what would happen? what would happen is exactly what the constitution says. the military takes an oath to constitution and the people, not the president, and they'd run him off to guantanamo bay and mike pence would be put in office. malarkey. just the problem we have here is it definitely is a partisan impeachment, and that's not what the constitution wanted, because it's both sides, one idn't want a dictator or someone who was bad for the country, but the other side is they did not want the president like licy he's not just

a governor or something like that. host: ok, understood. brian bennett, have you jump in here to talk about what he just said. are the republicans' arguments against process working in order to cast democrats as not being fair to the president? guest: so i think republicans certainly believe that criticizing the process is a way that they can say this is unfair and this is a partisan effort. it doesn't get to the substance of what the president has done. while ultimately when republicans in the house and republicans in the senate vote to protect the president, they're going to be voting to say that this is ok, that it's ok for the president to make a phone call like this to a foreign leader, and that's going to be something that's going to be on their record and that they're going to have to defend in the years to come. and i don't see that having an

impact right now, but it's certainly something that could have a political impact for some of these republicans in the long run. guest: yeah, throughout the ole republican sort of strategy here, dee legitimize the investigation, cast it as partisan, unfair, attack democrats for not going to court, not exhausting their options with the third branch of government, and all that has on holiday, based on where they're at today, been pretty successful on the republicans' part. it's kept republicans together. they've given also some republicans from the most moderate to most conservative reason to not like this impeachment inquiry. the only person who seemed to be interested in supporting this is francis rooney in the

house. he said he was open to this. more recently he's been indicating that he really wanted to hear from these witnesses that democrats didn't go to court and hear from. but democrats, at the same time, made clear they weren't interested in getting caught in a court process that would most likely stretch beyond the 2020 election. they felt the time was of the essence, and they plowed forward. host: carl from west virginia, republican. caller: good morning. you know, i'm 81 years old. i watched all of the nixon hearings. i watched all of the clinton hearings. nd they were bipartisan. well, this one is us against them. nd, you know, greta, really, you have two of the most liberal publications in the united states on your program this morning. and, you know, i would think

that you could find a conservative, at least maybe "the wall street journal" or some publication like that so we could have a really unbiased point of view here. and i would think that both of you guys would be looking into his when the f.b.i. spied on the trump campaign. now, you know, that is more important than this impeachment as far as i'm concerned. because that is something unprecedented in the history of this country. when you can use the f.b.i. and e c.i.a. to spy on one campaign to benefit another campaign, it's ridiculous. now, i watched that hearing, the i.g. report, and i was

really upset at the way they played this down. you know, "the washington post" has been impeaching the president since day one. as a matter of fact, i think you ran a headline, it's time to start impeaching donald trump. so that's my comment. i wish you could be a little more bipartisan on this thing and get both points of view. host: ok. i'm not sure what brian been and the mike debonis said that you view as biased, but let's talk about the i.g. report and how that plays out, how that impacts impeachment. mike debonis, you go first. guest: carl referenced the headline. what he's referring to. we did a news story about democratic activists trying to impeach the president early on, and i'll say that i've talked to a lot of republicans recently who are very pleased we wrote that story because it's become a very popular talking point for them. that was a story about what

democrats were thinking. we report on both parties and what their activities are. but i think carl makes a good point about the f.b.i., i.g. report coming out. a really been sort of counternarrative here that republicans have been very pleased to talk about. i think that it did raise narrative bout the the democrats have sort of put forward all along that this russia investigation was done for all the right reasons. adam schiff is sort of debunked all of the claims that there were any problems with the decisions made within the f.b.i. and i think the i.g., michael horowitz, made clear that there were issues. they weren't necessarily fatal issues that would have made the

entire investigation improper, but there were warrants that were based on faulty information. there were mistakes made in the preparation of them. and i can just say that my organization has been covering that pretty aggressively, and i know brian's has as well. guest: yeah, i'll just say it was very concerning in the report to see how many mistakes the f.b.i. had made when it me to filing in the fisa court for more surveillance on carter page. i mean, this surveillance that happened from the fisa court is one of the tightest and closest kept secret processes in the federal government. and it comes down to the government's power over surveiling american citizens, which is a very important thing to have oversight over. and it showed that there were weaknesses in that process. ultimately horowitz looking at it said this investigation wasn't politically motivated,

that they did meet the standards they needed to meet to open the investigation. there was enough there to have the investigation, but the number of errors that went into that process of renewing those -- renewing that surveillance is very concerning and should lead to major reforms, and i hope it will. host: jerry in new jersey, democratic caller. caller: good morning. it's funny, i'm just hearing you skirt the issue here. you're neglecting to talk about how hillary clinton and the democrat party made the dossier that bought and paid for the dossier and worked with ukraine and italy, i think, and australia in order to get donald trump out of office. so you're skirting the whole issue. i see how you're trying to get away from it. if that ain't biased, i don't know what is, and i can't figure out how you don't think this is not impeachable on the

other side. now, schiff lied, too. he lied to the american people. he lied when he quoted what trump said. he should be impeached. this is ridiculous, and i'm a democrat. and you've lost me. you just lost me with all this corruption. and i'm embarrassed for the democrat party. i'm embarrassed to say i'm a democrat. and i will be voting republican. thank you. host: ok, brian bennett? guest: so i think after this whole process of the mueller investigation, the horowitz investigation into the f.b.i., we've learned a lot, both about some of the mistakes that were made inside the f.b.i., but also the mueller report showed that there was a concerted effort by the russian government to run at the trump campaign, and there are multiple points of contact, ultimately mueller came to the decision that he couldn't move forward with the prosecution

because there wasn't enough evidence on that. but we as the public learned quite a bit about russian efforts to interfere with the election. now, president trump supporters are moving forward, and they really want to look towards 2020 and the election and move past these past scandals and investigations and try to talk about what has president trump done for the country and what is he going to do in the second term. host: we'll go to atlanta, georgia. michael, democratic caller. caller: hey, thanks for taking my call. really appreciate it. i didn't pay any attention to politics until trump got elected, and then i was like, what is going on? so i started watching everything, sat in front of the tv 24 hours a day, so fascinated. but the woman you had on right before me, how did he -- i don't understand. the dossier was started as a republican product, and that seems to get lost every time someone mentions it.

