airstrike killed iran's most powerful military commander. tax foundation's karl smith discusses changes in tax laws that could impact your 2020 taxes. ♪ guest: good morning. congress returning this week after the holiday recess with two looming issues. an impeachment trial in the u.s. senate, with questions on when the house speaker will send those articles of impeachment to the upper chambers. and of course rising military tensions in the middle east and threats from the irony -- iran i government. , january 5. morning we will focus on both of these issues over the next three hours. we went to begin with the latest from iran and the u.s., both

countries and its leaders. what happens next? is our line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. if you are an independent, (202) 748-8002. join us on social media. we will read your tweets. send us a text message. that phone number is (202) 748-8003. tell us your first name and where you are texting from. we are also on facebook. good sunday morning. a lot to talk about. front page of the washington post -- a president vowing reprisal if iran hits u.s. assets. this story from bloomberg news -- the headline "fear hits tehran over what comes next." here are some of the details. supreme leader promised revenge and thousands gathered

in tehran to watch american flags burn. many show defiance after the assassination of their most prominent military man. in the, the strike that took out qasem soleimani capping a year that has been dominated by turmoil and fear. entail is unclear. u.s. sanctions efforts the economy and any form of war with the u.s. would likely be unsustainable for the islamic republic. the president said the response would be drawn out and referred to the reaction to the coup in 1953. tehran's strategy since the president pulling out of that landmark nuclear deal has been to soak up the economic hits while flexing its muscles through proxies in iraq and yemen.

people at home have grown weary and wary. that is from bloomberg news. the president in a series of tweets warning iran not to hit u.s. targets. he wrote the following -- iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain u.s. assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an american and badly would do many others, not to mention all of the people ,e had killed over his lifetime including hundreds of iranian protesters. iran has been nothing but problems for many years. let this serve as a warning that if iran strikes any americans or american assets we have targeted es representing the 52 american hostages taken by iran many years ago, some at a high level and important to iran and iranian culture.

those targets will be hit very fast and very hard. the usa wants no more threats. that on twitter late yesterday from the president, who continues his vacation in mar-a-lago in washington this week. late yesterday on fox news, robert o'brien, the president's national security defending the president's tweets with what may happen next. [video clip] >> we have seen various threats coming from iran and from the region, threats made to americans. the president takes threats made the united states and threats against american citizens very seriously. the president is trying to make it clear to the iranians that this is a bad path for them to go down. we caught qasem soleimani in the act of planning to kill americans in the region. he was eliminated in a precise operation pilloried -- carried up with the u.s. military.

iranians decide to retaliate or escalate, that would be a bad path for them, as the president pointed out. toas we wait, as many wait see what the response of iran will be, there are more troops going over to the middle east. >> there are more troops. there are air assets, naval assets in the region carried united states is prepared to protect its citizens, diplomats, and military. saysesident trump soleimani had been caught red-handed planning more attacks. he has notified congress. i know you cannot disclose this aboute it is classified the strike, but how credible was the information that the united states had before the strike? we cannot give the sources,

but i can tell you it was a solid intelligence. he was traveling around the region, working out a plan to attack americans with his proxy in syria and lebanon and iraq. we had the intelligence. we knew he was in the process of planning attacks and we acted to defend american lives. the president said he will always act to defend american lives and terrorism is involved. guest: that from fox news last night. the headline from "the new york times" -- details available at nytimes.com. we want to share video courtesy a the national to give you sense of the demonstrations going on inside iran, where the body of qasem soleimani, the head of iran's defense force, was defending -- returning to tehran along with the militia leader also killed in that strike in baghdad thursday.

the deaths are a potential turning point in the standoff between washington and tehran. it could drawl retaliation from tehran. we heard from the president in that tweet. we also want to point out that iraq's parliament is meeting today in a rare sunday session in baghdad. the issue -- the 5000 u.s. troops that remain in iraq, most of them in an advisory capacity. a vote to expel u.s. troops would need parliamentary approval. the scene inside tehran and across tehran reacting to the deaths of this military leaders by that u.s. drone strike in baghdad on thursday. our phone lines are open. we want to get your reaction herein (202) 748-8000 is online for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. this fromtter page, lizzy, who says this sends a message to iran and sends north korea a message as well.

these terrorist countries now know that trump is not going to tolerate attacks on americans. thank you, president trump. we will get more of your tweets. let's go to bob, joining us from duluth, minnesota. thanks for taking my call. i think that this whole thing could have been avoided if we thed not have killed nuclear deal with iran. that was a big mistake. , it iso to war with iran going to involve israel and the whole middle east. i have a grandson i do not want to see go over there. i feel pretty stressed about the whole thing. that is my comment. host: tell us about your grandson. where is he? caller: he is not in the military, but i think they will

bring back the draft. host: we will go to teresa next on the republican line from tennessee. caller: good morning. trumport what donald ordered our military to do. what gets me is the democrats and the media standing up for iran more than our country and standing up for this terrorist. it is shocking to watch them. i think they are more or less begging for an attack on justcans or our military to show that donald trump was wrong for taking him out. i have never seen this country support terrorists more than their own country. they are the ones that put this country in danger, not donald trump. guest: thank you for -- host: thank you for the call.

this is from jeremy, who says soleimani was a bad guy and the second most powerful man in iran. his killing was a hugely destabilizing move. so much for the whole bring the troops home. 52 sites represent in the 52 hostages sounds like something obama would have said. need has said he does not an exit strategy, so we have that. that is the tweet. democrats line in alexandria, virginia, kenny. caller: good morning. with the military came out with a vision 2020 and that was about full-spectrum domination and now with this space force that has come up it issue ofe -- with this iran, they are focused for -- their focus for several years was the more peaceful aspect, not military

weapons. it seems to be badly influenced by the weapons in israel. for us to be focusing on this rather than our domestic issues -- medicare, social security, the environment -- that has always been the argument. by makingng troubled businesses of the military aspect. that is our protection. bads just creating a representation to the world under this administration of focusing militarily, on military domination. that is not a good aspect for this country to have. to james inl go fredericksburg, virginia on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call.

