it. but each of the people who live in russia need to feel that is home themselves, and they don't have any other home. thank you. happy new year. [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] > "washington journal is next, and then we will take you to the press club where mark morgan will speak about integration policy and border operations. president trump will sign the national defense operational act which cents -- what sets defense programs in operation. coming up on "washington journal" we discussed the politics of impeachment, and the can -- potential impact of campaign 2020.

and we talk about the future of the affordable care act after a three judge panel ruled an individual mandate to be unconstitutional. host: good morning, the front page of the washington post says the senate impeachment trial is the impeachment trial is in limbo. washington post says it is a dramatic procedural move that places the chambers at a better standoff.- bitter we want to get your reaction. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-8002. text us with your first name, city, and state at 202-748-8003 or join the conversation on twitter at @cspanwj or facebook.com/cspan.

do you think it should be a speedy trial? what are your thoughts on the standoff? the speaker of the house --terday [video clip] >> this is a bill made by the rules committee that we can call up at any time in order to send it to the senate and have provisions to pay for the impeachment and then the next is the whatever you want to .all it, the trial

thes not prepared to put managers in the bill yet because we do not know what arena we are in. we would like to see a fair process, but we will see what they have and we will be ready for whatever it is. we would hope there would be a fair process just as we hoped they would honor the constitution. i heard some of what mcconnell said today and it reminded me that our founders, when they wrote the constitution, they suspected there could be a rogue president. i don't think they suspected we would have a rogue president and rope leader in the senate at the same time. host: the speaker of the house earlier in the day and the house later on thursday as the washington post notes voted to adjourn for the holidays until january 7, throwing into doubt

when the senate might be able to begin its trial, potentially pushing it into an election year and threatening to deny the president the satisfaction of a .wift acquittal yesterday evening, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell went to the floor and had this to say. [video clip] >> in a highly unusual step, speaker of the house continues to hem and haw about whether and when she intends to take the normal next step and transmit the house's accusations over to the senate. some house democrats imply they are withholding the articles for some kind of leverage so they can dictate the senate process to senators. i admit, i am not sure what leverage there is in refraining from sending us something we do .ot want

if they can figure that out, they can explain it. other house democrats seem to be suggesting they would prefer articles.ransmit the fine with me. host: the kentucky republican on the senate floor last night. yesterday he met with chuck schumer, but the paper's report they are still at an impasse and the minority leader asked mitch mcconnell to take the holiday weekend -- holiday break to think about his proposal, he wants witnesses. mick mulvaney for one, john bolton for another. the two sides at an impasse, we are getting your reaction to that. willie in annapolis, republican. what kind of senate trial would you like to see? caller: i would like to see a senate trial that is very fair. i am a republican, but i am very

-- i am very concerned about the way the party is carrying on. that is my biggest concern. host: there are 4 republicans in the senate that are either moderate and up for reelection right now. they include senators susan collins of maine, mercer -- lisa murkowski, cory gardner, and mitt romney of utah. thed you like to see -- if 4 or 3 of them decided there

should be witnesses called and they should be able to ask questions of these witnesses, -- republicans would lose simple majority because they need 51 to pass any sort of parameter they want. would you like to see them stand up? ofler: it is not a matter whether i want them to stand up, it is not about one party or another, this is an american issue. what i am very disappointed about, what our president did from other presidents, this is much more serious than anything bill clinton, richard nixon because what they did, even andrew johnson, i think that is his name, they did something in the frame of the united states. what this man is doing is something -- i believe a person is innocent until proven guilty, but this is a much serious situation. this is not about parties, this

is about america. host: i ask it that way because romney timeus says is now for a profile in courage. history is knocking on romney's door, this is his moment to step away from a president who holds them in contempt and speak for prints and -- for principle by insisting the senate conduct a trial. a simple stand for an impartial trial is backed by several more brave republicans would restore sanity to this process. trump would probably still be acquitted, but it would not be in the firestorm of partisan rage. the new york times, their editorial this morning, they write this, democratic leaders are right to shed a spotlight on how the trial shall be conducted. the only hope of achieving a thorough or less phony process is for public pressure to be applied. not on mr. mcconnell, but

members of his congress not yet ready to be written off as presidential puppets. only 4 republicans need to stand not outemand better if of courage, then out of fear of the political cost of going along with his sham proceedings. as few as three republicans could do the trick with the help of chief john roberts. reelectionse tough they might have an interest in projecting independence and integrity. rob in new york, democratic caller, your take on this standoff between the house and senate. good morning and thank you for c-span. mitch mcconnell, what a hypocrite talking about breaking the norms. a yeard he do when -- before when obama was to appoint

a supreme court judge? .hat a hypocrite this man is i feel nancy pelosi is doing the right thing. if there is not going to be a fair trial in the senate, she should stay the course. i think democrats are going to shine as a result of this sort of thing without fair trial. i think democrats are going to be very strong in the next cycle. nancy pelosi, by showing strength, conviction, if she does not stay the course, if democrats did not stay the course, i would wait for it in writing to get from mitch mcconnell that we will hear from mulvaney and bolton and what did they say? a three or four hour interview for a few of these key people? i think david ignatius had it

right, i think susan collins and i think they should step forward now because this is the time you are going to risk your 100,000, $125,000 job, this is the time to step up, republicans that can do something and make sure we get proper witnesses. it will -- it will take a couple days for the trial. nancy pelosi should not agree. stay strong against this strongman in the white house and democrats will prevail. thank you, nancy pelosi. god bless you. host: let me show you and others what republicans are starting to say as she holds onto these articles of impeachment, here is kevin mccarthy. [video clip] >> you watched what transformed, something we have said all the time, the weakest, the thinnest, the fast meant -- fastest impeachment in u.s. history, schumer admitted he was trying to ask for more witnesses.

we have the speaker of the house who is so embarrassed she admits the failure of this impeachment that she will not send it to the senate. so embarrassed i watched she would not even take your questions. that is not a good legacy to have. she is admitting defeat by not sending it. by refusing to send impeachment over, she knows this outcome is not good, she knows the facts are not there, there is no basis for it and at the end of the day, the american public needs to move on. host: republican saying nancy pelosi is "admitting defeat" by not sending over to the senate articles of impeachment to trigger the trial. we are getting your reaction to the senate trial being "in limbo" scott in new york, independent, what do you think? caller: i am scott the human. god bless all the humans.

it's start with that and would like to say a fact after i get done with my statement. i think nancy pelosi needs to -- herempeachment until is another fact, the house has been doing other work than just impeachment and the senate has been sitting on their hands doing absolutely nothing. nancy pelosi needs to tell the senate here is some of the bills, very important bills for the human americans, get those done and then we will send impeachment, let's see if you can do some work. a simple fact. has ak a ivanka trump member of the cabinet of the white house, so she was representing the american people, went to china to meet with government officials and while she was in china meeting with government officials, she got patents, which are making her probably millions of dollars.

isn't there some kind of monument or that is a lot worse than what mr. biden did with his son. if republicans are so interested in being evenhanded, why doesn't somebody bring that up? up.: kj in florida, you are caller: what i would like to see in this trial is a clear message that defines the role of the president, the role of congress, and the role of the american people. if democrats are right, they are suggesting if a person wants to filerruption, make sure to some papers so you want to challenge the president so you will be able to accuse him of getting political points with foreign leaders, that is the message they are sending and

that doesn't make sense. either we are equal under the law or we are not, there is no law that says the president cannot investigate an individual. that is what i would like to see. i would like to see either the democrat message go through or what i understand as a republican, how this country works and the powers of the president. our people suggesting the fbi should have asked ukraine? i am not sure. host: kj in florida, republican, he said he would like it to go forward and you heard house speaker nancy pelosi adhere -- at her news conference say we are ready. the front page of the usa today says we are ready, but not rushed. it talks about the role john roberts would play, the duty of presiding over a senate trial in an impeachment case rests upon

johnhief justice, this is roberts, a graduate of harvard law school, in his 15th term as chief justice. what experience does he have? he was nominated by president george w. bush to succeed william rehnquist as chief justice and served as a judge in the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit, deputy solicitor general of the justice department and in private practice. what will be his role? his job is more umpire than judge or jury, the senate would acquit or convict the president, roberts would rule on procedural matters and break time votes, , which on conviction requires a two thirds majority of the 100 member senate, that is 60 seven senators. usa today notes the president has said he would like them to call witnesses in this trial. according to the washington post , senator mitch mcconnell has

reminded the president and his team that every request would need to be approved by a majority vote, saying that could put senate republicans in a difficult spot and democrats could on earth and with questioning according to several people familiar with the talks between the majority leader and the president. in texas, democratic caller, good morning. say i am very to proud of nancy pelosi and the democrats and i am ashamed of mitch mcconnell and republicans and i don't care if nancy pelosi holds those impeachments until the supreme court rules on the president past bank statements, taxes, and other financial records in july or november and then maybe that will help macconnell to try to have a fair trial because i think it is important they do and that is all i have to say.

pennsylvania, independent. caller: good morning. and proves how corrupt messed up our country is between the battling of these political parties over impeachment. whether the man is guilty or not, it is still one-upsmanship, democrats have a point in saying he violated some laws, republicans are the do as you say party, not do as i do, they mr.et about the times after obama and prevented him from getting anything passed. we need to reevaluate our government and all three branches of government are so messed up, so corrupt that this country is falling apart because we cannot get along because one party wants to say they are betty than -- better than the other parties and in my eyes, neither one of the parties are worth anything, they do nothing.

all they do is worry about is ing in office and who charge, which party is in charge of the government. we have a bought and paid for branchest in all three , the american people are losing out and the american people better wake up soon and realize this is happening and stop following the ideology of your paul -- have your party and listening to what one party says how much better they are than another party. we are losing our country, so you better wake up and fix our government by going after our political leaders. the wall street journal editorial board has a suggestion, they write mitch -- mr. macconnell might be tempted to let pelosi -- thinking she will look cynical to the public, but republicans

should honor the constitution by holding a trial. the president deserves a chance to marshal a defense he did not get in the house and get a senate verdict. macconnell should put miss .elosi on public notice deborah in indiana, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. a voter, i am as has this, i think the house submitted and be on a conviction. i do not think the senate should touch this because number one, with the is involved andia collusion coming down

january, after the holiday is over with, nancy pelosi is going to be standing on top of her head, this is not right and i do not think people like me should be sitting here watching them play. you want the senate to help you convict my president? it doesn't work that way. all we are waiting for now, she can take -- keep the papers and do what she wants to do with them because her and the rest of with the is going down russia collusion that have upset me and my household and my great grandkids that are confused going through all kind of stuff trying to figure out what is going on.