i don't know what's going on. but it seems like we've got the truth on one side and we've got this magic fairy land on the other. we've got the congress, the senate, the republican senate fading in and out of consciousness like going along with whatever talking point happens to come along. all the sudden ted cruz is falling into, oh, no, trump was anti-corruption teamster, i'm just looking to fix corruption, right? and everybody forgets that he asked for an announcement of the investigation, not the investigation. it's so frustrating. where's the truth? i don't know. i'm just frustrated. it's confusing for me, because when i finally decide to pay attention to politics, and absorb everything, i even watch fox sometimes. i even watch the judge lady.

but i mean, c-span is the best, i have to admit, because you get some of each side, and you guys are awesome. to be still up there, kind of chug ago long, finding it the way you do, you've got the people that aren't even in touch with reality hitting you back with stuff. the clever ones are the ones that take a little bit of the truth and spin it into something that causes this woman to go berserk. host: ok, let's leave it there. i want both of your thoughts on trying to cover this. what has it been like when you try to challenge either the democrats or the republicans? guest: i'll clarify saying i agree with michael, c-span is the best. you know, it's a grind, no doubt about it. but listen, we just -- we do, we honestly do try to keep focused on the facts. the facts as we understand them may not be the same as we understand them the next day or

the week after. and the thing about journalists is that the good ones, and we think that we try to be the good ones, we're constantly re-evaluating our suppositions, our assumptions, the reporting we've done. we're always open to new ideas, new facts, new opportunities. i think that this i.g. report is an example of that. i think that it's very difficult to get insight into a process that is so secretive as foreign intelligence warrant. we very rarely do we have any sort of -- get to peer inside the black box. i think the i.g. was able to do that and show in an independent way that there was some truth here on the republican side to these -- to their argument. but on the other side, democrats were right about these things. this was just one of those episodes where it's just not as

black and white as america wants it to be on either side. so it's always shades of gray. it was messy. it's hard to sort of sort through that stuff. and when a good chunk of america wants to see everything through either their party's side or the other party's side, things like this can generate a lot of passions and dismay, and what we try to do is just stay focused on the truth as what we know changes. we start asking different questions and try to figure out what happened. guest: the last few years have really crystallized the mission for reporters that it's important to report hard and try to find out what's happening behind the scenes and try to explain it the best way possible. host: we'll go on to jerry, north carolina, independent. ok, let's go toer it any illinois, republican.

-- let's go to terry in illinois, republican. caller: yes, first of all, agree they're all biased also. he misquoted and said that -- i lost all my concentration right now. host: what did he misquote? caller: the president asked for. he didn't ask for that. he asked for them to check into it. he didn't demand anything. and also, he said that we should get over the mueller report and the fisa abuse. how can we get over it when this is part of it now isn't that? host: go ahead. guest: thanks for raising that. i definitely don't mean that republicans should get over the content of the mueller romplet i know they're talking to members of trump's campaign. they're trying to emphasize things that trump has accomplished and done, and that's things that they're looking at focusing on.

i don't want to indicate that republicans should try to get over anything about the last three years. i think another important thing to remember is that as reporters, we are working hard to talk to both sides and lay out what's happening, and i recently did a cover story about the president's effort to reach out to his base on facebook on the impeachment investigation and that he's gotten a lot of traction on that issue and raised a lot of money doing that. host: let's talk about government spending and the deadline that they face this week. mike debonis, remind our viewers where they are, why they got here, and what will happen. guest: so we're facing other shutdown deadline. originally it was september 30. it's now been kicked to december 20. negotiators on capitol hill are

very badly trying to reach a deal to actually write detailed spending bills, not do another can of the can. they worked through the weekend trying to knock through this list of final items. i was sort of monitoring it from home this weekend. it was touch and go there for a while, but they feel that they're probably in a position to release a bill today, which they'll need to do to vote on it tomorrow, which is the house plan. it's $1.3 trillion, touches every agency in government. this really fulfills the overall fiscal deal that was cut over the summer between president trump and democrats. and there's a lot of desire on on -- to vote on it, vote it in the house on tuesday and take care of it in the senate later this week. host: they would not have to do a continuing resolution then? guest: that is the hope. that is the very broad hope. host: and then would the

president sign this? guest: at this point, the president is keeping his cards close to his chest, but it looks like he wants to not obstruct it and not hold something up like that. he has certain initiatives he wants to push through, but he wants to look like he's getting ings done and even as points fingers at democrats for being obstructionists and holding things up, he wants to look like he's running the government. host: will he get money for the border wall in this deal? guest: i think -- i think at this point he has been pushing with his advisors for money for the border wall. i think they'll probably be something he can repurpose or use for some of the border wall construction he wants to get done. it's something that his son-in-law, jared kushner, has been working on. i suspect there will be some money in there that they will try to repurpose for the border wall, but that democrats will

say is not designed for the border wall. guest: i can speak to that. they basically ended up in the same place as last year. the president wanted $5 billion. he's going to get a shade under $2 billion. the democrats were pushing hard to limit his ability to transfer funds from other accounts. that didn't end up becoming part of the deal, but the republicans did agree they wouldn't back fill the accounts that the president transferred from last year. so he's going to have to find some new ways to ship the money if he wants to do this again. so it's kind of a status quo where neither side really got what they want, but they mutually decided to move on to other issues. host: engineer any huntington beach, california, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i wasn't even planning on calling in this morning, but i'm just so tired of these calls, these callers calling, even this lady from new jersey claiming to be a democrat. this is just -- yes, the battle

lines are drawn, but can they use a little bit of honesty in their arguments? i think pedro's show, every caller was calling with this cult-like nonsense about a partisan witch hunt, all these talking points. can you screen the callers better, get real democrats on there that have something intelligent to say instead of this right-wing nonsense we're hearing about the, yes, they're partisan -- this is just so stupid. make some arguments that make sense. talk about the constitution. i'm just tired of this nonsense i hear all the time about this caller. i wish the republicans would stop this scheme they have to get these people calling in to dispute this inquiry in the ouse and the senate. i'm just tired of trumple i'm tired of the republican. that's all i have to say. host: well, is it working to fund raise for both parties,

the impeachment process? guest: i mean, it certainly is mobilizing trump supporters at this point, and i have to look closely at the trump campaign and their fundraising on impeachment has really skyrocketed. one thing thattier i is speaking to -- that jerry is speaking to is how polarized the dablet has become and people are feeling. it's interesting, especially when you look at the call record, the call between president trump and the president of ukraine. we all see the same record. and republicans and democrats the same call record, and as we've heard today, are drawing different conclusions about what was said and what was meant in that record. guest: i think on the democratic side, the fundraising impact is a little harder to discern. obviously on the presidential level, the primary race has actually stayed pretty clear of the impeachment issue. i mean, basically all the candidates support it in one way or another.