we are going to dominate the world meltzer stickley -- militaristically. trump has a way of doing things that are bringing us back to the second world war and the way that macarthur and so many of the great generals ran our nation during their time. we are going to be more protected now than we have been protected in a long time. iranians are really off the deep end. life is farof different than ours. they have been attacking us forever. we have allowed it to go on. if they were completely , thenated as a country world would be a better place. call fromks for the

fredericksburg, virginia. this is from if you were in kentucky, sending a text message. you can do so -- (202) 748-8003. all the news channels are talking about world war iii. none of them are talking about impeachment. and trump are both under criminal charges. it is working out great for both of them, a deflection from impeachment. house speaker nancy pelosi issuing a statement on twitter guarding the war powers act. she wrote the following -- declassified war powers notification delivered to congress raises more questions than answers. this document prompting serious and urgent questions about the terming -- timing, manner, and justification of the administration's decision to engage in hostilities against iran. the highly unusual decision to classify this document in its entirety compounds are concerns and suggests congress and the american people are being left in the dark about our national security.

angelo fromt to kennedy, texas. caller: good morning. i wanted to say last time i checked i had not seen any type our cities ory of states or anything here in america. when they say the iranians have been attacking us, that is only because they are -- what they are doing is responding to us being in their region, in their area. we need to protect our country and get out of those countries over there. those people have been at war with each other. for thousands of years -- with each other for thousands of years. we are so arrogant. if they say we do not want a building there and they do something to that building, americans are going to be in that building and that is an excuse to retaliate on them. it is a vicious circle.

that is like your neighbor flying a drone over your backyard and you get mad and .hoot it out of the sky he calls the police on you. you just invaded your area. arrogant. trump said he was not going to be the police of the world and everything he said has turned out to be a lie. host: angelo from texas, thank you. the president this morning with the following tweet. united states sent to trillion dollars on military equipment. we are the -- spent $2 trillion on a military equipment. if iran attacks an american base or any americans, we will send that equipment their way without hesitation. sayingforeign minister those masquerading as diplomats identify iranian

cultural targets should not open a law dictionary. international law referring to red lines. no-no. a big we are tracking what they are saying and what the u.s. is saying. ron is joining us from pittsburgh. caller: good morning. i think iran is going to do what they always do. they are going to try to drag israel into this and attack them because that is what world war iii will start. israel will never retaliate because they have already faced annihilation. if they lose 1000 people, they are going to use nuclear weapons and i think that is what this is all about, to prevent israel from annihilating tehran. run from pittsburgh. billing connecticut saying what are we doing there? talk of people and bad men is men is -- evil and bad

useless. military presence is an area we do not belong in this problem. get out now. morning.ood i am in support of what has happened here. it is always that going to be that way over there. those people definitely do hate united states of america and all of its citizens. we are right in protecting our interests. , it will comeat at a great cost. and different things we get from those far eastern places could really be disrupted if we do not mediate in those issues. host: we will go next to clarksburg, west virginia. good morning, jim. caller: i do not support what

and the lady doing republican that called in and said that democrats are more with iran than they are with united states -- these are the same people that are supporting everything that russia is doing. that is my comment. host: we are asking you what happens next following the warning by the president on twitter yesterday and early this morning and threats by the iranian leaders to reciprocate after the attack that killed the top military leader in iran as well as other military officials and that drone strike. time magazine with this question, how soleimani's assassination comes at a fraud --ent -- fraud moment fraught moment for president donald trump. an airstrike killed two of its top military leaders as he finds

himself in an unprecedented position, facing a trial in the senate and entering the 2020 campaign as the first president in history to run for reelection after being impeached. trump is not the first president to take military action during a high-stakes domestic political situation. president bill clinton ordered airstrikes on iraq in 1998 the midst of his own impeachment. the notion that president trump order the strike for political gain is utterly ridiculous. that from the director of communications for the president's reelection campaign. he told time magazine that trump acted in light of recent attacks in the ongoing planning of future attacks, adding how much is the u.s. expected to take before it fights back? this from secretary of state mike pompeo, writing on twitter the president ordered the attack to defend against imminent threats to american lives. theetary pompeo is on sunday morning programs which re-air on c-span radio beginning

with nbc's meet the press. you can also listen to it on the free c-span radio app. in ohio, david on the democrats line. caller: trump cannot accept his impeachment like the republican party cannot accept. trump is going to go down with a big fight to get everything taken away from the direction of impeachment and the jail cell where he belongs. he is going to try to start a war with the whole world. the bible speaks about the end times with the war that will take over the land. he is a warmonger a lot of hate and bitterness. host: steve from arizona. the armenians have been pushing their limit for a long time with nobody slapping their hand. president trump is putting them back in their race and they needed it.

from panama city, florida. caller: schiff and schumer and lucy should be the ones that should be in jail. president trump has committed no crimes. it was a phony impeachment and i hope there is a trial so we can on the stand, these democrats who claim they are so right. as far as that man being assassinated goes, he is been threatening americans and killing americans for years. now that the president took him down, the iranians claim that is not fair. what is not so fair about it? that is my comment. host: this text message from joe. he is in charleston, south carolina, saying president sand.drew the line in the our response was swift and appropriate. next is mohammed in los angeles. good morning on the democrat line.

taking myank you for call. i just returned from tehran about 12 hours ago. i was there for about 12 days visiting my grandmother. what has been reported in tehran in the iranian media is clearly different about this killing of soleimani. smalleste head of the .orce from irgc they are 3000 to 5000 members. solely expanding iranian shiism within the middle east. he was a very powerful man, but here i listen to the news and they are saying he was the defense minister and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he was not that level. he was powerful. in iran, there have been a lot of disruptions that were not there in november.

this saturday, yesterday, prior to the killing of soleimani, there were supposed to be huge antigovernment demonstrations. this whole thing changed now to pro-government demonstrations. the majority of the iranian people are very happy that soleimani was killed. that possiblyors soleimani wanted to attempt a coup to overthrow. he had met with putin in russia. they say putin was also very afraid of him because he had greatly expanded in iran's influence in syria. from syria tos given toas somehow u.s. intelligence in a purposeful manner because there was no way they could get rid of him in iran. this was the way for the u.s. to

out him, to kill him. now the sentiment in iran has changed with pro-government demonstrations in the street. a -- ayatollah wanted serum mac killed. russia has come out statement against this killing, but in the past when other things happened, russia has been boisterous in going to the security council and so forth. they have made some strong statements but have not really gone so much after this issue. what has been reported , airan, that the irgc separate entity from the iranian military, 100 when thousand members, they have their own army. their own navy, their own air force.