host: here is what the speaker and the minority leader, chuck schumer, would like to see in a senate trial before she names house managers, they met yesterday as well, speaker pelosi and chuck schumer, here is mr. schumer explaining what democrats would like to see in a trial. [video clip] >> our goal in the senate should be to conduct a fair and speedy trial. i have proposed a very reasonable structure that would do just that. only those with direct knowledge of the charges made by the house, only those who could provide new relevant and potentially eliminating testimony, strict time limits on each stage of the process to prevent the trial from dragging out too long. it is eminently reasonable, who hadly fair, a group

no partisan bias would come up with this type of proposal. host: jason in new york, democratic caller, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your show, that is quite embarrassing what i just heard from charles schumer. as a democrat, i am embarrassed as a party member. what just transpired in the house was the most unfair, ridiculous thing that has no precedents. nancy pelosi and her leadership is absolutely insane and i am really quite embarrassed as a democrat to be sitting here listening to other democrats who just listen to talking point to have no facts. if you look into the facts, republicans have more of a right side than the democrats do and the democrats on this show saying they wish this and wish that better be careful because when the facts come out in the

trial if they have one in the senate, they will have real facts and senators are going to investigate, not to mention durham. the answers i believe i know from my very close following of the whole thing, i believe are going to be criminal on the democratic side and so it is quite embarrassing and to be honest with you, i am planning on changing my party line, it is very upsetting. callere very -- the last that said both parties are really not representing the people is absolutely right and i have to agree this is a scary time for the constitution as well as the people of america. host: kamala harris from california who was running in the 2020 presidential election rights and opinion piece in the new york times, she will be one

of the jurors in a senate trial. she writes senators must be allowed to subpoena witnesses and submit questions directly, the senate should not vote on articles of impeachment or consider a motion to dismiss the trial until we have reviewed the additional testimony and evidence mr. schumer requested. i have never been in a courtroom where the accused can block witnesses from testifying or prohibit prosecutors from asking witnesses questions. no port would allow a trial to proceed this way and neither should any member of the senate. you remember kamala harris was the attorney general for california. vaughn in ohio. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i am a little confused. they are going through this whole impeachment thing, but yet, hillary clinton and the dnc did the exact same thing when they hired a foreign agent from

another country to investigate trump, which led to the russia probe. is this not the cattle -- kettle calling the pot black? host: lamar, what do you think? few commentsast from the last few people was spot on. i enjoyed listening to them, this one guy is confused to the point he is ready to change parties. i am not saying both parties are 100% correct, but they should not hold up things, they kind of don't want to rush things, but something like 7 days in between the holiday, thanksgiving and stuff that held things up, they seven days i think it was if i am not incorrect of sending that thing through and i

think they need to go ahead and got, pass ity have over to the senate. yes, they should let them speak because they did not let them speak in the house as far as people wanting to come forward. they held that back end that really upset me and i am sure it upset a lot of people and i am sure in november they are going to see the upset come forth through the people by the people. i hope i am still living to see that. if i am, i am going to cast my vote and i just think they need to move on. people are tired, wore out from the time this president was elected until today. all this mess coming and being knocked down, people being appointed to the supreme court and stuff, moving right down the line and they lose and keep

fighting and keep losing, they will lose this one, too because of holding back letting people speak. i believe people ought to be able to speak and if they are qualified and have good, solid evidence and stuff to speak on, they should let them speak. host: al in missouri, democratic caller. caller: i would like to tell to slow down. remember 2013. host: please turn down your tv. caller: okay, hold on. when they slow down, they are going back to 2013 and everybody doesn't want to say this. . storm. and desert

when president obama sent the , 145over to mr. macarthur billion dollars, the senate had in 1999 did nothing. they made obama -- they fought obama. when trump got in there, they said now you will never see the bill. now it is coming back and harming him. in kansas city, missouri, he announced he was going to retire. host: paul in california, republican. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i can't believe nancy pelosi would do such a cowardly thing like this and try to impeach a president -- host: josephine, independent.

caller: good morning. say so manyle things off the top of their head because they could not have been listening to what was going on. unfortunately, i am handicapped and in a way, it is a good thing because it forces me to listen to everything. let me begin by number one, number one, there are 400 bills -- let me repeat, 400 bills that have passed the house, including bills for reducing the cost of prescriptions. and where are they sitting? on mitch mcconnell's desk and he , refuses, refuses to vote on these bills. host: what does that have to do the impasse? caller: what does that have to

do? i life. nothingear people say has been done in the house, let me get it straight, 235 bills were bipartisan. why did mitch mcconnell come president of the united states? host: the president yesterday in the oval office was meeting with congressman van drew who switched from democrat to republican. he opposed the articles of impeachment. the president was asked how he felt about wednesday night's vote. [video clip] >> i don't feel like i am being impeached because it is a hoax, it is a set up, it is a horrible thing they did, they happen to have a small majority and they forced people. they said -- i watched pelosi saying we don't want to talk to anybody. they put the arm on everybody. many of those people were like not want tohey did vote that way. it doesn't feel like impeachment

. last night -- we had a great time last night, the room was packed, thousands of people could not get in. is ation that pretty much 50-50 section in terms of democrat, republican, every one of those people is voting for trump-pence. back tremendous amount of business. likeesn't feel impeachment. it is a phony deal and they cheapen the word impeachment, it is an ugly word, they cheapen the word impeachment, that should never again happen to another president and i think you will see some very interesting things happen over the coming few days and weeks. host: president trump in the oval office yesterday. also happening yesterday, the magazine christianity today, rights for evangelicals

and christians in this country, their editor in chief, who is retiring wrote this piece on their website, trump should be removed from office, it is time to say what we said 20 years ago when a president's character was revealed for what it was. he wrote the president of the united states attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president's political opponents. that is not only a violation of the constitution, it is profoundly immoral. of the reasons many are not shocked is this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. he has hired and fired a number of people who are convicted criminals. he admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. his twitter feed which it -- with its string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders is a near-perfect

example of a human being who is morally lost and confused. this magazine was started by the reverend billy graham. his son has said his father would be embarrassed by this editorial. the president tweeted a far-left magazine or very progressive, as some would call it, which has been doing poorly and hasn't been involved with the family for many years. would rather have a radical left nonbeliever who wants to take your religion and your guns then donald trump as your president. no president has done more for the evangelical community and it is not close. you will not get anything from those dems on stage. i will not be reading again. it has 80,000 subscribers, many of them high-profile reverends and pastors in the christian community. we are going to talk to

evangelicals only in our last 30 minutes, 9:30 a.m. eastern time you give yourve reaction to christianity today and what you think about what they wrote in the magazine, that coming up in our last hour. , democraticissouri caller. we are talking about the impasse between the house and senate over a trial. what do you think? caller: i believe it is wrong for them. republicans have blinders on. few months ago and it is just wrong. people that have done the things trump has done have been put in jail. they need to do the same with him, he needs to be impeached. lower-class people are not getting anything.

rich people are getting it all, people -- he is trying to take away medicaid, medicare, there is a lot of cannot work, but he is not thinking about us and color does not matter even though he does show prejudice. soneeds to be impeached somebody can get in there that really cares about the people and he doesn't. republicans need to see that and quit protecting him. i don't know what they are scared of about him, but it is something. it is something to make them continue to want to protect him, which he doesn't need. committed numbers of

criminal laws and personal laws and the children he is taking away from those people, it is just not fair and he needs to be impeached. think this is an impeachment, it is an impeachment and you need to go. if i was you, i would walk away with some pride on mice -- on my shoulders for doing the right thing. that is all i have to say, he needs to go. host: high will go to robert next in tennessee, independent. caller: merry christmas, america . i wonder if your callers will feel the same way when they realize barack obama killed an american citizen overseas without due process. i never heard anybody complain about that.

i don't understand where nancy pelosi believes she has the power to tell the united states senate what to do and how to do it. kamala harris talking about she has never seen anything like that in a courtroom in all her years of experience, this is going to be a trial and in a trial, gretchen, there is such a thing not allowed as hearsay evidence, this will be put in front of a judge, a jury will be run like a courtroom, that is why pelosi is not going to put this in front of the senate. all of this is based on hearsay, courtis inadmissible in a in the united states of america. you are going to have the chief judge of the united states supreme court sitting there and the first thing that is going to be said is is any of this firsthand evidence? the answer is going to be no and the next thing that will come out of their mouth's case dismissed. you guys have thrown everything

you can think to throw at donald trump and he is still standing, this is one great american president, merry christmas and god bless donald trump. host: rhonda in massachusetts, your turn. caller: i think nancy pelosi is wrong and i just found out her father, thomas telus andre junior was a heroin dealer and he had constant companions. host: where did you learn that? caller: on the internet. host: okay. what does that have to do with what is happening, this impasse between the house and the senate? caller: because i feel like corrupt and what her father did was wrong. in beltsville, maryland, democratic caller. caller: how are you doing, greta?

i have not seen you in a while, you have a pretty dress this morning. why don't these people get off internet and email and this fake news and everything and why don't they pay attention to the real thing going on. want iss -- all they mulvaney, bolton, what is the other guy's name? testify. why is trump telling these people not to testify? fox news is putting out this fake news and trump keeps saying everything is a witchhunt, the mueller report was not a witch hunt. he was not acquitted. people do not want to see the truth. look at paul manafort, he sold data to the russian government.

republicans are hiding things, that is why mitch mcconnell wants to have a quick trial to get it over with. otherwise, if he is not guilty, he would let everyone testify. mike pompeo, mullaney, even the vice president. i don't understand what these people are looking at. yesterdayllow-up to pass a story about the president's comments wednesday night. as you might know, john dingell's wife tweeted out mr. president, let's put politics aside. i am preparing for the first holiday season without the man i love, you brought me down in a way you could never imagine and your hurtful words made my healing much harder. in response, cindy mccain, the

wife of john mccain, who the president has also been critical of, i am terribly sorry, please know i am thinking about you. the speaker of the house when she was asked about the president's comments, this is what she said. [video clip] >> let us pray for the president. the president is clearly insecure when it comes to states persons, whether it was john mccain -- think of what he said about john mccain and his supporters overlook that. now john dingell. the president -- what the president misunderstands is cruelty is not wit, just because he gets a laugh for saying the things he says, does not mean he is funny, it is not funny at all, it is very sad. host: yesterday at the white house, the president was pressed about the reaction to his comments on the former -- the

late congressman, here is that moment at the white house. congresswoman tingle, would ,ou apologize to her -- dingell mr. president, would you apologize to her? host: back to our conversation with all of you about the standoff between the house and senate. chris in florida, republican. caller: good morning, greta. i would like to point out something. professor noah feldman testified earlier this month before the house judiciary committee impeachment proceedings and he has come out with a bloomberg op-ed that says basically trump is not technically impeached until the transmitsally articles to the senate, but the framers intended this to be a process and not just a house about. basically, if the house does not

communicate impeachment to the senate in that way, it hasn't actually impeached the president. host: noah feldman writes that where? caller: it is a bloomberg op-ed, you can look it up under bloomberg, noah feldman read host: got it. out yesterday.me host: i see it, yep. i want to show our viewers while you are talking. caller: basically, because the framers intended this to be an entire process, not just the house voting and deciding, therefore, if the house never sends the articles, trump could say he really was never impeached with very strong justification. host: thanks for sharing. john in wisconsin, independent. caller: hi.