they've sort of been focused on different issues. on the congressional side, i think that in terms of the small donors, they obviously -- impeachment support is a big factor. we saw with the jeff van drew issue, if you are against impeachment, you are putting yourself in political pearl. the other -- we are still monitoring a number of other democrats who may end up coming out against this from overwhelmingly republican districts. but as of about an hour ago, we weren't aware of any besides collin peterson, who represents some very, very conservative istricts in western minnesota. that was not a terribly huge surprise. host: minnesota, republican. caller: good morning. i have a point, and then a question if i could. to the democrat in california that wants to talk

constitution. the executive branch and the legislative branch, when they have an argument, there's the judicial branch that then decides what's the right way to go on that argument. their intent has been to find out the truth, they would have waited for the ruling on those and got the witnesses they wanted. if they really wanted to find out the truth of what happened and not just hurt a president, they would have sarksde all right, let's see all your witnesses, let's find out what happened. let's have the republicans call any people they want, see what they have to say. and we're not going to do it down in the basement. it's all out here, because for the people that actually voted us citizens, we could have seen it all. but when you take and hide this and say, ok, we're going to show you this but not that, and then say, well, that's up to them -- they're hiding witnesses from us. well, you're hiding witnesses. you wonder why it comes to

that. and here's the second question to you two guys. i think over time, not just with trump, but with obama, right now the press's believeability rating was about 20%. that doesn't seem wrong to me. i don't know that what's a true reflection of the truth. i doubt it very much. i have to say, it's disconcerting that now congress is at 9%. you guys are at 20%. the president is at 45%. i'm telling you what, you want to talk about -- my question to you guys is how much has the press itself contributed to this feeling in the country that you're unbelievable, and it's really sad, because now we don't feel there's an independent ar at this timer to bring you news. we have to watch six sources and figure out who's b.s.'ing us all the time. it's sad. host: ok. mike debonis. guest: i think the press has been a victim of the increasing partisanship in the country along with many other

institutions, including, as we saw last week, the f.b.i. public trust in the f.b.i. used to be sky high levels. i think that that's been eroded in the last couple of years. the press has been part of that declining trust in institutions as they've become partisan footballs in this new era that we have. all i can say we try to play it straight as best as we can. we understand that there are voters out there who want to get their news through partisan lenses. my publication, i think brian's publication has made the decision we're going to keep playing it straight, just report the news, and unfortunately more and more people want to see the news through partisan lenses, and we'll see if that remains the case or things swing back to where they used to be. host: what do you think? guest: i think on jerry's point about the process in the house, it's a pretty interesting point that republicans raise, which pushed they should have

to the courts to try to get the witnesses they wanted. one interesting indicator about nancy pelosi and this process was that initially she did say she wanted impeachment to be bipartisan, and then she's been willing to go through with this process when it was clear that it was going to only get democratic votes in the house. and that does lay bare that this has become a political process. and they've moved forward with impeachment even though it does seem like the president is not going to be removed by the senate and the firewall is going to hold, which has made this much more of a political exercise and we're going to have to see how that plays out over the next several months. host: nancy in north carolina, democratic caller. hi, nancy. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. what i'm calling about -- are you there?

host: yes, we're listening. go ahead. caller: ok. what i'm calling about, to go back, because i get the "time" magazine. you're fair and balanced to say the least. i want to go back to 2017 when potus took his first trip out of the country, first israel, then to saudi to meet the president, and he has some meetings with the press. next thing, i'm sure you journalists can bring this up to date, he comes home, first picking on qatar where we have a base. he starts giving them i believe a bad time for funds we send hem as well, like we do to other countries. ukraine, etc. and he's going to hold back on it. then he comes home. kushner is in deep debt in his building in manhattan. he sends kushner back over to

qatar, and the next thing you know he comes back, and now his building is out of debt. was that a quid pro quo? what went on with that? have you gentlemen investigated that or wrote about it? host: have you looked into that? guest: i did look into this, and the press has covered this quite a bit. i think one thing that this speaks to is the general concern about when you have people serving in government at a high level in the white house who still have a hand in their businesses. there's going to be a question of whether the actions of foreign governments are being taken to enrich that person. and that's something with president trump where he hasn't completely divested himself from his businesses, and so there's a nagging question of when foreign governments get hotels in -- hotel rooms in his hotels, whether they're trying to curry favor. host: did the caller accurately describe the story? guest: as far as what we know

blicly, the president went and met in saudi arabia. u.s. policy toward qatar shifted slightly. and became more confrontational with the qatars after the behest of saudi. and then there's no public proof that that had any bearing on the lone that jared kushner's company got for this very expensive building that he owns in new york, but there's been a lot of reporting raising questions about that connection. host: ok. let's go to larry, new york, republican caller. caller: hi. good morning. host: good morning. caller: my point is, first of all, i'd like to go down the shortlist. number one, as an african-american from new york, i'm still trying to figure out how the russians influenced me

to vote for trump. trump sold me basically when he said to the world that he only wanted to be the president of america and not the president of the world. that is one of the things that i've never heard anyone say. of dly, the impeachment this president clearly -- let me just say, this the thing that comey said the other day on tv about the f.b.i. not being biased, lisa page and strzok thing totally blows that out the water. i mean, that's just ridiculous for him to say there's absolutely -- i mean, the whole world saw -- come on, that's ridiculous. as an african-american, we totally alienate ourselves politically voting in the 90 percentile range of democratic party. it's political suicide.