host: i have two follow-up questions. we have been showing the demonstrations inside iran. they are also throughout the newspapers this morning in the as the u.s. and iran exchange threats. explain these demonstrations if, as you say, some in the country are pleased with the death of soleimani. who are these demonstrators mourning his death? caller: there is a base that does support the islamic government. the base is small, but this , which iswith friday a religious day in tehran and other islamic countries. many people who work for the government were forced to demonstrate. otherwise, they do not get paychecks. their subsidies get cut. they have to show up. this is one of the reasons. i am not saying he did not have

support. he did have support, but a limited basis therein being jubilant about his death -- is much greater of the population that are jubilant about his death then are sad. host: what do you do in the u.s.? you calling from los angeles. i import spirit i live in minnesota. i came till -- i import. i live in minnesota. i came to visit my mom. iran may reciprocate with some sort of attack against u.s. interests military or otherwise. from your perspective, understanding the country as an iranian, how likely is that? caller: the same people who had this rumor that this was plotted by putin and it was a gift from putin to president trump to divert the u.s. media from speaking about his impeachment

out andf iran goes all once a war with u.s. -- u.s., --ar with the ayatollah and his sun are so corrupt. they are making so many billions of dollars in iran right now. the sanctions of helps them. they do not want a war. then they cannot make money. this will thing is about money. -- there is all kinds of liquor. it is alled and smuggled by the irgc. in iran, they say there will be no tension at all. this will all blow away. host: thanks for the call from los angeles. caller: have a good day. ast: this editorial, one of

number this morning from the wall street journal. the headline -- justice arrives for soleimani. iran is promising retribution and perhaps it will strike somewhere, but now iran will have to consider that president trump will strike back. u.s. president had shown great restraint, more than we thought he should, in not retaliating after iran or its proxies shot down an american drone, attacked saudi oil facilities, tax bases last two0 times in the months. mr. trump drew a line of the death of an american contractor and the storming of the embassy. we have -- perhaps he heard echoes of barack obama's failure in benghazi. even more targets inside iran are not safe. the editorial goes on to say the death of soleimani should reassure u.s. allies spooked by barack obama's capitulations. this assumes the president will be resolute in iran -- if iran

escalates and does not withdraw remaining u.s. forces from iraq or syria. next up is drawn on our independent line from florida -- john on our independent line from florida. caller: i appreciate c-span. one thing i want to remind democrats -- the number one number one thing our government should do is defend united states. i do not believe the democrats believe in that. can eveners -- they walk in. i do not have any trust in the democrats whatsoever that support -- whatsoever appeared i support trump 1%. as far as pelosi, that is the scary part. she is the third in line. i do not hurt even run a lemonade stand. district inun heard california where people are defecating in grocery stores -- i do support trump as far as

supporting this country and defending this country from democrats. california are cowards. they cover their faces. send them to venezuela. it is the bottom of the hour, 7:30 here in washington, d.c. we welcome our listeners on c-span radio on sirius xm channel 124 every sunday morning. good afternoon to our listeners and viewers on the bbc parliament channel. acrosscarried live on -- great britain. p baker from "the new york times" will join us at the top of the hour -- peter baker from "the new york times" will join us at the top of the hour. our phone lines are open. that is our question as u.s. and iranian leaders exchange threats. "the newditorial from

york times" first published yesterday -- the game has changed. the real question to ask about the american drone attack that killed a major general, qasem soleimani, is not weather it was justified but weather it was wise -- not whether it was justified but whether it was wise. the killing is a leap in an uncertain direction. the iranian general was an enemy of the american people, a critical instrument of the influence across the middle east and an architect of international terrorism response will for the deaths of hundreds formerican -- responsible the deaths of hundreds of americans. assassinating him was not the same as hunting down osama bin laden. general soleimani was a senior official of the islamic republic of iran. sharp targeting him was a escalation in the conflict between the u.s. and iran, all but taunting iran to strike

back. "the new york times" concludes by saying given the enormous risks twitch president trump and his secretaries of state and defense have exposed the nation, they must explain their reasons for ordering so fateful an action. rick is joining us from indianapolis. how are you? caller: i am not doing bad at all. my father served in nam and he was a big-time trump man. it is time for america to stand up. we have to stand up before these other countries do crazy stuff to us. is the type of man that is not going to sit around. that is the type of president our country needs. i am behind him 100% whatever happens. host: thank you for the call.

we will go next to carol, who is joining us from south carolina, republican line. thing -- the thing i want to see happen is congressional investigations, especially our senator lindsey graham, into a sleeper cells in our country. i think a lot if this goes beyond national borders and religious cults behind these attacks. in early december, there was an attack by a saudi arabia national at a florida air force base that killed three people. i have not heard anything. it is almost like it was swept under the rug. were mostly saudi national slang those planes. -- nationals flying those planes. some of them were going to flight school in florida. i am wondering if there is a sleeper cell possibly in

florida. i think we need to look into saudi arabian religious sects that might be planted in florida. i think lindsey graham needs to have an investigation into that. charlie with this tweet saying we were the object of hatred in the middle east before our conflicts and military ventures there. this from another viewer saying democrats do not care about the facts. their hatred overrides their logic. inside the washington post, as nearly 3000 u.s. troops head back to the middle east, actions entangle the president in a combustible region. maria is joining us next from here in washington, democrats line. my comment was in line with the editorial you just read.

that saidller democrats support terrorists -- no. everybody is happy this guy was taken down but the thing is it was not right. the levels of life that going into a war could cause are more than this terrorist could have done. do we want to go that path? host: thank you for the call. we will go to james in west virginia, independent line. caller:. good morning. first off i want to see if i understand something. is there a complete process for impeaching the president? congress brought articles for impeachment. everybody is saying he is impeached and i think they have

to have a trial to compete the process. i my understanding that right? -- am i understanding that right? host: the house voted to impeach the president. those articles of impeachment now in the hands of the speaker, nancy pelosi. she is awaiting more details on how the senate trial will unfold. she has not sent to those articles to the u.s. senate, similar to sending a bill that passes one chamber to the next. caller: i understand what you are saying, but i am saying i do not think the president has been impeached yet. have to be brought to trial, right? but voted to impeach him, they still have to have a trial, so he is not exactly impeached yet. host: you are impeached by the house of representatives. the trial will determine wether you stay in office or not. whether you stay in office or not.