officer.tired military i have been watching this. i am really upset. i have a degree in political science and this scares the hell out of me. if we get to the point where one party can impeach -- vote impeachment for a president and of thesenate was also same party, they could just get rid of the president any time they wanted to and that destroys our democracy. i am really upset for some of that say all these things about the president, that they have no proof of. -- monkeythe monday

trial in the house of representatives and it scares the hell out of me again. i think we are in deep trouble. i admit president trump is a different type of person and says things without thinking, but i am really scared our country may be in much deeper trouble than people are thinking without impeachment, nothing has been proved. host: democratic caller in illinois. caller: good morning, greta. merry christmas to america and happy new year to all the republicans and the democrats. i think from listening to the program so far, i would like to reminisce about the way we felt when we got bombed by pearl

harbor. everybody had that patriotic swell in their heart and signed up to go fight the war and we were inspired by kennedy, the race to the moon against the --sians together together everybody in america gathered together and they had such a swell of pride and again in 9/11 when we were attacked, we all gathered together. there was not no partisanship. everybody was an american and it seems like that swell we get when we have our flags that -- flags out and signs in our front yard, we do better those times and i hope everybody can get together and try to be not so partisan about this and just think it through logically, what we need to do at this point. , i think impeachment

our representatives know the difference. in the mueller report, we can all agree the russians did propaganda to split us apart and .et us fighting like this they have propagated it to where itmp is trying to promote and we are so divided, we cannot get together on anything and i hope somehow we find a way to get back together and one last thing, just put one thought in gorebody's head, if al would not have gotten cheated out of that election in florida, he would have spent trillions of dollars on these wars on climate change, just think of where we would be today. host: want to give you a glimpse of last night's democratic

debate, the last one of the year , politico sponsored that debate and folks are noting how the candidate seem to be ganging up on mayor pete buddha bench -- pete buttigieg. here is one moment between the mayor and elizabeth warren. [video clip] >> we are in the fight of our lives right now. donald trump and his allies has made it abundantly clear they evenstop at nothing, not foreign interference to hold onto power. they have put together more than $300 million, this is our chance, this is our only chance to defeat donald trump and we should not try to do it with one hand behind our back. the way we are going to win is to bring anybody to this fight. student,e a grad digging in deep to chip in $10

online and you can drop $1000 without blinking, that is great, we need everybody's help in this fight. i will not turn away anyone who wants to help us defeat donald trump. we also need independents worried about the direction of the country. if you are a republican disgusted with what is going on in your own party, we are not going to agree on everything. we need you in this fight and i will welcome you to our side. >> senator warren, 45 seconds to respond. >> the mayor recently had a fundraiser held in a wine cave full of crystals and served $900 bottle wine. think about who comes to that. he promised every fundraiser would be open door, but this one was closed-door. we made the decision many years ago that rich people in

smoke-filled rooms would not pick the next president of the united states, billionaires and wine caves should not pick the next president of the united states. >> mr. mayor, your response. >> according to forbes magazine, i am the only person on this stage who is not a millionaire or a billionaire. this is important. this is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself past. -- pass. if i pledge never to be in the company of a progressive democratic donor, i could not be up here. host: from last night's debate. another moment political observers are pointing to is when joe biden, the former vice president was asked about bipartisanship once the president is gone. om,ks are saying like vox.c

washington post saying he was one of the winners pointing to this answer. [video clip] >> you have been reassuring voters things will return to normal when president trump leaves office, republicans will have an epiphany and come to the table to work with the biden administration. given everything you have seen from current republicans, what evidence is there that things will change? >> i did not say return to normal, normal is not enough. we have to move beyond normal, whether it is health care, the environment, whatever it is, we have to build on what we have started and that has been interrupted badly. with trump out of the way, it is not going to change things in a fundamental way, but it will mean we are in a position where he will not be able to intimidate -- his base will not intimidate the half a dozen republicans we need. i refuse to accept the notion

that we can never, never get to a place we have cooperation again. if that is the case, we are dead as a country. we need to be able to reach consensus and if anyone has me.on to be angry, it is we have to be able to get things done and when we can't convince them, we go out and beat them like we did in the 2018 election in red states and purple states. the entire presidential debate will air tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern time and saturday night at 10:00 a.m. eastern and c-span. you can go to our website, c-span.org for more on that and watch on our website or download the radio app.

donovan in akron, ohio, independent. it is your turn to tell us what you think about this house-senate impasse. caller: smoke and mirrors, it is a little crazy. things areif these true, and i believe our president has given us a history of things that are out of context, out-of-the-box. if they are true, i believe the they proceeded in a way should have proceeded and is there partisanship probably going on? yes. i think because people are angry. there have been serious violations in my opinion that have gone on. something as simple as what he do withut what he would women grabbing their genitalia. if someone said that about ivank

a, that would probably be a problem. going forward in the senate, in my opinion, they know there are things they do not want to be , this is the situation for the president. it is a sad day and a sad time for united states of america because a lot of people are drinking kool-aid and things are sitting right out in front of your face. it is crazy. hopefully we get it taken care of. backnk the idea of holding make sense to me because i don't know exactly what you are doing, so why would i send someone to pretty much be ambushed? a text from don from south bend, indiana.

brilliant move, know mitch mcconnell has to come together. joe in kentucky saying trump is impeached, that is good enough for me. no need to have a fake trial where mitch mcconnell has no intention of having a fair trial. he is impeached, this is great, this will be on his tombstone, do not even try to exonerate him . he is guilty. brian in new york, what do you think? caller: i think i love you america and that is one of the things -- the reasons i am calling you. he said he fears for america. his fears are justified. i am not going to go into all the lies and the distortions and slanders we were told about donald trump to get him a legally impeached based on

nothing. i am going to talk about the infiltration of a foreign ideology, that is the left ideology and everything the left has invaded, whether it be these religious books you talked about before, the catholic church now cardinals that say nothing about abortion in the have month -- we corruption throughout the country of culture. if you look at 1950 movies where gentlemen use to dress in shirts and ties and go on the subway and look at what is on the subways today. no matter where you look in our been degraded. it is down into the gutter. look at the people the democratic party elect, the

woman that says impeached the "mf," that is how congresspeople speak today? how women speak today? ,f people look at hollywood every institution that has been sick andhat is twisted, it is all coming from the left, it is not coming from skinheads and all this nonsense, they have invaded the democratic party, they have destroyed -- i am talking about the left, they have destroyed the democratic it now has a foreign ideology. host: jacqueline in new jersey, democratic caller. caller: good morning, happy christmas, -- merry christmas, happy holidays. it is interesting to hear the about civilityk

when we have the president we have in the white house right now. he is the divider in chief. his only goal is to destroy and divide the country. when we fight each other and provide this information, republicans do not win, democrats do not win, moscow wins. please let me get my thought out because the last couple callers spoke about a minute or more. i kept hearing during the house trial that there were no witnesses, there were no witnesses, they complained about process because when you cannot defend what the president did, you can make a process argument. now they had the opportunity in the senate to get all the witnesses they want, but they do not want to bring the key

witnesses, the first-hand knowledge witnesses. pompeo, the secretary of state, they don't want to bring any of those folks. why is that? if you are innocent, you have an opportunity to clear your name and you do not clear your name by writing a 6 page hysterical word salad of a letter. you get people to testify and why doesn't he testify under oath? this is all gas lighting. this is what people do, they throw anything out. the sky is not blue, it is purple. there is a demographic in the country that has become a cult of has debased the presidency. they just know that he is their guy. host: so your comments reminded me of the story from the washington post, a story about where the president is insistent

it was ukraine and not russia who interfered in the 2016 election. where itt comes from, plays in -- former white house officials under the trump administration point to his private meeting, the president's private meetings with vladimir putin, where they believe it is in those meetings that president we were withd ukraine and the president bought that. if you're interested, front page of "the washington post," they have that this morning. cathy from pennsylvania, independent. caller: hi, greta. can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: what i wanted to say is, wake up, america. all of this is about power. we have given the media that power. they are dripping with hate. we have parties like the

democrats and the republicans dripping with hate. and it is causing all of americans to drip with hate. what we need to do is we need to go back to being a real american, supporting the elected president. was found in the articles, and that is why they are so vague. he should continue to work. you remember black america, everything in the past will affect you first, us first. -- anythingition that is against the morals of god -- remember that, black america, so that when you grow with the institution, you will pay first. host: we will talk about how impeachment will impact the

battle for congress and campaign 2020. leah askarinam will join us, from national journal hotline. and we will talk about what it means for the future of the law with kaiser health news' julie rovner. announcer: this sunday, book tv through features three new nonfiction books. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, alan dershowitz offers his thoughts about how sexual misconduct allegations should be handled, in his book "guilt by accusation." >> i don't want it to go away.

i want to disprove it categorically. so i wrote the book. i have fbi interviews, the narrative she wrote. i have the females she tried to suppress peer it i have tape recordings of her lawyers. nobody reading this book could come away with any doubt whatsoever that this woman made up this story completely ou and i never met her. out of her own mouth, i never met her. book,cer: in her latest "the truth will set you free, off."rst it will piss you gloria steinem. >> i think it is helpful to see what came before because now the me too movement, thanks to all of this and thanks to technology and the web, is now all over the world. now itis a process, and is a majority consciousness.

aftercer: at 9:00 p.m. on words, freeman rebel ski on his book the empowered university. he is interviewed by author and ceo-poverty firm robin hood wes moore. ofwe are looking at ways helping students to learn to ask the hard questions, to read critically, but to appreciate the value of evidence in a society that is bombarding us with information and different points of view with things being confused about what is truth and what is not. educated people should have the skills to ask the questions that will lead to the evidence that can therefore determine what is truth. announcer: watch book tv this weekend. and every weekend on c-span2.

"washington journal" continues. askarinam here with us this money, the editor-in-chief of the national journal hotline, to talk about the core implications of impeachment. let's talk about the tone, and did it change the tone of campaign 2020, the impeachment vote in the house. guest: i don't think it changed the tone, but it added a new vessel for the tone that has already been established. the entireroughout campaign, especially from the republicans, that this is a -- that 2020 is going to be a referendum on health care, and we heard from democrats that this is going to be a referendum on donald trump. that has not changed. what has changed is now in addition to the republicans sm as an attack, they can also now use impeachment. we have seen vulnerable

democrats attacked, hoping that because these voters supported donald trump in 2016, that they will oust -- host: so they are truly vulnerable? guest: they were vulnerable before impeachment, they will be vulnerable after impeachment. they took a calculated risk in supporting impeachment. whether or not that changes voters' minds remains to be seen. i think republicans are betting that donald trump's support is so critical for most republican elected officials. it is hard to win a primary and even a general election without supporting donald trump if you are a republican. with democrats, it is a little bit more foggy because what we found in 20 is that democrats, not embracing donald trump, but not really criticizing him either in order to win reelection. they are seeming impartial and

trying to stay away from the political fray, or is it an example of them going along with partisan lines? that is the debate. host: are democrats spending enough money, or by comparison, how much are they spending on defending democrats against those charges? guest: most republican enthusiasm, and therefore money, surrounds donald trump. donald trump is the best fundraiser for the republican party, and he is the best at creating enthusiasm among the republican party. in the democratic side it is different because there is not a clear leader. , noe is not a barack obama longer president. so a lot of the enthusiasm in the house is surrounding -- a lot of the enthusiasm for democrats stems from the democratic congressional committee that helps protect democratic incumbents and elects new democrats. it is doing well financially.

in outside groups are going and targeting these districts in a way that democrats have not totally responded to. we have seen mike bloomberg come in with his own efforts to try to combat the republican outside money coming in. it is also possible that just the democratic kind of overall voter enthusiasm effort, the entire voter mobilization effort in places like georgia and texas could have the effect of combating some of those -- some of that messaging just by turning out voters paired but in terms of the actual impeachment messaging, republicans at this point have a financial advantage. host: everything you just said had to be part of the calculation that the congressman made before switching from democrat to republican and opposing articles of impeachment. guest: absolutely. he had been a long sought after emma credit. the i greeted -- democrat group.

i think that him changing parties is definitely a moral kind of low to democrats. but in terms of the actual house majority, the calculation has not really changed for democrats since his switch we saw internal polling that shows that in his district it would be tough for him to win a primary if you were going to oppose impeachment, and that looks like probably the number one reason he switched parties. but now he is going after the general election when he has already been attacked by republicans for the last year. connecting him to socialism, trying to connect him to connecting -- voting against donald trump, and now they have to flip-flop on that messaging. whether or not that is effective remains a big question. host: here is the commerce many of the white house yesterday with the president, talking -- he is the congressman yesterday, talking with the president switching parties.