and that's my point. host: ok. brian bennett, you are writing something down. guest: there are a few interesting points the caller raises. one, talking to a lot of trump voters and supporters, i know when the get upset press and democrats raise the russia influence in the 2016 election, which happened. russia did try to influence the election. but they feel like that takes their vote for trump and delegitimizes it. and the fact is millions and millions of americans, of course, voted for trump, and they voted in large numbers especially in the states that won him the electoral college victory that he won. so i think as a reporter, it's never my objective to make voters feel like they were swindled into voting for donald trump. no, that's not it at all. people who voted for trump really believe in the things that he was saying and what he

wanted to do. instead, it's let's shine light on what happened in the 2016 elections and what president trump has done so we can have a better understanding of what's going on. host: steve in atlanta, georgia, independent. caller: yes, long-time caller, even though who lambert was. you can ask brian lamb about that. my concern is an independent who votes for both parties, best candidate, is -- and i love c-span. i don't believe cnn. i don't believe fox. i usually go to c-span to try to get some -- to figure out what's happening. no offense to the two individuals you've got on there, but having someone from "time" magazine and having someone from "the washington post" is about as biased as you could hope for. they're shrills for the democratic party. they have been for years. it's nothing new. and i want c-span to continue

its tradition of being independent and putting the facts out there. that's all. don't care which -- i'm not on either side particularly. host: mike debonis, you want to answer that? guest: i agree. i think c-span is great. appreciate the caller's thoughts. you know, we love to hear from people out there and how they perceive we're doing our jobs, and we listen. and we understand that people have views on how they like to get their news, and we understand that these are partisan times and people are really looking through that filter, and we do our best not to, sort of the best way to put it. host: there's reporting of brian bennett and mike debonis, go to time.com for brian bennett, senior white house correspondent. and washingtonpost.com, mike debonis, congressional reporter

with "the washington post." one last call, stanley in pennsylvania, republican. caller: yeah, everything in water is biased. i don't -- everything in washington is biased. i don't look at the polls. i look at the betting pools. the presidential favorite has won every time since 1992. there's been 15 presidents, elections in the past 60 years. "the washington post" supported every democrat, every time. in 1992, "washington post" of the recordings that the economy was negative for bush in 1992 of october. 30 days later, clinton wins, and that 95% drops down to 5%. i'd like everybody to heed the words of pontius pilate. let the people zifmente hoyle i'll end with a question. what are you watching for this week? mike debonis, you want to go

first? guest: you know, we want to know how many democrats end up voting against impeachment. we don't think it's going to be very many, but to the degree that it goes beyond the two that we know about, it does put a little wind in the republicans' sails. we're going to be pretty focused on that. guest: i want to know if they're going to be new witnesses brought in the senate trial in january. that's going to be hard out probably this week or the week after. and whether it stays at the same number of witnesses that were called in the house or host: thank you both for the conversation this morning. when we come back, we will talk with alan dershowitz, author of the case against impeaching trump. he will join us next. ♪

>> tonight on the communicators, a pennsylvania democratic congressman, chair of the house subcommittee overseeing technology and telecommunications. suree concerned is to make we close this digital divide that exists in our country and we have an opportunity to do that now. i think it is important we do that. 50% ofre kids, 40%, their homework assignments require instant access and they can't get it where they live. they go to mcdonald's or a library to find a hotspot to do their homework. young people are being greatly disadvantaged in our country when they don't have access to broadband. that is what i think we will be focusing on is how do we do that? how do we close the homework gap?

how do we close the digital divide? how do we get broadband deployment of these underserved areas? >> watch the communicators tonight 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 nos. >> the resolution is amended. >> with two articles of impeachment approved against president, abuse of power and construction of congress, the guidelines will be determined on how the debate will unfold on the house floor. atch wide coverage tuesday 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. orch online at c-span.org listen live with the free c-span radio app. washington journal continues. host: joining us from miami this morning is alan dershowitz, the author of the case against impeaching trump.

he is also a professor at harvard law school. here is a headline in the new york times about this impeachment trial, trump's impeachment team might add alan dershowitz. will you be representing the president in the senate trial? guest: i can't comment on any possible conversations i have had with the white house. i am strongly imposed -- opposed to impeaching the president on the grounds proposed by the judiciary committee, neither is found in the constitution. they are the kind of general, vague, open-ended criteria that is weaponized against any president when the opposing party has a majority in the house of representatives. it is hamilton's nightmare. he said the one thing he feared most was impeachment would matter about the number of votes each party had rather than the guilt or innocence of the person being impeached.

we did not want a parliamentary democracy in which a president can be thrown out of office by a vote of nonconfidence. i am strongly opposed to the two iiteria for impeachment but cannot comment on any possible conversations i have fat about playing a formal role in the senate trial. host: are you plinking in formal role in advising the president? guest: i don't advise him directly. 50ave written two books and articles, the president is free to read them. i speak on programs like this. you can say i have given advice to the president but i'm not in a lawyer-client relationship with the president or his lawyers. i have given advice to presidents going back to bill clinton, barack obama, any president of the united states who asks me for advice.

i have advised the president on the middle east peace process, the recent executive order, but when it comes to legal advice, i do not have a lawyer-client relationship with the president or his lawyers. host: has the white house reached out to you at all? have you had any conversations at all? guest: i was at the white house one week ago and i met with various people. we discussed the executive order. i am in touch with the white house, as i have been with other white houses over time. no formal legal relationship exists at this point in time. i am not free to comment about the content of conversations at the white house. host: you have a new book, guilt by accusation. what is this book about? are you worried, as you told the new york post, that you could be

kept from representing the president or having a role because of epstein accusations -- jeffrey epstein accusations against you? guest: i am proud to have written this book. woman whover met the accused me. in a conversation it was said it is impossible for me to have met her, she is simply wrong. a former fbi director figured there was no basis for the charge. i have been completely exonerated. there is nothing to the charge against me at all. this is a woman who has falsely accused others. i have no fear, i am an open book. i have lived a completely honorable life. i am not concerned about that. but when i was asked to testify

on behalf of the republican side, there were some who said this accusation is out there. maybe we shouldn't have him testify. that is what i wrote a book called guilt by accusation. there is no evidence of guilt, there is an accusation. toaccusation might be enough keep you from representing the president, we are moving to an age of mccarthyism of the kind i grew up in. if you are accused of having an association with communism, you are presumed guilty regardless of the evidence. i have never refused to answer a question because i am an open book. my life has been honorable, 50 anys at harvard, no hint of improprieties. unveiledterday it was the parameters of a senate trial, what he would like to see. he wants mick mulvaney back as chief of staff and john bolton

to testify. should they have to testify? guest: the first question is are there significant allegations to justify a trial? the analogy as a grand jury, the house is the grand jury, the senate is the jury, if the grand jury has indicted for something that is not a crime -- if a grand jury indicts a man and a woman from marrying each other and they are different races, that would be unconstitutional. you would not have a trial, you would make a motion to dismiss. here you have to accusations that are not in the constitution. the framers of the constitution were against us. the first issue is wether there should be a trial at all or wether the allegations fail on their face. that decision has to be made before you introduce any evidence. it would be unconstitutional to

have a trial over the marriage. the first step is to determine if the impeachment allegations satisfy the criteria. take for example obstruction of congress. obstruction of congress is because the president as head of the executive branch demanded that before any people in the executive branch -- there would be a judicial order. the supreme court granted a review in three cases in which they said we will look at that issue. obviously, that is a very plausible issue and that can't be crowned for impeachment. i would strongly recommend democrats, who are now on the fence, or live in districts they know their constituents are not strongly in favor of impeachment, should the very least strike the obstruction of justice from the charges. there is no basis of that in the supreme court.