impeachment is a process by the house. he is impeached. he's the third u.s. president to be impeached. caller: everybody is complaining took -- he took out this terrorist general. there complain about it. -- they are complaining about it. they should appreciate the fact he is doing something for this country to avoid other terrorist acts. plus, the fact that he did not tell congress about it -- the best thing he'd done was not tell congress about it because they were not able to put it on airways. -- airwaves. goes to congress, it automatically goes to the media. herbert joining us from michigan, independent line. the volume down, we will hear an echo otherwise.

caller: i was just like to say that the biggest business in this country is the war machine. and take itding overseas and murder people. this needs to stop. keep building all these war materials. we take them over there. every time we kill innocent people, we make more terrorists. host: another tweet from the atsident late yesterday 11:33 p.m. they attacked us and we hit back. if they attack again, we will hitch them even harder than they have ever been hit before. more from the editorial pages on this sunday morning, this from the washington post. the death of the iranian general in a drone strike was being cheered friday by u.s. allies and progressive forces across the region, from israelis and

saudi's to the pro reform demonstrators in baghdad. that does not mean that president trump's decision to assassinate him was wise or that it will ultimately benefit u.s. interests. iran might choose to strike back if not immediately than in the coming days and weeks. targets include u.s. embassies and citizens across the middle east, shipping in the persian gulf, saudi oil fields, and is really cities -- is really -- israeli cities. does the administration have a clear goal? while mr. trump was tweeting about negotiations, some of his aides appeared bent on regime change in iran. line, southublican carolina. --re is your view on this what is your view on this? caller: the american people

better understand -- you want to talk about whether or not we are going to war with iran. iran has been at war with us for many years. their speedboats were attacking our military. they took our military guys and make them get on their knees and say things bad about our country or him million -- humiliate them. because parents crying their children are in a box in the ground somewhere in a cemetery because of this guy. he killed a lot of people. whether you hate trump or love trump, it does not really matter. get behind her president. this is going -- your president. this is going to happen because our past leaders have been so stupid and have not had the courage to stand up to somebody like this.

all we did really was we put these people on notice. we are the big dog in this fight. we are not going to stand around anymore and watch our children be killed over there. it is ridiculous. if these people think -- i'm going to say democrats because predominately they are the ones against what trump did -- if they think people are not going to come here and hit us eventually, whether he did this or not, these people were going to come here and get us anyway. they hate us. it is not a political thing to them. it is a religious thing. host: kevin has this from windsor, connecticut. we the american people have the .ight to know this is the, headline, the president morning iran the u.s. has targeted 52 iranian sites and

will hit hard if needed. the 52 is a reference to the 52 americans taken hostage in november 1979 and released on january 70 -- and released in january of 1981. president trump with that response to iran, if they strike back after the death of senior iranian military leaders inside the baghdad airport thursday. next up is ron, joining us for michigan, democrats line. caller: good morning. i emphasize morning. we are going to go into a great period of mornings. i am a vietnam veteran against war. democraticallya elected government and the cia coup d'etated to take over their oil. we are the invaders. we go back to afghanistan, when

we stuck our nose into russian business and opened up pandora's box. since then, the crusades have reenergized. all these republicans who are praising this war -- he is not a war criminal yet, just a gangster. let their sons and daughters join and fight for trump, plain and simple. eve fromwill go to michigan, in grand rapids. caller: i agree with the gentleman to my previous caller. -- the gentleman, previous caller. i think it is a slippery slope for us to be in another country telling them what to do. if we were not over there, we would not have to experience the attack from those people. i think donald trump is doing that because of impeachment.

he has been impeached and i do not believe this should be happening. i have a cousin, people in the military. ivy cousin who was killed when i was a girl -- i have a cousin who was killed when i was a girl. it has never ended. people are going to protect themselves. host: in case you missed it, on january 2, the president with this tweet. not any words, just a flag of the united states of america. inside the washington post, trump reveals the limits of iran strategy. you can see the picture of that assassinated uranian general -- iranian general. some say he had the potential of leader of iran. good morning. the naysayers and

,ocialist critics out there consider this -- how soon we forget. haspentagon a while back determined that the ied's that are blowing up our boys over there are from iran. not only that, but they are firing missiles into saudi arabia, their surrogates are. they are controlling yemen and firing missiles from there. iraq justogates in fired missiles and killed one of our men over there. criticism from the -- consider the situation, how far iran is going to go before they are stopped. host: thank you. peggy has this tweet.

this is what callers sound like this morning -- they hate us. i am sitting in my comfortable with ingram not volunteering my own body, but we should kill comfortable in my living room not volunteering my body, but we should kill them. how are you? caller: ok. i am disgusted about our media come out what they are saying about the president. this has nothing to do with impeachment. he is not going to go and take somebody out over his impeachment. he really don't care about that. the democrats have got to stop. do they hear their selves? where are the people from 9/11? we said we stood together. what is wrong with these democrats? i am shocked. you democrats better wake up. you do not realize what has been going on. nobody said a word about obama

when he sent them over billions of dollars in airplanes in the middle of the night. why didn't anybody say anything about that? wake up. please. host: robin from pennsylvania. in the new york times, 3500 soldiers mobilized, calling it a whirlwind whipping through fort bragg. dominic in jersey city, new jersey, independent line. it has been a long time since i have called in, but i cannot contain myself. i do not think anyone on the understands this was an escalation that data back from when we pulled out of the iran deal -- dated back from when we pulled out of the iran deal.

now we are in a situation where he does care about the impeachment. he does care about those things. he assassinated a political leader in the middle east, and that is an escalation. all these people who do not see any problem with this -- will they be fine with the escalations iran will take to regain their honor? honor.middle east, it is what you're going to see is reprisals. the consequences may be unintended, but it is going to escalate. i want to know from people like the wall street journal, their editorial you just read. will they be ok with the escalation, with more attacks from iran?