i guess what i'm saying is this is a benefit for me. this is who i am. the blue dog democrats, conservative democrats, i think that is going away. two more things i want to say. one, you have my undying support. pres. trump: thank you very much. and by the way, same way. >> thank you. pres. trump: i am endorsing him. twonnot speak for these gentlemen, but i am endorsing him. how do you feel about that? >> thank you. the last thing i will say, one of my heroes, i have a bipartisan wall. i have a lot of different people on there. ronald reagan. "i did not leave my party, my party left me." host: talk about the optics of that, with all the folks sitting around, and a day after the president is impeached, he has

congressman van drew in the oval office. guest: the argument is that democrats no longer have a place for moderate voters, which is a huge win for republicans in terms of messaging. they will connect every democrat running for reelection in 2020, including all these democrats who ran as moderates, some who ,pposed nancy pelosi as speaker tying them all to the furthest left wing of the democratic party. this is an example of an actual democrat agreeing with that sentiment. that said, van drew is not necessarily representative of the democratic party, and i think there is something to be said for politicians who waiver. they are making a really big political gamble. we have seen that with politicians over and over again who decide to tow the line or switch sides. in westseen that virginia with jim justice, with impeachment hearings, with tulsa

gabbard. hurtsmes it herds -- it to waiver then just pick a side. host: we want to get your thoughts on campaign 2020. republicans, -- president trump's analysis of where the report can stands after impeachment. pres. trump: we have some great women, great guys, great people. they love this country. they are going to do the right thing. they are going to do the right thing. so i said in my letter to pelosi -- i love that -- usually there is 1, 2. i have said it for a long time. the democrats are lousy

politicians. they have horrible policies, open borders, crime is fine, drugs pouring through. think of what they do. sanctuary cities. they love sanctuary cities. they are lousy politicians, but they have two things -- they are vicious. they are the most vicious people. the republicans are not as vicious. they may learn to be vicious after going through this stuff. the other thing, democrats always stick together. inc. of this -- three democrats went over to our side. -- think of this -- three democrats went over to our side. no republicans. by the way, this is for 100 years. i am not just talking about this one point in time. the republicans are known as it is always harder to stick together. these people agree. we have a great republican party. host: president trump at his rally in michigan, giving his

stance on where the republican party stance how does impeachment help democrats politically? isst: president trump correct that republicans are not more united than they have been since he has entered office. when he is not saying is that democrats are also as united as they were ever. in the last decade at this point. what we are seeing is just increased polarization from this entire impeachment inquiry. so republicans are putting on their jerseys, democrats are putting on theirs, and in some districts that will help republicans come in some it will help democrats. it depends on where it is geographically. it depends on whether it is suburban, urban, or rural. -- a cleart clear win for either side i think democrats had very little room to grow in terms of unity because donald trump is president. the same way republicans were united when barack obama was

president. nothing will unite you more than a common enemy. in that sense, i can see that maybe democrats had already reached their potential, whereas republicans needed that kind of boon to get them united. impeachment did give that to them. host: let's get to a caller. paula in texas, democratic color, you are first. caller: good morning. i love cnn. i love how you keep us informed. host: c-span, paula, c-span. caller: i'm sorry. i'm sorry. i love you and i am just honest. i know you are talking on one of my favorite subjects. it is sad to see how the republicans are so doggone crooked. they do not want to do anything for this man. you all have a blessed day and merry christmas. host: cricket, that message. does it resonate? -- crooked, that message peered

does it resonate? the democratic base may like that, but what about the independents? guest: that is a big question. right now there is a segment of the country that is totally on donald trump's side, or donald trump can do nothing wrong. there is a side of the country were democrats, among the democrats base, donald trump can do nothing right, and then there are swing voters and they are going to be the ones who end up deciding the election. what we sometimes forget is that elections are not decided by a national popular vote, they are decided by sometimes a few thousand voters in michigan and wisconsin. so what side do those voters take? do they think donald trump is crooked, and is that enough? even if they do think he is, is that enough to boot him out of office? we will have a democratic candidate at some point for president, and that will help answer that question. is the alternative that democrats end up producing in the nomination better than

notld trump, whether or voters personally like donald trump? host: what does it mean when you base nationally, a election, as one of the headlines alluded to, after impeachment? it is the base that turns out. what does it mean then -- you touch on it a little bit -- for districts for house seats, and for senate seats? guest: it depends on the district. that is why the house is kind of nebulous right now. up 20icans need to pick seats in order to win the majority, which is tough. -- voters the senate like in colorado, or a cory gardner is going to be up for reelection, there are base voters in maine, where the candidate has branded herself as a moderate. can she do that when the base is so fired up?

we have the same questions about even martha mcsally in arizona and thom tillis in north carolina. base voters there, especially in urban areas, and also suburban voters who came out en masse in every 2019 special and gubernatorial election, they could swing all of those states and prevent some republicans like susan college -- susan collins, especially susan collins, who has always been able to whether these political storms. can they do that when the democratic base is so fired up? host: explain for our viewers how many republican senators are -- are up for reelection scum and democrats. guest: in 2018 the democrats were on defense. we talked over and over again about democrats running for reelection in trump states. about half ended up winning reelection.

opposite,it is the republicans are on the defense per and only two republican senators represent states that hillary clinton won in 2016 peered both are up for reelection in 2020. republics are also on defense in north carolina, arizona, iowa. two seats now in georgia. democrats need to defend michigan, which is going to be -- it might depend on the presidential outcome, but i think what gets lost is democrats do have the most vulnerable senator, which is doug jones in alabama. if we are taking into account doug jones and the possibility of him losing, democrats need to pick up probably five seats. others throughout the rest of the country in order to make up for that loss and control of the senate in 2020. are corysible pickups

gardner, north carolina, thom tillis? guest: georgia. to be fair, there is a possibility texas will enter the conversation. skeptical, but it is possible if you talk to strategists and republicans in texas as whelp there will probably be a day where texas -- as well. there will probably be a day where texas is a competitive state. we have seen a precursor of that from beto o'rourke. an $80 million campaign can do. it willthat extra 2%, it be another $80 million? probably not? -- probably not. votes, which is what beto o'rourke, now that he is not running for senate or president, he is spending his time boosting voter turnout in texas, which could affect the statehouse and the senate and congressional districts there. host: back to calls.

peter from florida, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. you guys are the best. just some observations. i think the democrats in the house have been a complete failure. just want to give you three examples. three weeks ago, the democrats and the cr, the great democrats for freedoms. they rubberstamp extending the patriot act. the democratic base voters i talked to have no idea they did that. put $738 the democrats billion into trump sen. warner: budget. 132 billion dollars -- into trump's war budget. $132 billion would combat homelessness. wait until the midterms. the only thing nancy pelosi i believe was truly terrified of, if she would have been forced by aoc to have a nonbinding vote, who in the house is for medicare

for all and who is not? the democrats were terrified because their corporate leadership would be all primary .nd have a good chance host: let's talk about what he is bringing up. what the democratic party proposes and what they support and how that could be -- opposes and what they support and how that could be used against them. guest: there are strong divisions in the democratic party that get glossed over. the reason is because, again, there is so much big stuff going on, that some of this gets lost. of course, we talking about impeachment in the democratic primary, but also it is unified opposition to donald trump, that tends to gloss over these decisions. but even though in some ways it unifies house democrats, it can also hurt them, these legislative accomplishments or

failures, depending on each way you're looking at this. that they are being overlooked. democrats are campaigning on the idea that they can walk and chew gum at the same time. you have probably heard that phrase a million times for a million different democrats. they are trying to prove that they can hold donald trump accountable but also pass legislation. that is where you get the policy debates. even last night on the debate stage when it comes to trade, when it comes to foreign policy, these are just divisions that do not get a lot of attention when democrats have a bigger goal in mind. that is beating trump. host: or attention from republicans. because for the house and the senate yesterday, to pass that $1.4 trillion spending agreement, it took both sides. there are things in that democratsackage that and republicans philosophically do not agree with. yet there is the president, who will sign it today, and the

house passes the trade agreement with mexico and canada or the senate is likely to pass that in the new year, and the president will sign that. guest: i get questions all the time about when something actually does go through, which might not happen a lot, but does this help democrats or republicans more? in a way, it generally helps both of them because it allows them to talk about the things that they actually want to talk about instead of the things they are not doing. we talk about the trade deal, the usmca. that is huge for house democrats, especially in iowa. there are two vulnerable house democrats in that state, one republican. for them, they get to come back to their districts at christmas for the holidays and tell them that they were able to get something through that was not impeachment that helps iowa farmers, in their opinion. also gets to ernst come back and she will be a

vulnerable publican senator in iowa, and she gets to tell her constituents that same thing. that she is delivering for iowa and therefore is -- host: and newspapers report this morning that house democratic senate and democratic members who have never voted for a treat agreement who are on board with this usmca. david, from michigan, democratic caller. caller: real quick, john james got beat pretty readily by debbie stabenow, so i am not too worried about gary peters. a republican taking over, i am not worried about john james. but my thing is, the gentleman that switched sides -- isn't he looking at -- i mean, if i was a new jersey democrat, i would be wanting to recall him. i voted for a democrat.

onjust seems a disadvantage his part. i think he said something earlier, that most people do suffer when they do this. this is like, why would you do that? badass.y pelosi is a thank you. host: do you know if he can be recalled, or can he switch parties? guest: jeff van drew can switch parties he will still face opposition from his own party. they republican party has forums before this. there is a question whether he wins the republican nomination. i think he will have institutional support now because he has donald trump's endorsement, which will help him. thatoters can only take endorsement -- it only holds so much sway, which we have seen as trump has tried to endorse the alabama senate in 2017. that endorsement did not help.

we saw that in a couple of the governors races in 2019. it is still possible that jeff van drew loses that primary. i do not want to make any predictions because it is way too early to know. democrats can lose jeff van drew's congressional district in 2020 and still keep their majority. that is not going to be one of their priorities. they will be much more focused on their offense in the texas suburbs and protecting democratic incumbents. the voters in new jersey are probably divided in their own ways. it is a district that donald trump carried. there is not one single factor that will decide any of these questions. host: and a lot of attention was paid to those 31 democrats in the districts where zune trump won in 2016. are they all -- where president trump won in 2016. it is possible that the democrats could lose those 31 districts. guest: i think a lot of them are

vulnerable. republicans need to pick up 20 seats. those 31 districts -- and i guess now it might be 30 with jeff van drew being a republican -- those are divided into two sections. one half of those 30 districts are districts that are suburban, that previously supported mitt romney and that may be trump received a lower share of the 2016 than romney did in 2012, but he still carried the district. those are districts that are trending away from republicans or the other 15 of those are districts trending toward republicans. that barack obama carried in 2012, and the white working class districts that we talk about over and over again in the 2016 election. vulnerablehe most members. but republicans are probably going to win some of those, but,

i mean, winning all of them -- it is a tough seat, and especially when republicans have to spend their resources on a defensive effort with vulnerable incumbents in places like texas and omaha, and all over the country where the suburbs that have previously been pretty safe for republicans are now trending toward emma kratz. host: is -- toward democrats. he in that group of 15? inst: he is in a district new york for her he is one of the most vulnerable in terms of actual districts. in terms of his race, the race he will be facing, that is a much different question. voters tend to -- he has a record in the state that he has tried to highlight that shows him parting with the democratic state party of new york, which is probably how he got -- how he

won the election in 2018 as a freshman. sometimes, rematches work. sometimes, rematches don't work. she has lost the district before. he is facing pressure from outside groups running ads in his district. this is from the american action network. >> the impeachment showdown went live. usanthony brindisi ignored and voted to impeach the president. -- let theo flex washington elites decide the election. it is to stop ignoring the issues we care about. tell him enough with the partisan games.

get to work on the issues that matter to us. us.: leah askarinam with what do you make of that kind of add? guest: that is a great question. democrats and republicans like the answer to. that is similar to the 2018 effort. republicans are concerned about this effort in trying to connect people like anthony brindisi and other vulnerable democrats to nancy pelosi, to the idea of socialism. elected, voters don't see them that way. there is a question of whether oris an authentic ad whether it is a political game.

either way, connecting him to democrats should help republicans in that district and the fact that he ended up voting for impeachment might be more important. michael inll go to illinois. caller: i voted for trump. i was in service at the end of the vietnam war. i am a senior and disabled. i voted for trump because i wanted to drain the swamp, which was the old popular comment about this nonsense that goes on in washington. i want your guest to comment -- and it has been touched on , ifady -- more specifically any thinking person, how they cannot see that these people in

there to fillnly their own pockets. i don't know how someone can claim to be a democrat or this and that and they switch parties, like that one fellow, voted present -- she said, i believe he is guilty but i won't vote against him. this is where i want you to comment and focus. i am so disillusioned. i keep looking for someone to be countrynd to put the ahead of their own greed and self-interest and i have been totally unsuccessful in finding anybody like that. explain that to me. guest: that is an interesting question.