host: on the abuse of power, do you believe the president asked a foreign government to interfere in our election? guest: i am not involved in the facts of the case. the evidence has to be looked at but i don't think that would be grounds for impeachment. i think presidents constantly take actions that are designed to help their electoral prospects. if you go back to abuse of power and you allow that to be basis for impeachment, abraham lincoln suspended habeas corpus. john kennedy authorized the tapping of martin luther king's telephones. every controversial president has been accused of abuse of power. i don't even get to the factual issues, abuse of power is simply not a criteria -- if the framers

wanted abuse of power to be a criteria for removing the president, it would have been simple. put it in the constitution. they did not do that. they did not do obstruction of congress. as jonathan turley aptly put it, this is not a jazz concert or improvisation by congress is to be accepted. there has to be a violation of the specific terms of the impeachment provisions in the constitution and that has just not been alleged. , whathas not been alleged the facts are is not significant. you have to first decide if there has been allegation of an impeachable offense and i think the answer is there has not been allegation of an impeachable offense. i'm surprised the democrats did not put bribery in there. they left it out. that would have at least satisfied the words of the constitution that they would

have had to prove the elements of bribery, which i don't think they could do, which is probably why they left it out. -- it is through vague hamilton's and madison's nightmare. host: a report released last bribery,ey point to saying the president solicited a bribe by asking the ukraine leader to call for an investigation into the bidens in exchange for a white house meeting and military aid. guest: why not put that as an allegation being voted on by the judiciary committee and then voted on by the house? you can't just throw things in there and accuse people of things. if you are going to make an accusation, put it down as one of the charges and it can be debated. you can't have it both ways. you can't charge abuse of power and obstruction of congress as the only two impeachable offenses and then say, by the

way, there is bribery and other things. you have to really decide what you're going to charge the president with. that is the minimum required by due process of law. host: you don't think then abuse -- the democrats' allegation that he solicited a bribe is an abuse of power? guest: the point i'm making is a different one. abuse of power is not in and of itself a ground for impeachment. even if they could prove abuse of power, that would be a good reason to vote against someone in an election but abuse of power is too broad a concept. i could give you 20 presidents throughout history that have been accused of abuse of power by the opposing party. most recently, when president bush went to war in iraq, he was accused by democrats of abuse of power. president obama was accused of abuse of power for the fast and

furious. it is a cliche that gets thrown around, politically. it is the last thing you want to be a specific criteria for impeachment. abuse? what does abuse mean? it is too vague. openon said you don't want ended, vague criteria that can be used against any president by the opposing party. in hamilton's terms, that would turn impeachment into who has the most votes, which is exactly what we are seeing. this is the first impeachment in history to go strictly along party lines. that is what the framers were very strongly opposed to, that is why they required a two thirds vote in the senate, presiding chief justice. i wish they required a two thirds vote in the house, they did not. they analogized it to 23 members of the grand jury, all you need is 12 to indict. you need a unanimous jury to convict. jim in colorado,

democratic caller. your goodank you for review of what we are going through. i have an interesting question. process,impeachment the hearings that we have had, are those subject to judicial review? guest: what a great, great question. the answer is clear, we just don't know. two justices of the supreme that in ansuggested appropriate case, it might be subject to judicial or review. let's see they think the two thirds is too much. 60% but we have not made 67%, let's change the role and permit impeachment based on 60%. that would be subject to

judicial review. i don't like to chief justice, we don't want him to preside. that would be subject to judicial review. what if the house and peaches on grounds not in the constitution? is that subject to judicial review? we just don't know. nobody has tried it. i doubt the supreme court would grant review at this stage in the case but it might. the constitution has two conflicting points of view. on the one hand, it says the senate shall be the sole judge. that suggests no judicial review. said every act of congress that is unconstitutional should be subject to judicial review in our system. the judiciary is the umpire in our system between the branches of the executive and legislature. the answer is we just don't know and we may never find out. host: wisconsin, independent.

caller: good morning. what if president trump spied? [indiscernible] [indiscernible] guest: i am having trouble hearing him. host: we are having trouble hearing you. did you hear the first part of the? guest: i did not. host: i think he was referring to the ig report they came out last week. suggests weg report have a problem with the fisa court. they don't hear two sides of an

issue. they rely on the credibility of the information provided by the fbi. is nonpartisan, a career person who is very objective. there were serious criticisms of the process by which the pfizer report, but allows spying on an american citizen is allowed. appointlike to see fisa a devil's advocate committee of three prominent lawyers who have security clearance and can present the other side so when an application is made to spy on an american citizen, both sides are heard. assured court can be they're hearing all of the evidence. application, they were denied crucial evidence. were renewed applications

after fbi agent had information strongly suggesting the information they originally provided was not valid and they did not inform the fisa court of the new information. host: michigan, republican. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. i am not very good at this ad living. if people make mistakes on purpose or that people sometimes do sloppy things on purpose, that would explain a lot with what happened with the fbi. i would also like to know why the democrats are not upset when ofnton was elected with 43% the popular vote. they did not seem to have a problem with that. i don't know if he knows a lot about history, but i would like to read a little something i wrote. if you words about iraq and war.