he wanted to pull troops out of them and police. think about this -- out of the middle east. think about this. we have now sent 3500 more soldiers going to the middle east now. 750 marines from qatar -- soldiers from qatar the next day. been sent in have less than five days. it is only going to escalate. you cannot tell me this was not well thought out. mike pompeo -- i'm shocked his duplicity and what you see right now. this was not an intended strike. this was something haphazard. host: we will leave it there. we want to share with you some of the scenes inside tehran as

the funeral services took place over the weekend for those two slain military leaders following the drone attack on thursday. we will listen to michael from watkins glen, new york. caller: good morning. you guys do a great job. i want to put a point out here. is -- mr.esther trump trump is perpetuating the situation as a smokescreen against the impeachment that is going on. i think this is like a deterrent. he is throwing it up there. people need to wake up and smell the coffee. this guy has done things to our country. he does things in foreign policy that are not consistent. i am worried about what our future is going to be. i think he is stirring up something that should not be stirred up. i think his foreign-policy is

weak. we are looked upon in the world as a failure because of donald trump. he represents us and he is doing a poor job. i can see that. look at the german chancellor. she looks down on trump. do you think we are going to have support if the tough parts come out? do you think they are going to stand up with us, our allies now? look what he has done to these people at nato. these people have been there for us in world war ii. as far as sending troops out trump sendingut his kids out there to do it? we have kids going out there to fight for us now. what is going on with these people here? it is very hypocritical. it is hypocrisy. times,rom the washington how will congress react to all of this? the democratic presidential candidate vermont senator bernie

sanders introduced legislation to block funding if the u.s. conducts any operations inside iran or in the region. we heard from speaker nancy pelosi as well as the debate over the war powers act becomes front and center along with the issue of impeachment. chiefked to peter baker, white house correspondent of the new york times, in a couple minutes. from new york, david, your next. -- you are next. caller: i would like to point out that the definition of a contractor is a mercenary. the one american life that we lost was a mercenary. we are going to war possibly over a mercenary? that is kind of not too smart. i would like to point out one other thing. when 9/11 happened, there was only one middle east country that supported america. they had protests for america. that was the iranian people.

also, the one place that iranians like to go when they finally get out of iran is the united states. they are always good citizens. host: thank you for the call. california,ld, saying independent voters, americans should plan for a major attack on the homeland i some splinter group that provides possible do not -- plausible deniability for iran. we are a nation full of soft targets. jimmy in sacramento, california, good morning. you are on the air. say -- i would like to -- forthis about war these people, they have to go to the military for livelihood or for the -- to live on.

called the draft back. go the rich people's sons that is the problem. people go toup of war. , whoever ispublican in office, let their sons and and see the appetite for people to go to war. host: thank you for the call. sebastian gorka, former senior advisor to president trump, is our guest on c-span's in-depth life on c-span2's book tv. you can watch a beginning at noon eastern time, 9:00 for those of you on the west coast. 48 hours of nonfiction books on c-span2 and history on c-span3 this weekend. john is joining us, connecticut, independent line. caller: thank you for having me on.

we happened to be driving by washington, d.c. and flipped on your station. what a breath of fresh air. a 14-year-old daughter that has been listening to the news and what is going on and is nervous about everything going and listening to both sides, the republicans in the democrats, talking about what is going on and weather they believe it is right or wrong was an eye-opener for her. everythinghat given that has gone on, if the facts support that this gentleman was going to harm americans and we have the intelligence to prove it, i think he did the right thing. we have to protect this country and its citizens. host: thanks for listening. if you are not in the d.c. area, we are on siriusxm and we can be heard on the free c-span radio app. if you're in the c-span -- d.c. area, c-span radio is 90.1 fm.

this?iew on all of out as a veryted staunch democrat, very much against trump. six months after his presidency, it appears that my decision was , everly extremely wrong since they elect to the gentleman into office. trump has done what he said he was going to do. the democrats keep saying he is dangerous. he is only dangerous because he shit, does not lie about what he says he is going to do. i think the country needs somebody that will stand behind what he says and quit drawing the line in the proverbial sand and step across this line and

top acting up and kowtowing everyone around them. i feel trump has probably done the best of anyone in my time to protect this country. the gentleman said a contractor is a mercenary. he needs to read -- redefine what is going on over there. there are many different definitions for contractors. if he does homework, he will see this gentleman was not a mercenary. if you love america, if you want to keep the war off of this soil , stop it from getting here. listen to the people that are in the know and stop being a sheep. host: let's go next to earl, joining us this morning from orlando, florida. commenti just wanted to

that what we did in iraq by taking care of saddam hussein was basically cutting off the head of the snake. taking out this general and iran -- in iran, i think the iranian regime should be unnoticed notice. the head of the snake is still on the iranian regime. if khomeini is that intent on harming american citizens, he should be put on notice. dave, you get the last word from michigan. taking out soleimani was a good thing, but the timing is bad. it will give the appearance of a wag the dog scenario. another sad result is the sanctions have been working. the american people were protesting. there could have been regime

in the forthcoming months and years, but now with the assassination you have given more -- the government is going to get more support from their people after this assassination, which is not really what we wanted to happen. all of your calls commit your tweets, and text -- thanks for all of your calls, your tweets, and text messages. is the co-author of a book on impeachment and working on a new book on former secretary of state james baker. peter baker joining us in just a couple minutes. blaise misztal is joining us from the houston institute. later -- hudson institute. later we will turn our attention to 2020 tax loss. -- tax laws. dr. francis collins is the

director at the national institutes of health, responding to a number of questions including that about disease prevention and research into social problems that often make americans sick. the full conversation also available on the free c-span radio app app. here's a portion of newsmakers. [video clip] >> i wonder what you would say to members of congress about the importance to look at prevention to throw more money, to put it bluntly, behind research into things such as hunger, poverty, the kinds of things leading to the addiction and poor health so many have, mentioning the despair, death and alcohol, drugs and suicide. what about these underlying problems that get ignored? >> they should not be ignored. they are critically important. i'm with you on that and those are central parts of nih's agenda. very major efforts now on

the opioid crisis, which is an example of the depth of despair you referred to. we have an institute focused on alcoholism. and another that focuses heavily on suicide. the national institute on mental health. each one of those has a bold agenda to identify what are the factors that play out in those outcomes. not just to name them, but to do something about them by initiating interventions to see what we could do to reduce the risks that happen to people in those circumstances. that is in the prevention agenda. let me mention another major effort in prevention that is underway now that perhaps your listeners might want to learn more about because they could join and be part of. we want to understand what are all the factors that play out in individuals abilities to stay healthy or put them at risk of falling ill? we would like to know that just about a few people but a very large number of people that are

very diverse in their background. that is the motivation behind a program called all of us. if you want to learn more about us.org.o join all of americans are being invited to be part of this. we aimed to sign up one million americans who take part in this project. ,iverse in their backgrounds and collect every kind of data behaviors, what's in their medical records, dna. all of this, which people agree to take part in this national adventure. host: dr. francis collins is our guest on c-span's newsmakers program at 10:00 eastern, 7:00 a.m. for those of you on the west coast. director of the national institutes of health. it's available on the free c-span radio app. online anytime at c-span.org.