i am glad you called in because you are one of the voters i am very interested in. a lot of voters did decide to vote for trump, we think, because they wanted a change. it was not necessarily a vote for the republican party. it was a vote for shaking things up. this perception that washington is corrupt. that is where the democratic primary comes interesting. in the democratic primary, there is a notion that trump voters would not support someone like elizabeth warren or bernie sanders because they are too progressive. these are also the candidates trying to shake up the system. that is a big question ahead of 2020, whether trump voters are beng to -- who may previously voted for obama, maybe not traditional republican voters, other they are more likely to support somebody like

joe biden, who comes off as more moderate but has been in the political spotlight for a decade or somebody like bernie sanders who is more progressive. he is also somebody who wants to shake up the system, which is wantedng so many voters in 2016. i do not know the answer to that question yet but that kind of question will be one of the many factors that decides the 2020 election for president and may be a whole bunch of these house seats as well. host: jackie in north carolina, independent. candidatesching the last night and how they talked bad, it showsing how much the democrats are not in touch with the american people. them say $60,000 was a

middle-class amount of money. it is not. they want taxpayers to pay for reparation. they want us to pay for their campaigning. they are just not in touch. we want to get rid of trump because, like they say, he is shaking things up, like your guest said. sad. very our household makes less than $35,000 and that is when both of us were working and i am out of on aso we are living minimal amount of money and they want to keep taxing us and i talk about taxing the rich but it is only the middle class they are talking about taxing. we have no health care. we were charged $4000 because of

obamacare. the $4000 could have gotten us something. instead, i do not know whose pocket it went into, but it did not go into ours. where do we stand? you are tapping into a big question about the role of health care in the economy. if you watch the presidential democratic debate last night, one of those battles between does it help more to say you are paying less in premiums but you are paying less in taxes -- or more in taxes. it is a complex issue. i think the economy, in general, is a tough issue for democrats heading into 2020 because in general, if you look at the

indicators, the economy seems to be pretty well -- be doing pretty well. if you talk about how everyday americans are feeling, there is a different reality on the ground. individuals in places where factories have closed down . what we have seen in the democratic primary -- the democratic candidates who ran for office in 2018 was trying to focus on that as their number one issue all throughout the primary, all throughout the midterm elections. they give themselves credit for winning the majority. i am talking solely about health care. i think democrats want to do that again in 2020. i think some republicans, especially republicans who are in districts who are not super

supportive of donald trump, would like to do the same thing. with impeachment and the everyday chaos of washington, it is hard to know whether or not by november 2020, that will be one of the issues dominating the presidential campaign or house or senate campaign. host: let's talk about cathy mcmorris rodgers. the house ethics committee, after a five-year review, has determined she has misused taxpayer dollars and has to reimburse the u.s. treasury in and $.95. of 7500 $75 $7575.95.

official resources for her efforts to land a house leadership position. she is no longer in leadership. issue vulnerable? guest: when we talk about -- is she vulnerable? guest: when we talk about candidates in office who have ethics issues, it always puts them into the realm of vulnerable. she was on the edge of the 2018 shete about whether or not could be vulnerable. .he ended up on the fringes we have seen over and over again that even people in congress who have been indicted, people who have gone to jail for financial elections.en duncan hunter had his own issues. a republican in california. with all the same thing in new york with a republican.

it is way too soon to say whether one of these violations would really change. host: duncan hunter has pled guilty and is resigning his seat. he did not vote on impeachment. he was asked not to vote before he steps down. democratic caller -- caller: good morning to both of you. todemocrats, we really need get out of this delusional state of mind. i am looking at 40 districts that we can lose easily. we need to focus on two things, the white house and the senate. -- if he gets four more flip the ninth. ruth bader ginsburg, she cannot

last. she is sick. force another nominee. joe biden, he has to address this. true.not say, it is not he has to have a good answer for that because he is the only one who can be trump. none of these other candidates can be trump. host: a lot to chew on. guest: electability is what you are hitting on. the question is whether joe biden is the best candidate to take on donald trump if democrats want to win the white house. joe biden has been campaigning on that message. probably the number one reason he has been leading in the polls. democrats going to use the election of 2018 to win the

white house in 2020? what democrats learned in 28 --n, running candidates 2018, running candidates who did not have political baggage. many of these democratic house freshmen this year are people who were previously in the cia or in the armed services, they were not career politicians. that helped democrats when the majority with the swing voters. joe biden is an anomaly because he is seen as the most electable by many democrats even though he has been in the public eye for decades. in some ways, him being in the public eye inoculates him from attacks, which is why he has been so steady. people know who joe biden is. a particular item in his record being brought up is not going to hurt him because voters already know about it. on the other hand, does somebody

who is younger, less of a record, who has been on the stage for less time -- even somebody like bernie sanders who has been in office for a long time but has only been in the applicable spotlight for a few whos -- is that somebody has a better chance of beating donald trump? that is a huge question we do not yet know the answer to. host: woodbridge, illinois, republican. caller: i would like to make a few comments. i would like to ask your guest to comment. russia,ukraine, about wasn't it in the newspaper that a ukraine court found several ukraine's guilty of meddling in the 16 election? i forgot about number two. number three, this is why it i would like for her to comment --

this is what i would like for to comment on. representative from hawaii voted. there is an effort problem. isn't a conflict of interest for these five candidates running against president trump and casting a vote to throw him out of office -- isn't that the same thing they are accusing hunter up? that is a good question. senators who are running for reelection -- who are running for president, their number one concern is that they will not be able to spend time in iowa. they will be spending their time in washington trying to locate this impeachment trial.

it is one of the many reasons why the democrats want this process to go quickly. host: remind viewers -- when they come back from the holiday break, it is january 6. the iowa caucus in january 27. everything begins that week. guest: exactly. that is the chance for people at joe biden to really solidify his standing in iowa while everybody else is in washington. klobucharprised amy more than anyone else. she has been going slow and steady and climbing. she needs this breakout time but does she have time? are people going to be watching politics over christmas, over new year's? there will not be much time for her when she gets back to try to stand out from the pack. host: right after iowa, the new

hampshire primary, the first week in february, following through new hampshire. , hotline editor in chief, we appreciate the conversation with you this morning. thank you very much. a federal court ruled this week that parts of the affordable care act are unconstitutional. we will talk with julie rovner about what that means for the future of the law. we will be right back. ♪ >> sunday night at 8:00, american history tv on c-span3 looks back at the senate impeachment trial of president bill clinton, which took place over five weeks in january and february of 1999.

a the president suffered terrible moral lapse. , not ae infidelity breach of the public trust, not a crime against society, the two things hamilton talked about. i recommend it to you before you vote. his marriagech of vows and family trust. .t is a sex scandal >> explore nation's past, watch the clinton impeachment trial sunday night at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span3. night on q&a, wall street trader turned photojournalist chris arnott eight on his book -- on his book dignity.

>> it was a sunday morning. it was empty because all the semi's were gone. immediately, her intelligence came right through and we spoke for about an hour. she told me her life. a cliche of everything wrong that can happen to somebody. i ask her what i asked everybody a photograph -- what is one -- how do you want me to describe you? give me one sentence. >> sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> washington journal continues.

host: we want to welcome back julie rovner to talk about the affordable care act. let me read from the fifth circuit court of appeals, the recent ruling. the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as attacks. there is another constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power. we remand to the district court to provide additional analysis of the provisions of the aca as they currently exist. it may still be that none of the aca is separable from the individual mandate. it may be that all the aca is separable from the original individual mandate. helps to go back to 2017 when the republicans have the white house, the house, and the senate and they wanted to replace and repeal the

affordable care act. they cannot agree. you can remember john mccain turning thumbs down on the last try. 2017, the of republicans passed a tax bill and they reduced the penalty for not having insurance 20. they cannot eliminate it. insurance toving zero. insurance have health or you pay penalty. after 2017, the rule was, you either by health insurance or you pay penalty of zero dollars. in february of 2018, republican attorney general's said, if there is no tax anymore, the mandate is no longer constitutional because in 2012, when the supreme court upheld the entire law, chief justice

roberts wrote that this would be unconstitutional except it is a tax and therefore appropriate use of congresses taxing power and it is all ok. lawyers on both sides think this is a very dubious argument. they are reading the individual mandate to say you shall have health insurance rather than a choice. without the tax, there is some freestanding requirement for people to have health insurance, which there really isn't. they went to court and they found the judge in texas who agreed with them. the ruling came down a year ago this week. that judge said that not only is the individual mandate as it currently exists unconstitutional but because it is so intertwined with the rest of the law, the entire law has to fall. the democratic attorneys general

defending the law went to the appeals court, which had its hearing in july and ruled this week and said, we agree with the lower courts that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. we are not going to say which parts of the law can stay or go and we do not the analysis of the lower court judge. we're sending it back to the lower court judge and telling him to do it over again. host: a good explanation. where does it go from there? it all the way to the supreme court? guest: eventually, it makes it all the way the supreme court. either it can go back to the lower court judge, and everybody assumes he will do a more granular analysis and end up at the same place, saying the entire law has to be jettisoned.

it goes back to the court of appeals and then to the supreme court. attorneysocratic general are talking about going straight to the supreme court now. see if they can get the court to pick it up. they say they would like for the court to pick it up this session which means they are really running out of time. the decision would come down to the middle of the presidential campaign and the politics of this are almost as complicated as the actual structure. that is the decision being made in the next few days, whether they will try to go to the supreme court or they will let it go back to the lower court. he can take as long as he wants, judge o'connor. host: the judge in texas? guest: the judge in texas. who knows how long that would take. they're is still so much uncertainty.

asce the penalties went away of january 1, 2019, even though it was in the 2017 tax bill. the affordable care act has been operating just fine without it. the legal argument is, the rest of the law has to fall because if you don't have that tax, it cannot function. obviously, it can function because it is functioning. host: our people signing up? are people signing up? host: they are -- guest: they are. health insurance is expensive and if you get a big subsidy, there is every reason to sign up and people are doing that. we have not seen final numbers, open enrollment just ended on wednesday. there are a few states for you

can sign up. it looks like it has been going down a little bit at the bottom has not fallen out. 11, 12re still 10, million people still buying coverage without the mandate. host: julie rovner is here to take your questions and comments. as enrollees as well employer insurance, the number on your screen. uninsured and all others. that is how we have divided the lines for you to call this morning. we want to get your thoughts on the affordable care act, especially if you are participating in it. what are your questions and concerns? he talked about what happens next. what are some of the other movements in the affordable care act that you have been writing about lately? i did a piece earlier this week about what would

happen if the law went away in its entirety. there is so much to it. amounts ofhuge things that were not related to that at all. it was a moving congressional vehicle at it carried a lot of things, like a permanent authorization of the indian health service and a way to create an approved generic copies of expensive biologic drugs and calorie counts on menus and limits on profits that health insurers can make. things that do not have anything to do with the individual mandate. there were 10 titles of the affordable care act. it is an enormous sprawling law. one of the things that congress did this week is repeal several of the taxes that were paying for the affordable care act. it took them a while. the medical device industry and the health insurance industry and employers who have generous

plans and workers who have those generous plans, they did not like the taxes out there. part of the big spending bill, those taxes are going away. host: how much money were they providing? interestingly, particularly the cadillac tax, the 40% excise tax on very generous health plans. it was supposed to go into effect 2018 they kept pushing it back. when congress did this in 2010, the theory was all of these industries would benefit by more people having insurance. a littleof taking back bit of the windfall the health industry was getting but the health industry thought a public

battle -- thought a public battle to make these taxes go away. the two largest moneymakers of the taxes paying for the affordable care taxes taxes on y people. increases on the payroll tax, and a couple of other taxes aimed at truly wealthy people, like half $1 million to $1 million income people. those are actually collecting the bulk of the money. i don't remember the exact number of attacks is going away, but it will add to the deficit because this is money the federal government will not be taking in. host: what does it do to the aca to not have that money? guest: it takes over the democrats'talking point which says -- when republicans passed andbill, it was paid for, there were democrats who didn't vote for it because it wasn't paid for. it was a big deal to pass about bill, twice as big as the

drug bill was. bound andabsolutely determined that it would not add to the deficit, and now -- i haven't seen an updated, it is hard to update the numbers on it because the affordable care act is so embedded in the rest of the health care system. ceos had stopped doing separate estimates. but certainly, it is unlikely that it is being paid for. fewer people took advantage of the benefits. the cbo expected more people to be in the exchanges, and smaller employers regard to provide coverage would drop people and they would come to the marketplaces. the marketplaces have not been all that popular, so that did not happen. so it is less expensive, but i don't think it is less expensive enough to make up for the taxes being repealed. host: we go to kyle in washington state, uninsured. why are you uninsured? caller: i am actually at the

tail end of page 26 on my parents health insurance plan 26, and on- of age 's health insurance now. i said, i should probably go to the doctor before it expires because i am not sure about what i should do next. and she was like, you will still have to pay, because we haven't covered the deductible for the year, something like that. i was sure i would be paying out-of-pocket regardless. that was what the aca was still protecting me for. i thought i was good. you guys basically were already talking about what the alternatives are not that the individual mandate will be unconstitutional. where is the funding coming from anyways? you guys were already discussing that. that is really difficult, because i don't know how we are going to combat the private insurance companies in this country. good luck with that.