account, go tod a book without hesitation by a retired general. during theairman clinton administration. if you read 420 through 424. that gotded kuwait, the u.s. into war to get iraq out. there was an agreement signed requiring saddam to allow inspections. 366 attempts to shoot down u.s. and british planes. -- if thetionary dictionary is correct, how did bush start war in iraq when

there had been war for some years? guest: the constitution requires explicitly that no war can be conducted without the approval of congress. wece the second world war, have had no declarations of war. presidents have assumed without necessary constitutional authority the right to start wars or continue wars, or engage in military activities. clinton did only get a minority of the votes but there was a third-party candidate in that case. he got a substantial number more votes than his major opponent, whereas in the most recent election, the winning candidate got fewer votes than the losing candidate but more electoral votes, but that is the way the system works. if we abolish the electoral college, candidates would campaign more in new york and california and the candidate who lost the popular vote might have

won the popular vote. we play by the rules and the rules are the rules of the electoral college, so president trump won illegitimate election. i voted against them, i am a liberal democrat, but i don't challenge the legitimacy of his election. host: president trump tweeted out, read the transcripts, the impeachment hoped is the greatest con job in american history. should the president play a role in his defense in the senate? guest: absolutely not. i have defended people for 55 years and i never, a lover allow my clients to play a role. they want to assert their innocence, but the burden is on the others to prove guilt and generally i have advised my rolets to play a passive

in their own trials. there have been rare occasions where i had a client take the witness stand and testify but the fear of a perjury trap is far too great. you can fall into a perjury trap by telling the truth. if you tell the complete, honest truth but the other side has a witness who has a different assessment and comes forward, you could be indicted for perjury and i have seen that too often to ever recommend to a client in a highly controversial case to participate factually and actively in his or her own defense. host: have you spoken to the president about this directly? guest: i can't comment about any conversations i have had with the president. i have had conversations with every president since certainly bill clinton. my conversations with presidents have to remain confidential. they are not covered by

.awyer-client host: have you spoken to the white house counsel? guest: i met them for the first time at the hanukkah party. i liked him very much. he seemed terrific. one of my former research assistants works for him and introduced me to him. think the president has some wonderful, wonderful people working for him. one of the great lawyers in our country works for the president. he has a very, very good legal team. host: who do you think will be representing the president and the senate trial? guest: i don't know the answer to that. i think the white house counsel has a role to play as the white house counsel did in the clinton case. i did advise president clinton's legal team during that

impeachment now is on the national board of the american civil liberties union when nixon was impeached and i strongly took the view -- i did not think the aclu should support nixon's impeachment. i thought they should defend his procedural rights and safeguards to make sure the constitution was complied with. i have taken the same consistent position with impeachment since the early 1970's. host: do you think it is appropriate that mitch mcconnell is discussing the impeachment when he is supposed to be a juror with the white house? guest: that happened during the clinton impeachment, as well. wassh the whole process less partisan and political and more traditional. both sides have weaponized it and made it into a partisan debate. it happened during the clinton impeachment and it is happening now. it would be far better in general if the process were more

traditional and less partisan. host: how do you assess the white house strategy so far? guest: i think there are many strategies. i think the president's strategy is to tweak. reasonable people can disagree about that, -- i think the president's strategy is to tweet . i think the strategy has been fairly effective fighting fire with fire. we will wait and see what happens with the impeachment. you judge results after they are completed. host: georgia, democratic caller , you are next. upset with youry this morning. african-american, can see you are letting this white man who is in the white house get away with anything he wants

to get away with. he made a statement that he could take a gun and shoot african-americans and anyone else he wants to shoot. on, i opened a shop. hate and despise this man. he is a klansman. he is the only one who can go out of these rallies and they audience nazis in the and tell them what he could do to african-americans. we are not going to have it. who is the governor of kentucky? it is not matt bevin. who is the governor of louisiana? it is not the mande had. blue.ned virginia we won bucks county in

pennsylvania. don't sit here and tell me demographics don't matter. certainly very happy there are large numbers of african-americans who vote in our primaries and elections. i think african-americans can have it in norma's effect on the elections. effect on enormous the elections. nobody speaks for all african-americans like nobody speaks for all jews. the president never said he could take a gun and shoot african-americans. he foolishly said he could take a gun on fifth avenue and shoot someone and still be president. i don't see how that could be interpreted as having a direct targeting of african-americans. african-americans should vote their interests and in large

numbers. voting-american contributed to the election of democrats in the past and i encourage african-americans to vote in large numbers in the primary and elections. host: independent caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. if we let this thing go with powersoliciting foreign to interfere in our elections, -- our elections will be tainted forever. he has already said he is going to cheat and this is going to destroy our markets.

75% to 80% of the people know that trump did something wrong, even though they don't agree with impeachment, i think it is a dirty process and i think it is bad, but that does not mean the other people -- they are going to vote for trump just because they don't think he should be impeached. i think the democrats are making a big mistake. the other point i want to make is trump was so crazy about investigating and getting the truth out here and being transparent, why didn't we investigate his kids who don't have a clearance in the white house? i think that is dangerous. why didn't he turned over his tax records? away syria to the russians. he would give away ukraine to

russia if the whistleblower had not come out. we have to wake up. you have made some strong arguments why you are going to vote against trump and why people should. people should take all of that into account. nobody is saying the president should not be accountable for his actions. impeachment is not a substitute for elections. impeachment as you yourself suggested is a political game and it should be reserved for extreme cases. we have only had two impeachments in american history, both failed to secure convictions. one did not go to -- but it succeeded, president nixon resigned. the question for all americans is, the conduct you disapprove, does it rise to an impeachable defense? mean the president

should not be held accountable for his actions. host: those criteria? bribery, which basically people know what it means, high crimes, crimes against governance and i will give it example. when alexander hamilton was the secretary of the treasury, he committed a serious crime of adultery -- a serious crime at the time. and then he paid hush money to quiet down. then he was accused of using treasury funds to pay the hush money, that is when he admitted the adultery and the hush money. that would have been a high crime. adultery is a low crime. what president clinton did is a low crime. the hard word in the constitution is high

misdemeanor. my view is that the framers intended criminal type behavior, this demeanor is a species of crime. i don't think the criteria are met by broad allegations such as obstruction of congress and abuse of power. host: here is what the house judiciary committee wrote in the report about abuse of power, the justice observed the purpose of the constitution was not only to grant power but you keep it from getting out of hand. as the framers created a formidable chief executive, they make clear impeachment is justified for abuse of power. edmund randolph was explicit in this point what explaining why the constitution must authorize presidential impeachment, he warned the executive will have

great opportunities of abusing power. madison stated impeachment was necessary because the president might preferred his administration into a scheme of oppression. advocating that new york ratify the constitution. standard of the impeachment. guest: here is the way it worked. there are two issues. there was a debate if we should have impeachment. people gave reasons for why we need impeachment and abusing power is one of the reasons. that is completely separate. the reasons are separate from the criteria. werethe framers decided on broad reasons for impeachment but very narrow criteria. in order to impeach, you need to find treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. once you find the criteria, that is the prerequisite.