welcome back peter baker, chief white house correspondent for the new york times. co-author of the book impeachment in american history. we appreciate you being with us. guest: happy new year. host: i want to begin with david sanger's peace. he retweeted yesterday, the news over the last couple of days ending his story available at nytimes.com, the headline, for the president of risky gamble to deter iran. he says the calculus was straightforward, washington had to show the iranian leadership that missiles firing ships in the persian gulf and at oil facilities in saudi arabia along with attacks inside iran the cost the life of american contractor would not go without response. while senior america officials have no doubt the iranians will respond, they do not know how quickly or how furiously. guest: there has been a feeling in the white house, the president's decisions not to pull the trigger in the past over the last year, had given

the wrong impression, that they could get away with a lot of things about the president responding as the president has promised not to engage us in endless wars in the middle east. the argument in the white house was let's not give them the wrong message. this is a way of giving them -- reestablishing deterrence. had, theer he president authorized airstrikes against iran in response to one of the provocations on oil facilities and pullback but for last moments. chance, big gamble to do it. not an ordinary response killing eimanioney -- killing sol is an escalation so the president has decided to go from calling off a strike at the last

thete to escalating beyond restrained measured contemplation in the past. host: how to's how surprised were senior advisors and officials guest: guest: wednesday and thursday? some pentagon officials were stunned. presidents are presented with a menu of options. usually the one that they know the president was no -- we never take, one that is too minimal and therefore the middle option is the one they really want him to take, the goldilocks option. they don't really intend for him to take the more radical version . in this case he did take a more extreme version. the most incendiary version that stunned pentagon officials. they put it on the list of not thinking he would take it but make the other options more palatable. guest:guest: the fact that barack obama and george w. bush did not take him out, how much of a factor was that in president trump's copulation?

guest: i know that that is the case. i don't know that he was presented with that information and it was -- he does like to take actions that previous presidents did not take. he said he thought president bush and president obama mishandled the middle east. in the idea that he could do something they did not often appeals to him. host: he said he wants to see an end to endless wars. guest: he likes to be tough. he liked the say don't mess with america. he liked to show military force. at the same time he came to office promising to undo the entanglement we've had in the middle east for the last 19 years. the question now is how does he reconcile these competing impulses. host: the debate in iraqi parliament is whether u.s. troops, about 5000, should remain in iraq. guest: the irony is if they throw american troops out we will have helped iran in iraq, given iran carte blanche in iraq which they don't have now because we do have a military

presence. iraq is kind of in this odd balance between trying to keep iran happy and the united states happy. iran intoe pushed iraq's corner. we will see what the parliament does. they may decide the americans provide a good counterbalance for them against iran. they don't want to be dominated by it ran necessarily. -- by iran necessarily. they have their own domestic politics. very much against the united states on this strike. it was on their sovereign territory. baghdad international airport, that the airstrike hit. host: i want to share with the timesce, this new york editorial calling this a game changer. the question at the editorial board is posing is not whether or not this was justified saying it was, but whether it was wise. guest: president obama and

president bush did not take this action not because they thought action not because they thought matt now seems unlikely.son the idea that there will be diplomacy after all of this seems unlikely. host: let's talk about congress. we've heard from speaker pelosi, the debate over the authorization of the use of military force and war powers act. congress upset that they would

-- that they were not notified in advance. where does that leave congressional leaders? guest: this is a push and pull between presidents and congress. the present -- the constitution declares war. presidents have grown in their dominance in the warmaking field. they have repeatedly taking actions without congressional approval or consultation. president obama did not talk to congress before authorizing the rate that killed osama bin laden. so it's not the first time this has happened with this is a president who is more aggressively defiant of congress that his predecessors have been. when senator schumer complains about not being consulted or notified in advance the president retweeted a tweet that says neither where the uranian's neither where the uranian's and for the same reason are not cash in other words equating -- in other words equating -- comment on his part. not a lot of options on the part

of congress. they could take action to try to restrain him but the truth is they cited the 2002 authorization to use military force in iraq as legal justification but they also cited self-defense. that does not depend on congress. a commander in chief has long asserted the idea that we have the right to take action as a country to defend our interests. they are saying there was evidence of imminent attack. that is what the president will say as a legal matter which is justification for taking action even without 2002 authorization. host: you mention imminent attack. a number of editorials and critics of the president have said we can't trust donald trump. guest: there has been suspicionon -- bid ever since 2003 americans have been understandably skeptical when the government has told them about intelligence in the middle east and justified military action. on top of that, president that has in fact been not

the rightly -- what's way to put it? the washington post, our colleagues documented 15,000 statements they consider false or misleading. because of that, credibility is a problem. polls show most americans don't think president trump is a truth teller. the administration has not provided any information to back up the assertion that there would be eminent attacks. host: robert o'brien was on fox news depending the president's decision. the president's newest national security advisor and also the issue of congress being notified and when. [video clip] >> this is common practice in these sorts of operations. the obama administration, a practice of the bush administration, the clinton administration. when there is a sensitive operation of this nature that andnds on close timing

sensitive intelligence and covert efforts, those things take place. we started notifying congress and congressional leaders very shortly after the strike took place. the president made a war powers notification to congress today. within the 48 hour period, congress has been out of session but when they get back into session and return to washington next week, we will continue to talk to congress and brief them on these issues. host: that's from the president's national security advisor. what are you hearing? guest:guest: i think he is right that there is this perennial tension between the executive and congressional branches when it comes to these kinds of operations. timing matters. they do worry about leaks. it's a provocative -- a fraud -- a fraud

moment this president and congress -- a fraught moment for this president and let's talk about the impeachment book first. you are one of four authors. the timing of this was intriguing because the senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell, saying he's using your book as a blueprint for how the senate will respond. said: senator chris murphy he was reading it over the holidays. we think that's not too bad. host: we try to get it at politics and prose and it was sold out. guest:guest: it's available online. the book came about as a result of my friend jeff angle in

texas. he came up with the idea of trying to bring together history of impeachment. he thought as far away as a year and a half ago this might be an issue. not surprisingly it turned out to be right. the book is meant to be not about the trump, not about current impeachment, but how did we get here. what thee about constitutional framers were talking about. john meacham wrote about andrew johnson impeachment trial, our first impeachment and first senate trial. about thelley road president resigning under the throat and preach meant -- threat of president nixon resigning -- of present nixon resigning under the threat of impeachment. if you want to get up to speed on how we got here. host:host: let's read excerpts from the book. frankly, this is as the constitution's framers would have wanted it for impeachment to be such a high political bar. it exceeds near partisan fury