host: let us take the first part of his comments. guest: so he is -- host: he is still on his parents insurance until 26, but they have not cover the deductible. guest: this is one of the reasons why the marketplaces have not been very popular. in order to have expansive benefits and low enough for memes, they created huge -- low enough for memes -- low enough premiums, they created high deductibles. you see this with car insurance, you can have a $500 deductible and your premium will be this high, or you want a $1000 dr. bull, your premium will be lower -- $1000 deductible, your premium will be lower still. what happened is the deductibles have gotten so high that a lot of people cannot afford to use it insurance. this happens frequently in the

affordable care act, although there are different tiers where you could have a similar deductible. in my life i had a deductible that was a couple hundred dollars. now, the average deductible is $1000. host: even in private insurance? guest: yes. some of the plans, particularly the lower tier plans can be $7,000 or $8,000. they say, i am buying insurance, but it doesn't cover what i need. it is a big problem. congress is thinking about what to do. bottom line is what they need to do is lower the cost of health care, and that means taking money away from people who advertise and lobby, and congress has proved its inability to do that so far this year. host: tell viewers who those people are. guest: there is a fight over surprise medical bills, which happens often when people haven't met their deductible, but sometimes even when they have because they are out of network.

congress, republicans, democrats, house, senate, president trump, vowed to fix it, but they haven't because of the ferocious fighting between hospital doctors and insurance companies, and emergency room doctor practices that are owned by wall street firms founded as a place to make money, because you can basically charge whatever you want. kaiser health news has been doing a series of stories about people who are being sued and -- sued by hospitals because they can't pay their hospital bill. it is a huge problem. host: next caller, enrolled in the aca. what has your experience in like? caller: it has been fast -- stick -- fantastic. so at 63 years old i wasn't working anymore, but i couldn't sign up for medicare until 65. there was a two-year bridge where the aca kicked in.

i make about $25,000 a year. my premium is a $1000 a month plan, i pay $140. $650.uctible is my max out-of-pocket is $2500. my payment was 100 for radiology out of network for a $700 bill. the weight started got the aca off to a bad start, and they didn't have the political backing. it also was not promoted well. now, the reality is, i am one of the aca members. i have a $650 deductible, 2300 max out-of-pocket every year, $140 a month for a $1000 a month kaiser plan. great care, just like the old

days. i even have a designated personal physician. all these things go along with it. those who are in between like me, or maybe the young person at 26 was now bridging to a job that might offer health care, he will have nothing until he is hired. there is a 90 day waiting period, this and that. so this is he a plan ensures you in terms of need -- in times of need. it is not the cure for everything. but the foundation of it is fantastic for those who don't have insurance, that is 160 million americans, but then, there is currently -- between 10 and 20 million signed up. and there is another 40 or 50 million people that could have signed up if it was marketed properly, and accepted, and understood by people. host: ok, oscar. [laughter] guest: kaiser health news is part of the kaiser family foundation, and we are not

affiliated with kaiser permanente, the big health insurance. but yes, this. gentleman is exactly what the affordable care act was designed to address, people who are retired but are too young for medicare, do not know longer have employer insurance, and as the caller mentioned, yet people coming out of their parents' plans but may not have a job with health insurance yet. california is one of the states that really took on the law aggressively if health which is why it tends to be working a little more smoothly in california than in some other states. this last year, california extended subsidies further up the income scale, which no other state has done yet, so that instead of topping out at 400% of poverty, they are not going to 600% of poverty. so there are a big chunk of people who were not eligible of subsidies. which is one of the problems of act, whichble care is that if you are getting help to buy insurance on the exchange you're probably doing well.

but as soon as you tip over the point where there is no help anymore, the individual market policies are really expensive. there was a lot of people who were priced out. i think the caller is spot on about the marketing of this. of if you trump administration is trying very hard to not market it. may cut all the ultrarich money and the money for sisters and navigators will help people find out -- they cut out all the assistanceney for and navigators. i can't remember, but it was like 7 million people who were eligible for a free bronze plan because of subsidies are big enough that they could get it for zero dollars. it would have a big deductible but if they got over by a truck, they would be in good shape. but those people did not know to sign up. host: by have a map which shows it sure participation in the aca marketplace from 2014 to 2018.

can you explain a little bit? the blue is three or four, the where are we seeing participation across the country and lack thereof? guest: it is regions and sometimes counties. there was concern after the first year but insurance were going -- insurers were going to drop out. but the market has stabilized. we have seen insurers coming back. more insurers than we had last year. we are seeing more stability in premiums. they started out sort of like the companies competing, so they wanted to keep the memes as low as they could to get people time.g up for the first then they spiked because a lot of people who couldn't get insurance before started using a lot of care because they had a lot of but had been building for a while. spiked.ums but of course, the a foot of book or act has provisions that

say, you can only keep -- the affordable care act has provisions that say that you could only keep a certain portion of the profits. so there were a lot of big refunds that were not. what we have seen in the last two years was a lot of stability in the premiums. because this is a new market, so insurers did not know how to price things. so the market is self is stabilizing. it is smaller than expected, and there is concern about that, but it seems to be bumping around ok. host: take a look at this map again from kaiser. it shows the light blue, the blue is a lower premiums, and the orange-red is the higher premiums, reaching almost $200. the lowest is around $119. guest: yes. >one of the reasons but premiums vary so much is the health cost vary so -- costs much.

insurers, everybody beats up on the insurance industry, but there are things you can beat up on them for, but basic prices are what the providers charge. what the insurers have to pay in order for people to be able to get care. that was the issue nobody has been able to grapple with yet. host: julie rovner, our guest with kaiser health news chief washington correspondent. let's go to the next color. you get your insurance through your employer. caller: yes i do. hiis kaiser health news a nonprofit set of by kaiser permanente. guest: no, we are not affiliated with kaiser permanente. caller: ok. my question is, you have been discussing insurance all morning long. what about health care? the u.s. pays twice as much as any other western country. we have an abysmal health-care system because these insurance

people sit in the middle and do nothing. the amount of money we spend on administration in health care is crazy. why don't you talk about the health care and how much insurance costs us as part of the health care dollars? guest: ok. if you have a managed care plan then the insurer is actually doing more than just sitting there. they will say, i have a lot of programs for wellness and prevention and -- but the bottom line is, we spend more than other countries. we don't actually consume more health care than other countries, we just pay more. our prices are too high. the insurance industry, which would arguably have a say in bringing those prices down, has not done a very effective job at doing that. so we have basically a price problem. we also have a health problem, it is beyond medical care. that there are housing issues and food insecurity issues, what they call social determinants of health, that are huge. if we could take care of these

issues, the nation's medical bills would likely go down. host: you are talking about the nutrition side? guest: everything, nutrition, housing, transportation, the things that surround. that determine people's health that is not traditional medical care. host: it is interesting, there was a headline in the "los angeles times," new research finds that by 2030, nearly half of american adults, 49.2% to be exact, they write, will be obese . fewerry single state, no than 35% of adults will have a body mass index of at least 30, which is the threshold that defines obesity." talk about that. guest: it is huge. policymakers have been talking about it for years. the rise of type two diabetes which used to heart disease and stroke.

there are a lot. then you are not taking on the medical industry, you are taking on the food industry. when they were working on the affordable care act, one of the proposed taxes was on sugar soft drinks. it did not get anywhere because the people who -- sugar don't want people to pay tax on their products. we have seen this in relatively few places, but it has been unbelievably controversial, and that is on soda. that is not something the show that arguably has no nutritional value. host: who is behind the sugar lobby, farmers? guest: mostly farmers. but we get corn syrup a lot of sugar is from corn syrup,'s though corn growers and sugar growers. host: rick in pennsylvania and rolled in the aca, good morning rolled in then

aca. caller: i have been on the plan for seven years or so. i am still employed. it has been a godsend as far as allowing me to make regular doctor visits for routine checkups and things of that sort which would not have been possible otherwise. the problem this year is because the trump administration reduced the subsidies going forward. my premium costs will go up more 2020, and that will make things more challenging. i have a silver plan, which covers some doctor visits. if i were to switch to a bronze plan, i would not be covered for routine doctor visits until my deductible is used up. so that is a concern going forward, because the subsidies have been cut, that i will not have as much access to medical care as i might have otherwise. also, this plan goes away if the courts decide the entire action

go away. what will be there to replace it? i am 62, two years away from medicare, so i may be in a situation that i was in a decade ago, where i went several years without insurance because i could not afford it. guest: it is going to be a mess, there is no replacement at the moment. it is hard when you get to be in your late 50's and early 60's, to buy insurance. one of the most popular, in fact, the most popular provision in the is he a is protection for people -- provision in the affordable care act's protection for people with pre-existing conditions. insurers said they couldn't afford to sell to sick people because only. six people would sign up that is why the subsidies were so important. the subsidies did not get cut, but they did get reconfigured. president trump in 2018 -- i 2017,it was fall of

unilaterally eliminated several payments. . there was a court case over -- and they said the house had said there had been no appropriation for them, but it meant the subsidies got reconfigured. on theng on your state, silver plan, you might indeed and up paying a lot more, i mentioned the people who don't get subsidies are in cannibal hurt right now. for many people, it made it easier for them to buy more generous plans, but there were people where when this all got shaken up, who did, worse. host: in florida, keith, he gets his insurance and his employer. welcome to the conversation. caller: i have a question. what did the cadillac health tax entail? it is about to be gone,

it was an excise tax 40% of very generous health plans. it wasn't that high, it was like $10,000 for an individual, or something close to that, which these days, health insurance is so expensive, many people have. particularly union members, who negotiate bigger tax raises for better health benefits, which is good for employers because they don't pay payroll taxes on those health benefits a way they do on wages, it was a win-win, but union members ended up with really generous plans. and those plans would of been hit. one of the big issues with the cadillac tax from the beginning was that it was a 40% excise tax and it was based on a dollar amount of how much the plan cost. as a mentioned earlier, health care costs have different amounts in different parts of the country. it is not necessarily urban and rural, it is just odd and quirky.