that you could ask if it is in abuse of power. president bill clinton's low crime was not in abuse of power. that was an erroneous use of the impeachment power. this confusion between the reasons that the framers wanted to have impeachment, which included abusing power, and the criteria they settled on, which were striking a compromise between broad terms and the kind of narrow terms that would restrict the power of congress to remove a duly elected president. crime -- finding a high crime is necessary but not sufficient for removal. that is exactly what hamilton described the full criteria and said all of these partake of violations of public

trust, which could be called political and terms like abuse of power. we should never confuse the reasons for why we have impeachment with the criteria that are specific and set out for impeachment. set: house democrats have the criteria is bribery, the president asked a foreign power -- guest: they should have charged him with that. why did they not charge him with bribery? host: how would they do that? guest: allege they are charging him with three offenses, abuse of power, obstruction of congress and bribery, but they did not include bribery. the democrats made a decision to exclude bribery. they did not listed as one of the criteria and the most elemental aspect of due process is you cannot put someone on trial for something you have not explicitly charged him with. put it in the context of a criminal case. let's assume someone is charged

with abusing authority, which is not a crime. the evidence they introduce is bribery and that is not enough. you would move to strike the indictment. any judge would dismiss the case because he had not been charged with bribery and the indictment has to contain all of the elements and a grand jury indictment has to charge specific crimes. the same would be true within impeachment by the house of representatives. host: texas, tom, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think he is correct. there is no impeachable crime. does anyone know if joe and hunter biden has been investigated by united states government agency? if so, which government agency investigated them? were they proven innocent? where can i see the report that exonerated them? if there was no investigation,

there is a possibility they are guilty of something and i would expect the president to look into the matter. it does it matter if joe biden is running for the president or not. guest: i think you are making the same mistake the democrats are making. you are saying we should look into see if there is a crime. that is not how the american system operates. system how the stalinist operated. i don't want to see hunter biden investigated to determine wether there was a crime. i see no evidence hunter biden committed a crime. did he take advantage of his father's status of vice president and become a member of the board and get all that money? sure. is that a political sin? yes. is that a crime? i don't see it. i don't want to see the criminal justice system weaponized against democrats or republicans. it should be reserved for obvious crimes that jump out at

you. what crime would hunter biden have committed? let's assume he did something wrong in ukraine. crimes committed against united states of america, yes, we have a federal practices act but that is limited. i think it would be a mistake to start at this point investigating hunter biden. biden,ue of weather joe someone i have known for many years and admire, wether or not he did the right thing by saying to the ukrainian authority that he wants to make sure certain things were done, that would be worth looking into because he is the former vice president of the united states and a presidential candidate. but at the moment i don't see any criminal behavior. politically, if you are running for office, you open yourself up to all kinds of political investigations, rather than criminal investigations.

i don't want to see the criminal justice system weaponized against either party. host: we will go to montgomery village, maryland, democratic caller. caller: please give me a moment as i try to get my thoughts together. it would be interesting to know -- i know you have been a criminal defender. i don't want to get into ad hominem attacks. my point is that you said articles of impeachment are incorrect. the reason bribery was not included in the indictment is because the president has obstructed the people who could help congress prove that case

from testifying. it is interesting that on one -- i wish the framers had done such and such. high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever the congress says it is. guest: no its not. caller: i watched the investigative committee and the judicial committee and they could not make the case for bribery because the president obstructed people from testifying under oath. guest: two points in response. number one, the president did not obstruct anything. congress could have simply gone to the court and asked the court to issue orders compelling them to testify and then the president would have had to comply unless there would have been an obstruction of justice.

they said they did not have the time to do it. you have plenty of time and can get expedited judicial orders as they did in the nixon case and clinton case. your view that an impeachable offense is whatever the house says it is, maxine waters said that too, she is just completely wrong. you take an oath as a member of the house of representatives to follow the constitution. the house just can't make it up. what if the house impeached someone on maladministration? put before the constitutional convention and it was rejected. smarterhouse say we are than the framers of the constitution? we accept as a criteria for impeachment what the framers rejected. they can't do that. that would violate their oath of office. could they get away with it?

maybe, if there was no judicial review. but it would be unconstitutional to have the criteria for impeachment, something the framers explicitly rejected. that is what i believe is happening here. host: kansas, jeremy, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. in terms of understanding this political moment in the criminality we are dealing with, i would like to bring up some books, the authors and content of which c-span should consider featuring. trump,one, house of house of boudin, the untold story of donald trump and the russian mafia. looks as a money laundering organization tied to organized crime.

the russian mob has invaded america. number three, proof of collusion, how trump betrayed america and now proof of conspiracy, how international collusion is threatening american democracy. finally, i would ask mr. dershowitz to address the topic -- the israeli born former executive producer and a reporter who reported jeffrey epstein was being run by israeli military intelligence. bookhe allegations in the agent wholligence worked to set up money laundering instruments around the world. backgrounditz, your

in defending epstein suggests you might be an agent, i would ask you to address that. just paranoid drivel. agent --i am a russian i am independent. i represented jonathan pollard because i thought his sentence was excessive. the idea that russia and israel syria,d, russia supports ,ran, indirectly hezbollah people who are dedicated to the complete destruction of israel. russia votes against israel at the united nations on almost every occasion. i am proud of my career as a criminal defense lawyer. i have defended some of the most controversial people in history. i think of myself in the

tradition of john adams, who represented the boston massacre soldiers. i think of myself in the tradition of so many other defense lawyers throughout history who have endured criticism for defending the most unpopular people of their agent generation. hope toyears old and continue defending people you don't like and who most americans don't like because the need for a defense attorney to stand up to excessiveness of the paranoid --and views you have expressed, what intelligence agency would trust jeffrey epstein to work for them? allegations that are being thrown out there, there is no truth whatsoever to any of them. there is no truth to any claim i have been an agent for a foreign country.

i am a loyal, patriotic american. my grandparents came here to get away from the oppressions of eastern europe. i am patriotic and will continue to do what i feel the constitution demands of me. wisconsin,ll go to republican line, you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question. -- wanting an investigation of what happened back in 2016, is that a confusing question or hissy looking at 20 coming up? , so maybe candidate they are looking at 2020. or was he asking for an investigation of the past election of 2016? host: what is your point of asking that question?

what is your point? caller: that is the confusing part. people are saying he is trying to corrupt the 2020 election, or was he looking for information on what happened in 2016 to distinguish the two? schiff, question, adam was he right? was there anything wrong with what he did by releasing telephone data? my other question about this impeachment thing, why would they have secret meetings, interrogations is what i call them, to me it seems like they were trying to trap the witnesses about what to say and how to say it.