but requires a president whose proof of malfeasance is unquestioned, lest the question itself split the nation further perhaps beyond repair. so long as there are doubts there's another election and with the important caveat that so long as there remains no doubt that the next election will occur and results trusted, we would be less frustrated if we focused on winning the next rather than litigating the last. guest: one of the lessons we learn from the three impeachment big battles we've had, johnson, nixon, and clinton, the only way it works is if there is bipartisan consensus. be one party impeaching the president of the other party and removing them from our fists. -- from office. to remove him requires two thirds of the senate. the president's own party has to agree on some level that is correct. in the nixon case that is what happened. republicans have begun to abandon president nixon. they began to tell him look,

you're going to have to step down. that resulted in his resignation. with clinton and johnson and now the partyh trump, line thing is a bigger health across. we may have the same result, a house impeachment, senate acquittal and the country is left of it but what it will. the difference this time is none of the presidents ran for reelection after impeachment. andrew johnson had no party really because he was succeeded after lincoln's assassination. he did not run in 18 succeeded after the trial. very different circumstance in which the ultimate appeals court for the impeachment is going to be the voters in november of 2020 absent some unexpected result in the senate trial. host: we all lived through the bill clinton impeachment. you write the following from the book impeachment, president clinton could not evade the

dubious distinction of joining johnson is one of the only two presidents ever impeach. a series of embarrassing revelations and resignations in particular each of the three men who led the house republicans during clinton's impeachment would ultimately face ridicule and even prison for their infidelities and sexual crimes. the majority of americans who believed to this day that clinton was impeached for sexual impropriety has political adversaries committed in even worse sin, the sin of hypocrisy. guest: it was an ugly time. we forget about that because things seem ugly today but the truth was back then there was this -- larry flynt the publisher of hustler magazine offering $1 million who would come -- to anyone who would come forward with the information of sexual misconduct from evers of congress and people did. some of these things were exposed. bob livingston was forced out as speaker. coming in the day of impeachment and said i'm going to step down

and set an example for president clinton to follow. host: it was a stunning moment. no one expected that. guest:guest: it was so different in washington. very few moments in washington where you are completely caught off guard by something you did not think what happen and that was one of them. i was in the chamber that day. host: we were here watching it. guest: your breath was taken away. the chamber had this electricity that had not been there before. suddenly everybody was like the whole thing is coming off the rails. democrats and republicans alike rushed to bob livingston and said don't do this. spiraling out of control. he said as a matter of honor i have to step down. i think the president to do the same thing. crimes related to sex abuse of minors. he was a coach in school and he had paid off one of his accusers

and i think have not told the truth about that under investigation. and of course newt gingrich had an affair even during the impeachment we did not know about at the time that later became public. he's currently married the woman he was with. it raises questions about where lines are. the heartclinton at of that but it was not -- he was not the -- he was impeached because he lied under oath about it. it was a hard case for republicans to make because it did seem like it was taking ultimate constitutional reprisal over a lie that seemed personal or trivial or somehow not worthy ofthe great cause impeachment in the constitution. the flipside is what you do about a president who commits a crime while in office? how do you have accountability. we have not settled that

question. we kind of rewrite the rules a little bit, set the parameters and president for the next time. it's something that kind of made up as you go along. the framers were general in their use of the phrase in the constitution they left it to us to figure out what they meant. host:host: the third impeachment in 45 years. we will go first two rows in woodberry, new jersey with peter baker of the new york times. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to suggest a topic the gentleman could get a pulitzer prize for. according to the new york post, maxwell has holes in britain and israel and has information on people in our government. i was wondering if he could high the influence of the people in our government and the actions with reserve -- with regard to israel who wants hegemony in the middle east.

the sedition into against people who allow our country to be invaded and yet we , the pentagon refuses to be audited. there's a lot of good material he could explore. host:host: thank you with the call from new jersey. guest: i have not read the article. i will take a look at that. we have a strong investigative team in washington. we've built it up in the last few years. a lot of different subjects we are investigating in terms of government. as well as other topics. stay tuned. host: in your own investigation and research on the former tech -- the former secretary of state , james baker, living in texas, how accessible was he for your book?

guest: secretary baker made himself available for interviews, made his papers available. he was very cooperative. it was a fascinating subject. i really interviewed somebody for a long project like this who was as open as he was. he was willing to talk about his personal stages of life as well as political life. he did not hold back on anything. painful topics in his family's past. this tragedy a lot of things he in public.d about at this stage in his life he is ready for his story to be told. host: without revealing too much, is there one anecdote, one moment that stands out? terms of personal life one thing people don't recognize with him, where he came from. he was not in politics. until age 40. he was a houston lawyer worked for corporate interests. his family helped build houston,

part of the houston aristocracy. his friend from the tennis courts at the houston country club, george h.w. bush, got him into politics. a key moment for him came in 1970 when his first wife died of cancer. it was george bush who pulls him out of that depressing moment, out of that grief he was consumed by and said let's get you involved in politics. had it not been for that moment, we never would have seen secretary of state james baker. host: we saw that in the eulogy he delivered in texas. guest: you don't normally see jim baker crying in public. a very stoic figure. very disciplined. i think he saw the depth of his relationship with president bush. no secretary of state in our history whoever had the kind of relationship with the president jim baker had with george bush. maybe jefferson and madison. but basically secretaries of

state are usually a political ally, sometimes a political a choice of convenience expedience in some way or another. in this case they were the best of friends. that completely dominated how they conducted foreign affairs at a key moment in history. this is the first gulf war. this is the unification of germany. really key moment and for the secretary of state and the president to be on the same page like they were was remarkable. baker -- nobody doubted that when he said something that was the word of the president and that is something that was born out of this deep personal friendship that has roots in tragedy that the two of them experienced together. host:host: the book out in may day. guest: the man who ran washington. co-author is susan glasser. host:host: we hope you'll come back in mid may when the book

comes out. let's get back to your phone calls. peter baker for another half hour. bernie in louisville, kentucky. democrats line. caller: good morning. i had two questions. one of them is kind of on-topic the other is not. like working with meacham? i understand the man is full of facts. we had the good fortune to go see david mccall. i'm assuming he still the chief lawyer for a new york times. in this era of fake news he would be awesome to be interviewed by jeff rosenberg. i know this is very difficult for the media -- for stories because of all the talk about fake news, but aren't your stories vetted by the attorneys at the new york times before they are released? question, my other

comment was thank you for your work and are we are going to have another white house press briefing and you participate in those? host:host: thanks for the call from louisville. white house press briefings. guest: i don't think we will have another one with this president. i don't think that is something he cares to do. we have a press briefing with the president -- which the president has often done on the lawn before he gets onto the helicopter a have you. back't see that coming anytime soon. i would be surprised if the next president did not restore the press briefing on some level. most politicians see the virtue of having a press briefing and i think that will come back. i do participate in them when they happen. there some argument as to how useful they are. not having them i think is worse. the one opportunity people have to question their government on a daily basis.