it is the way the system has grown up. if people inexpensive places were more likely to get hit with the cadillac tax simply by virtue of the fact that their insurance is more expensive there, i think that was, it never got to that issue because it never really took effect, but people agreed that the cadillac tax, as originally written, was probably not very workable. host: enterprise, alabama. johnny is uninsured. johnny, why are you uninsured? caller: i am actually in short through tri-care. i am 64-year-old. nine months from now, my tri-care ends and i must join medicare. after 34 years of military service and 8 combat tours and a bronze star, i have to go on medicare? guest: i believe, and i know it varies, i am not an expert on this, but yes, you do go on medicare. it becomes your primary. but i think there is a tri-care

med-gap. but you can ask somebody who handles your tri-care. of the military health system is different from the rest of it. there is actual military medicine, then there is tri-care, mostly for family members and people on active duty. funny things happen when you hit the 65 point. you should check that out. i think there is a tri-care supplement that you can get. host: in baltimore, good morning to you. caller: good morning and thank you to c-span. and thank you for the kaiser family. i use the website often to do research. it is a really good website. this is one of my soap box issues is the affordable care act. the way it was originally set up, everyone should have been covered. health insurance works because everyone pays in. when you pull out, the money is there. it was set up so up to 133% would be the expansion of

medicaid. no one would pay from 133-400%. they would get the premiums are they would get assistance. then over 400%, you could afford health care. i have seen it being picked apart since its inception. of the individual mandate, the states that needed it the most, maybe the red states, did not do the expansion. so people who make less than 132%, which would have been eligible for that, did not get it. and i am just watching this. they are putting profits before people and they don't care. yelling, what happened to obama care? it was set up to work and immediately, it was torn apart and is still being torn apart. you have people who don't have health insurance. they are doing uncompensated care, which, that should have been done away with. the states that are getting the uncompensated care payments,

veteran states, the red states, the ones who said, we hate this program. but they are getting funding from the government. host: she is shaking her head, so i want her to pick up. right.she is basically from the very beginning, there were people opposed to the law who went around to a bunch of state capitals because -- it is the red states who would have benefited from the medicaid expansion, and they said, don't expand. the expansion was unprecedented in medicaid history. basically, states a roughly half of medicaid costs and the federal government kicks in 50%. for lower income states, the federal government takes in more, 80-20 in mississippi and alabama. what the medicaid expansion said was, we will pay 100% of the expansion costs for the first five years, then after that, we will start phasing it out and even after that, we will still pay 90%. rural hospitals wanted it very

much, but still, texas has not expanded, florida has not,, georgia has not. these are some pretty big states with a lot of eligible people who would -- of those people would have -- host: we are showing the map right now, texas, oklahoma, mississippi, georgia, north carolina, south carolina, wyoming, and wisconsin. guest: wisconsin had expended up to 100% of poverty many years ago. so they don't actually have a gap, can go up to 100% on medicaid that over 100%, you can buy into the exchanges with the subsidy. one thing the caller said we should point out that she was right, the thought was that if you earned more than four times the poverty line, you could afford to have insurance. that is turning out not to be the case. there are a lot of people at that curve. if you are a single person that is making $60,000, which, is a good income but if your

insurance without a subsidy is $2500 a month, which sometimes it is, that is a problem. host: joel in eagle, idaho. good morning to you. caller: good morning. regarding notment being able to grapple with the cost. there is a surgeon at johns hopkins who wrote a book called "the price we pay." c-span has had him on. it is a very easy read. he has three points. there is approach is, a lack of transparency in the hospital system that is largely due to the fact that there is poor communication between the administrators and the clinical side. i would like to hear your comment on that. the next point he makes is that there is a program called the pharmacy benefit manager. what these guys do is go out and act as stewards for the pharma,

and negotiate these high prices, and there is very little competition there. the third point is that the suppliers of medical care, medical supplies, put out these catalogs and the limit who can be in those catalogs. and providers then are forced to pay that price. i would like it to address that. but i would encourage everyone to read this book. host: by the way, the author,, he will be on "washington journal" next week on the 25th from 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. eastern time. will you and others who are interested, join in then. guest: and i have had him on my podcast. i have read the book. the problem with this, particularly the price issue, it is so hard, because the health care system is so complicated. the medical system, i should call it, is getting close to 1/5 of the economy.

there is just so many players. it is true, a lot of the problems with prices are -- our podcast panelists went out to dinner once and it ended up the discussion of all the ways we could not navigate the health care system. and we are health reporters. [laughter] you cannot find out how much anything costs. it is almost impossible until after the fact which is kind of crazy. we have new electronic health records, which are supposed to be better, and you can make researchers -- they can be used to track your progress. but the billing side and clinical side sometimes have trouble communicating with each other. and there are basically a lot of people -- we are a capitalist country and capitalists say, let's go and make money on health care. there is a lot of money to be made of health care. host: where can people listen to your podcast? guest: it is called "what the ealth," on

kaisernews.org. ok. host: next caller. caller: good morning. my husband and i are on obamacare. my premium is $415. i am the only one working. because my income went up a little bit this year, we are going -- our premium is going $1800 a3, to over month. mere,e difference was a between $400 and $500 above the limit. up, fromhat much go $413 to over $1800 a month? we won't have insurance as of january 1. i am an rn. i am starting a new job this next week. we will have health insurance hopefully through them. it will be something that will

be affordable. but this is just totally ridiculous, that a few hundred dollars of extra monthly premium by that much. guest: this is the basically a means-tested program. cliff, and if you fall over the cliff, you're on your own. i have done a lot of work on this. that is why california increased their subsidies, because this was happening to a lot of people in california. curve in california has been extended further up because there were a lot of people who were just right over the threshold who could not afford how much insurance costs without the help. host: jen in wyoming. caller: hi. i am in wyoming. id. to my insurance back in 2006 dumped my insurance back in 2006 because i run the

numbers. for 85% of people, your insurance premiums go to pay for other people's health care. actuarially, if you're reasonably healthy and you have 2 dimes to scrape together, you're better off not dying insurance. doctors love cash -- not buying insurance. doctors love cash. the insurance industry uses scare tactics like, god forbid you get hit by a bus, the reality is, only 5% of people buses. by 90% of the time you are flashing your premiums down the toilet. you are better off putting that money in a savings account, an investment account, keeping it so you have got it, than handing it over to somebody else. host: when you do have to see a doctor and you are paying cash, you try to negotiate? are they willing to negotiate? caller: absolutely. i usually can get a 50% discount off the prices. host: julie rovner. guest: a lot of people do.

and there are health savings account where, particularly if you are not insured, you can put money away it is tax-free going in and tax-free coming-out. when you turn 65, it is tax-free coming out for whatever you want. it is a very generous benefit if you want to go in that direction. only 5% of people and the really needing significantly expensive care. you just don't know when you are going to be one of those 5%. i have people who say, i never signed up for the medicare benefit when i was eligible, because i was not taking any drugs. now it is 10 years later and they are taking drugs, and if you sign up for it later, you have to pay a penalty. it is sort of how you feel about insurance in general. host: julie rovner, chief correspondent with kaiser health news. again, the website is kaiser aiserhealthnews.org. thank you for the conversation. we will take a break, when we come back, we will turn to

evangelicals only. your support for president trump after christianity today, magazine, yesterday, its editor in chief called for the removal of president trump. we'll be right back. >> indianapolis is near the geographic center of indiana. we are in the heart of the midwest and the crossroads of america. i would imagine outside of indianapolis, indianapolis is best known for the 500-mile race every memorial weekend. sports has been in our dna, especially auto sports, for more than a century. it is one thing to have a 500 --mile race, it is another thing to use that race to grow our economy. we took a very specific sports approach in the late 1970's and

1980's to look at building an amateur sports capital here in the city. and it is really what has paved the way for the last 50 years' success of our downtown and of our region. between headquarters and events, it has certainly generated economic activity, but it also puts us on the map, so to speak. it is not uncommon for us to host big events beyond the automobile race. final four's, national championships, the super bowl. now we hear that when somebody comes here, whether it is for the super bowl, or they come here for any of the other conventions we would host throughout the year if it is their first visit,, they always these pleasantly supplies -- they always leave pleasantly surprised and say definitively that they cannot wait to come back. so we are reaching people who may not have been reached 50

years ago to tell the story of indianapolis. host: and we are back. evangelicals only this morning. your support for president trump. we have divided the lines regionally. eastern/central parts of the country, and mountain/pacific. the lines are on your screen this morning. basing the question off of "christianity today" editorial that ran yesterday that said trump should be removed from office, it is time to see what we said 20 years ago when then-president clinton's character was revealed for what it was. this is the outgoing editor in chief of "christianity today" magazine. he writes, "the president attempted to use his political powers to course of foreign aeader to harass potential candidate for president. it is profoundly immoral. the reason many are not shocked is because this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in this event station.

he has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. he himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and with his relationship with women. his twitter feed alone, a habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies and slanders is a near-perfect example of a human being who. is morally lost and confused" the president responded in a treat to what the editor in chief had to write. you said -- the far left magazine, a very progressive, as some would call it, which has been doing poorly and hasn't been involved with the billy graham family for many years, "christianity today" knows nothing about reading a perfect transcript of a routine phone call and would rather take your guns. no president has done more for the evangelical community, not even close. you will not get anything from those dems onstage. i want be reading et again.

" catherine from hewitt, new jersey. you are first. go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you for doing this. toas in fact just responding mark alley on email when i heard on the background but you are going to be doing this half hour this morning and i am very grateful. i have been waiting years for a moment like this. host: do you get the magazine? caller: no, i do not. i have gotten it from time to time over the years, but i don't subscribe to it. i learned from another network this morning about the peace and immediately went to the "christianity today" article. i am a women's ministry leader for the last 20 years. i am undeclared, and i also have a graduate degree in political science. it can be a very isolating sometimes to be an evangelical went too often, people think we are cookie cutters, all in this

box, and we stand for things that lately are in opposition to what the bible calls us to do, and that is to love one another. so i am very grateful for the moral courage of "christianity .oday" and just calling sin the whole experience a last three years has been very dividing in the body of christ. people are arguing with one another a set of doing what we are supposed to do, and that is reaching a world that is lost, with the love of jesus. so i would just encourage the president and people listening and everyone else, this is the christmas season. we visit the message of the gospel. we need to stand for truth, and the president has done some great things, but just revisit the message of the gospel as we see it in luke. and the christmas message. we come together as one and not be name-calling and not be

fighting, but to reach a world that is so lost right now with the love of christ. host: catherine, your reaction to this part of the editorial -- "to the many evangelicals who continue to support mr. trump, in spite of his black and moral record, we might say this -- remember who you are and who we serve. consider how your justification of mr. trump influences your witness to your lord and savior. consider what an unbelievable world will say if you continue to brush mr. trump's immoral worlds and behavior in the cause of political expediency. if we don't reverse course now will anyone take anything we say inut justice an seriousness for decades to come?" caller: i absolutely support that. i have a blog called "the power of no" that i wrote right after broke,le metoo issue and the access hollywood tape. just how deeply it concerned me

that women who had been abused would think that the church did not stand alongside of them in a time of crisis like that. and yes, that needs to be our biggest concern. we need to continue to stand for what is right, for life, and for things that are consistent with the word of god, but we need to let the world know that we are endorses inhat name-calling and corruption and lies. we pray for the president in my house. and we would encourage him now -- it doesn't have to be that way. he must be so tired, trying to defend all of these things. he can let them go and know that there is a god who loves him and will forgive him. humility is a very appealing attribute. , i might consider voting for him in november. host: ok.