no cameras were involved. and then they opened it up to the public afterward. if i were donald trump, i would have been upset. if you are going to investigate me, be open on all facts. importantnsparency is when there is an impeachment proceeding. the intelligence committees do have the power to have sessions that are subject to closure because the national security material and summation. 2016 or 2020,was who knows? the conversation was vague in general. i think the democrats realize there was not enough in the conversation to charge anything specific, which is why they went to abuse of power. you areio, independent, on the air with alan dershowitz. go ahead.

caller: good morning. you are beautiful as usual. i have spent two years trying to get on. host: go ahead. alan, i listen to you, done for their names. the one who testified. all three of you guys are pretty much on the same page as far as the constitution. i learned something that i had never heard before that i really respect. my side of this impeachment congress -- the underlying thing i see, congress was to limit the power of the presidency and the power of the

judicial system. the reason they would not let the judicial system say wether these guys had to testify or not. guest: i think that is right. caller: they went too fast without enough insight. requested six or eight witnesses, they only got two. what should have happened is congress should have subpoenaed the witnesses they wanted and gone to court. complied with a judicial order if the court said he had to testify, he would have testified. has executive authority. he would not have testified. i believe they would have had

expedited -- instead the congress wanted to circumvent the courts and argue a president who fails to comply with a subpoena of congress by that very fact is obstructing congress. that is just wrong as a matter of law, a separation of powers, checks and balances. the obligation is to go to the court, get a judicial order. if the president fails to listen to the judicial order, that is obstruction. , youra republican caller turn. caller: i have a question for mr. dershowitz, how is abuse of power different from a difference in policy? running, couldt investigation take place? information from a foreign influence affect our

elections if our ballot boxes are secure? guest: first of all, abuse of power is something that can be used as a symbol of disagreement over policy. if you listen carefully to the testimony from the intelligence committee, which i listen to carefully, it was largely an argument over differences in policy. how to approach ukraine, wether the president was satisfied with the ambassador to ukraine. i don't think it rose to the level of an impeachable offense. much about a concept like abuse of power. virtually every controversial president has been accused of the opposing party of abuse of power. i can't remember the other question. host: she said how could a foreign government influence our

election? guest: there are many ways. media, notial through direct access to the ballot box. i think we can secure those, hopefully. there are other ways in which foreign governments can try to influence our elections. we have tried to influence foreign elections. i have no doubt in my mind president obama worked very hard to try to get benjamin netanyahu defeated when he ran for prime minister last time around. i think probably other governments try to influence our elections, we try to influence tears. there is a big difference between influencing them publicly. london sanders went to and campaigned for the losing candidate for prime and astir. -- prime minister. we know other people were

strongly supportive of boris johnson. people think it is in the american interest to have certain people when and lose in foreign elections. the question is are they legitimate efforts? tampering with the ballot would be illegitimate. hiding who you are might be illegitimate but having a press conference and saying we think it would be better for britain if so and so one, that is a different matter. , is itr. dershowitz legitimate to do as democrats charged that the president asked for foreign interference for his own political gain? guest: i think many presidents take action in foreign policy for their own electoral gain. we know decisions were made about bombing cambodia or stopping this action or not.

looking at the ballot box implications for wether it would hurt or help an election. if you try to make that a ground for impeachment, a president thinking about how a decision will influence his electoral prospects, i think that would be far too broad. you could make it a crime if congress passed a statute to ask a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. it is not a crime and that is what you have to use vague terms like abuse of power. democraticexico, caller. caller: good morning. it is obvious to me you are the victim here. guest: don't feel sorry for me. caller: epstein used you. i think you are being used again.

you are obviously not able to be a judge of character. when trump is proven to be as bad for this country as epstein was for little girls, will you admit you were wrong and fade away or will you be deceived again? guest: i don't think i was deceived. i represented people accused of serious crimes. i represented o.j. simpson. i represented many people you don't like and some who i don't like. that is my job. i represented epstein. i was his lawyer. he paid me for every minute i spent with him. deal with thea government that represented the comparative strength of our site and their side. i will continue to defend the people and the constitution. epstein did not use me. i never met any of the young

women, i did not know young women were involved. by a introduced to him wife. i was told he was a close president to the president of harvard. my association with them was largely academic and that it became presidential -- professional when i supported him. -- when i represented him. to defend thee constitution, i will continue to amendment and i will do it proudly because i am serving the interests of the rule of law and the constitution. host: dallas, texas, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to know if alan could reflect on the relationship between the powers , executive and

congressional, how it fits with from ament i heard committee member, stating congress had the sole power to impeachment. theyerstood that to mean had the sole power to bring charges of impeachment. what would be their next step? i apologize for my ignorance. guest: it is an excellent question. that does not mean it is not subject to judicial review. every act of congress according to federalist paper 78 written by hamilton is subject to judicial review. federalist paper 78. every act of congress, hamilton said, that violates the constitution is void.

wether congress would have the power to impeach a president based on nonconstitutional criteria and wether the courts could intervene is a question we don't know the answer to. it has never been tested and might never be tested. our constitution is not perfect. the impeachment power did not cover incapacity. a president who did not do anything bad but he just had a stroke and was not capable of governing. we have to amend the constitution. if we think abuse of power should be a criteria for impeachment, we have an obligation to amend the constitution. i doubt you would get a lot of votes for that. members of both parties would say that gives far too much power to congress. abuse of power? we are not going to vote for that. just as the framers did not vote

for maladministration. congress cannot just add that to the constitution without amending the constitution, something i doubt they would do if they were asked to include abuse of power. dershowitz, thank you for the conversation this morning. guest: thank you. host: that does it for today's washington journal. enjoy the rest of your day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> resolution is amended. >> abuse of power and obstruction of congress. committee will meet to determine the guideline willtermine how the debate unfold on the floor. watch tuesday on 11:00 a.m. on c-span 3, watch c-span.org/impeachment or listen live with the c-span radio app. the rules committee articles of impeachment rules on wednesday. the 658 pages at c-span.org/impeachment. coming up events from the 2020 campaign first colorado senator and presidential candidate michael bennett at the edward kennedy institute in boston and candidate andrew yang inaking at a climate event

iowa. the house expects to work on the 2020 spending bill tomorrow and debate the u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement on thursday. house livelow the here on c-span. years, the c-span has been providing coverage of the supreme court from events from washington d.c. and around the country. cable in 1979. c-span is brought to a by your or satellite provider. ofpan your unfiltered view government. >> colorado senator michael bennett laid out his policy idea