lynn in portland, oregon. evangelicals only this morning. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say, i will continue to support president trump. while i don't always agree with the language he uses, and how he hes it, i do believe supports the life of the unborn child. a lot of the things that i want to see on the courts. annoyed at howy the media tourists statements -- media twists statements into lies sometimes, using remarks made 20 years ago in more or less private, puts them on the tv. if we cannot be forgiven for things we did 20 or 30 years ago, we are all in a whole lot of hurt. so, some people may not agree with that. i think you have to give him

some latitude for the ag is -- the age he is. the standards of how he grew up, his business language in the talk of how guys talk sometimes. while, i don't always agree with how it is sad, i agree with a lot of the things he has done. host: if you haven't read "christianity today," the editor in chief has an argument for you. he writes this, "trump's evangelical supporters have pointed to his supreme court nominees, his defense for religious liberty, in his stewardship for the economy as achievement that justified a support. none of the president's positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character." edna in florida, good morning. what do you think. caller: good morning. because, i have

never read this magazine, since billy graham doesn't mess with it anymore, because it just went down the tube. soon.s retiring as far as i'm concerned, it is ridiculous to write something like about. how stupid can they be? everybody that is evangelical better get out there and vote democrat -- i mean, republican, if it wants to keep this country to where they can read their bible and have it in their home. it is ridiculous that anyone would write such a terrible article against their president. he is not a minister of the bible, he is a president. and look at the different people that god used from genesis to revelation. they couldn't be anybody worse than paul, and he wrote half the bible. how stupid. could these people be? jesus christ is donald trump.

you accept them for what he is. he loves this nation, he loves the people, and he loves god. everyone of us do wrong things. host: ok, edna. as you said, it was started by. graham, but the grahams do not have anything to do with the magazine anymore. onverend graham's s responded in a facebook posting saying, yes, my father billy graham founded to pop," but he would not agree with the magazine's piece, in fact, he would be disappointed. i have not shared my father voted for, but because of my article, i feel i have to share it now. my father voted for donald trump. he believed donald j. trump was the man for this hour and history of our nation. for christianity today to side with the democratic party in a totally partisan attack on the unfathomable. "christianity today failed to acknowledge that not one single

republican voted with democrats to impeach the president. i know a number of republicans in congress and many of them are strong christians. if the president were guilty, they would have joined with democrats to impeach him. but the democrats were not even unanimous. 2 voted against impeachment, and one voted, present. the impeachment was politically motivated, 100% partisan. why would c "christianity do this? at what leaders to believe the democrat leadership rather than believe the president of the united states." we are talking to evangelicals only this morning, gauging your support of president trump. debbie, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. first of all, i would like to say to the gentleman that wrote this article that, i am not doubting that he is a christian, but i have a question for him. when you became a christian, were you perfect?

because donald trump recently become a christian. he had prayer -- he has prayer in the white house every day. and i also want to say to this gentleman, you are calling back since of his from a long time ago that, number one, he did those things before he was president, not like bill clinton, who did those things in the white house, but number two, he is a new christian. so it is going to take him a time for god to work in him. us,e will sin, everyone of the bible says there is not one righteous and every person will sin till the day that they die. and if you have anything against that person, then you are to go to him. so instead of this person writing his article and smearing donald trump's sin publicly, he should have addressed him by writing him a letter, because i am sure this gentleman would not

want his private life smeared throughout the whole country. that iwould like to say do support the president. i voted for him. i will vote again for him. he has done more for this ways ofand not just in christianity, which he has, with being for life in supporting israel and being for traditional marriage, but also in general, with trying to make our nation strong again. so, basically, i just think that before people judge president trump, they need to look in their own hearts and they need to deal with their own sin and worry about their own and, because when they say it is god, he will ask about their sin, not donald trump's sin. host: more from the article," we

have reserved judgment from mr. trump for years now. some have criticized us for our reserve. but when it comes to condemning the behavior of another. patient charity must come first. he is saying that they have been patient and held off. we have done our best to give evangelical trump supporters there do, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature also many political decisions they have made regarding mr. trump. and just when we think it is time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that is when the whole game will come crashing down. it will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world's understanding of the gospel." let's go to gym in new york. good morning -- jim in a new york. good morning. caller: according to the writer, i think he would have impeached king david or solomon, or some of the greatest kings. god uses flawed people to reduce has -- to produce his

purpose. if "christianity today" were in the old testament, he would have purposes.od's i think mr. trump is what we need. i think he needs to take a look at himself and keep to himself. host: roar in georgia, your turn. caller: thank you. whomever hese wants to serve him. abraham lied about his wife, jacob stole his brothers birthright, david committed a dolce, moses committed murder -- david committed adultery, moses committed murder, donald trump had extramarital affairs. with moses, god told him to deliver them out of slavery. fake news kept in generation from entering the promised land. for three years -- [indiscernible]

two false witnesses came forward. jesus was able to fulfill his mission to baptize with the holy spirit and with god. for three years, after three years,, trump was impeached because of fake news and false charges. president trump's greatest of for godishments and for the united states are still ahead of him. i would challenge anyone to listen to sean hannity and fox news. they have been ahead in revealing the truth about corruption and what we call the "deep state." until c-span does the program on the ig report, i questioned her honesty and their objectivity. host: ok, roy. jerry falwell also responded to the "christianity today" "less than 20%ng of evangelicals supported hillary clinton in 2016, but now, "christianity today" has

removed any doubt that they are part of the 17% or so of liberal evangelicals who have preached social gospel for decades. unmasked." fox news recently came out with of the 2020 election, and when it comes to the evangelicals, those respondents also showed their support for president trump on the lot of issues. 57% said they plan to vote in the republican caucus. when assessing trump's overall job performance, 67% of white evangelicals said they either strongly or somewhat approved of the president. we are talking to him until was only this morning. hannah in san marcos, california you are next. caller: thank you to c-span. --ust wanted to say that donald trump, before he even had a trial on issues is wrong.

we have a presumption of innocence in this country. and due process applies not just to us, but to everyone including the president. .ang on there number two, the right to life issue, i know it is very contentious, but you've got a stage full of democrats who have all committed to abortion all the way up to late-term abortion. president trump has been adamantly, vehemently opposed to this, and in every appearance he makes he states that our children are a gift from god. and i agree with that. i don't understand why people -- lose support

for trump over this magazine article. what happened to judge not lest you be judged? rightshe editor in chief , let us grant this to the president, the democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore, nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. this has led many to suspect not only motives,. but fact in the recent impeachment hearings. know, mr. trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the house hearings on impeachment. tom in california. your turn. caller: yeah. he did have every chance to defend himself. anybody goes into a court today, you know, the first thing you get is a lawyer. he's got his lawyer.

if he is being accused of something he should bring his case to the court. the senate is the court. for the religious part of his sins, a sin is a sin. no one is going to save you from your son. so hiding behind -- from your sin. so hiding behind the bible is not a protection for a sin. that is a lie. i am an agnostic, so. host: tom, we are talking to evangelicals only this morning. lee in illinois, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you today? fine.i am doing your reaction to the "christianity today" editorial. caller: i have to say, i agree with it. i am not necessarily for or against trump, but there is a

saying i can't tell you what pornography is but i know it when i see it. and i can't tell you what the definition of being a crooked, no-good, sob is, but i know one when i see one. in this man has done everything he can do that is counterproductive to our country internationally, as well as our social grace. , and he didterrible not deserve to be president in the first place. in a second place, i would have voted for hillary clinton either. host: do you belong to a church, do you go every sunday? caller: yes, ma'am, i do. host: what does the leader of your church site about morality -- say about morality? does he or she talk about president trump's immorality? caller: not really, per se. we think we have more important things to pursue than trump's worthlessness to be real about

it. and it is not anything that is particularly brought on the us is talking about, does anybody sin.r does anybody not we all know better than that. but when you get older, you need to quit lying, and that matt has told so many lies and he can't even keep up with some. he can't. he can't keep up with them. not only that, the press and society in march cannot keep up with them. he lies about everything for no reason. there is no reason to lie, just tell the truth. if he is concerned with this impeachment and he thinks he is right, sent his people in .here if he doesn't want to do that, then heelys to shut his mouth and take whatever he gets one way or the other -- then he needs to shut his mouth and take whatever he gets one way or the other. host: about "christianity today"

the mugshington post" in inkster be the voice of evangelicals providing news and commentary through its website. many evangelical leaders and high-profile pastors are among the magazine's 80,000 paying subscribers, and advertisements regularly feature major evangelical institutions. ruben in philadelphia, good morning. caller: good morning, greta. how are you doing this morning? host: i'm doing well. are you a practicing evangelical? caller: you could call it evangelical. here, we just call it christians, in philadelphia. i was just sitting here listening to the people talking about how god overlooked david's sins. but david's family suffered repercussions for his sins. they were ultimately torn away from his grandson, rehoboam, who disobeyed god.

we also know that god punished in.ael through david's s so we will suffer because of the sins that trump is doing, and the lies he continually tells. and they say that rudy giuliani for thever there transcripts. we also know that in the bible, jesus compares a liar to be just like yo you are the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning. trump asked for the death of the whistleblower. we saw what happened in the movie for trade by meryl streep, how she was killed on the side of the road. donald trump is not to fit to be an office with his lies and his violence, that he offers at his own rallies, to be to beat them up and throw them out, and just thinks he is doing. i am not talking about his past

sins before he came to office, i am talking about the stuff he is doing now. host: we have a few more minutes left. we will try to get in a couple more phone calls. notes thatgton post" it has had 17,000 views on its website. the editor in chief notes that it is the most have had -- at the most, we have had 3000 to 4000 views. it got so many views that it crashed their website yesterday. not everyone is in agreement -- not everyone associated with "christianity today" is in agreement with the editor-in-chief. samuel rodriguez, who serves on the board of "christianity today" is president of the national hispanic christian leaders conference. they put out a statement saying -- the u.s. house of representatives embarked upon the only exquisitely partisan impeachment effort in american

history, and millions of americans recognize that the house leadership is not actually impeaching the president, but the policies of the people he represents. democrats in the house impeached millions of god-fearing, family loving and patriotic americans from the democrat and republican parties." wisconsin,, evangelicals only this morning, what do you think of this piece written in "christianity today?" caller: good morning. i have been watching and listening. that president trump, it doesn't matter how well he is leading the economy, but it matters how he is leading the people. i did hear somebody say that we are not supposed to judge people, accept this man is supposed to be representative of our people of our country. and i feel as though he is

tearing us apart. host: ok, jamie. mike in laurel, maryland. caller: good morning. disturbed by this president, and the misrepresentation of scriptures i hear. i hear the reference to david paul, who was formally saul. the reason god forgive them was because the repented of their sins. to repent is to turn away from and never to do again. we have a president that said he never had to ask god for forgiveness. as evangelicals, as christians, we are called to live to a higher standard. the higher standard is everything that the lord jesus desiresverything he should be our desire. to simply accept the president because he is doing good things from the country is to say that jesus, he is not able to produce

a leader for our time that is not only moral, but has the ability to lead us in the direction to make our country prosper. the bible says we are in this world, but we are not of this world, and i hear references to we are not called to judge. absolutely, but we are called to identify sin and called in thin, we are not called to placate a president who refuses to repent, who continually since and is -- continually sins and is leading people down the path of sin. he doubles down on the sin he is doing and get people to go in on it. this is not how the lord jesus christ has called us to be. posts: we are done for today. thank you for watching and calling in. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. enjoy your weekend. ♪

♪ >> the house will be in order. c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span's brought to you by your local satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered local view of government. congress is out of session

for the winter holiday break after finishing up their legislative work yesterday. 2020 spendingo packages, which contain 12 appropriations bills. the president is set to sign the $1.4 trillion agreement today. coming up on c-span, a senate panel will be looking at the impact that wildfires have on the electric grid. after that, a conversation on international security and defense policy. later today, the acting commissioner of customs and border protection will speak at the national press club. we will have live coverage at 1:00 eastern. , wall streeton q&a trader turned photojournalist chris are naughty -- chris arnotti on his book, dignity. >> it was a sunday morning or saturday. it was empty. all the semis were gone. she was in the ind