on camera, on the record on issues the government may not want to talk about. host: john meacham? guest: he is remarkable. he's a machine. he's putting out books. he writes magazine pieces. he travels the country. he is a printer naturally gifted writer and historian. he younger than i am. he knows so much and understands so much off the top of his head. -- madereated himself himself into one of our leading national historians. onan't wait for his book george h.w. bush, the definitive biography. no one has done anything quite like it. it stands out as a resource for anyone who cares about the presidency. host: let's go to cyrus ohio. you are of next with peter baker: on the republican line. caller: good morning.

i would like to make a comment about something peter baker said concerning donald trump campaigning on peace and being antiwar. not know the intelligence donald trump receives. he took this general out. we won't know why. maybe he was promoting peace. it is not for you to say. guest: and that is a problem. i think the public would like to have a better understanding of what factors went into this decision. the secretary of state says there was an imminent attack that could have resulted in the death of hundreds of american, maybe thousands. we are told by other officials that is not necessarily definitive conclusion. the factors they took into building that conclusion were not as clear-cut

as that. we would like to know more about what drove that decision and what factors went into that. what conclusions were drawn about the intelligence and how they got it. the senateomments by republican mitch mcconnell on fox last month that drew a lot of iron from democrats on capitol hill. here's what leader mcconnell said. [video clip] >> everything i do i'm coordinating with white house counsel. no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this. to the extent that we can. we don't have a kind of ball control on this that a typical issue comes over to the house, if i don't like it we don't take it up. we have no choice but to take it up. we will be working through this process, hopefully in a short period of time in total coordination with white house counsel's office and the people

representing the president. host: did the senate leader crossed the line? guest: senators are not impartial deciders of this. they are political in impeachment was meant to be a political process. in that sense it is not surprising. in the andrew johnson case his son was in the senate and voted. another senator, he would've had that he would have become senatent had the convicted andrew johnson because there was no vice president. he voted. having said that, what senator mcconnell did was take it further in terms of overtly saying we all know that's what we all know to be true, people are part of their partisan tribes. republicans are on president trump's side and democrats are not. senator daschle during the clinton impeachment thought it would be unseemly to coordinate

so we kept away with the prep that she kept away from the president. aring the trial they had secret system. there was a moment when chuck ross, the white house counsel counsel for president clinton leading his defense, he needed senators to ask him a question so he can respond to something the side said, he would take his pen and go like that. he would move his pen on the table in the senate democratic aides would send the question saying mr. ross would you like to respond to anything so there was some coordination between the white house and senate democrats. what he did was give ammunition -- pretending say to take this seriously you will click a partisan ally of the president. it was rather studying. -- rather stunning.

we are still waiting for the house speaker to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate. will that happen this week? i don't know the answer to that. the house speaker is saying she will hold back these articles of a peach meant until there is some guarantee of a process she considers to be fair. we are in uncharted territory. we've never had impeachment where the house and senate were indifferent hands. democrats control the house now, republicans control the senate now. of leveraging what a senate trial might look like. senate republicans are saying you had your process in the house. we get to decide our process in the senate. nancy pelosi seems to have gotten under the president's skin. the number of times he's tweeted anger about her holding back these articles over the last week or so is remarkable. i think he is showing frustration about that. responding to leader mcconnell

is the semi craddick leader chuck schumer december 19 in the u.s. senate. if the republicans proceed with the rich already leaders scheme to sweep these charges under the rug and permit the president to ignore congress, they will be creating a new precedent that will long be remembered as one of the senate darkest chapters. it will be remembered as a time when a simple majority in the senate sought to grant two new rights to the president, the right to use the government for personal purposes, and the right to ignore congress at his pleasure. here, i agree with senator mcconnell. are why the this .enate exists if the president commits high crimes and misdemeanors and the congress can do nothing about it

, not even conduct a fair tribunal where his conduct is judged by dispassionate representative of the people the president can commit those crimes with impunity. this president can, others can. i have little doubt that if we tell the president that he can escape scrutiny in this instance he will do it again and again and again. host: the politics on the senate floor. our guest is peter baker, co-author of the book impeachment and in the book there is this, "no man is above justice. from george mason back in 1787. that sentiment still rings true yet competes with the political reality offered by representative gerald ford who went on to become president quipping that in impeachable offense is whatever majority of the house of representatives considers it to be.

both statements may be simultaneously true. guest: i think ford's point is it is not a matter statutory crime. it is not a prosecutor in a court of law. as a political process. they mean it to be serious and somber and soberly executed but it's not divorced from the mood of the country is not divorced politics of our country. it's not meant to be a crime. high crime is not in statute books. we don't know what high crimes is. it does not have to be a criminal act per se. it can be an act against the integrity of the system. that is what the house in this case is arguing. but trying to pressure a foreign government, that amounts to corrupting the system even if there's not a specific statute on the books. there's no crime how can you impeach? will definething we

again. whatever the result is that will impact us in the future. we've had now three big impeachment battles in the last 45 years. is impeachment becoming a regular tool? we will see in the future and does it have any teeth as senator schumer argues if it does not succeed at that point doesn't mean you're never going to see an actually successful impeachment because we are always going to be locked into our partisan tribes? never going to have the two party agrees -- two parties agree. host: looking at the clinton impeachment you had then congressman lindsey graham demanding that monica lewinsky testify in the senate trial. now is a u.s. senator he says there should be no witnesses in a senate trial. where you sit depends on where you stand. guest: senator schumer was the only member of the house judiciary committee who voted against the articles of impeachment on president clinton who then went to the senate and

voted on them as a senator. he voted on the same articles in two chambers. he took the opposite view back then. he said this is not worth the congress is time, this is all partisan, witchhunt. merits of the cases are not the same, you can judge them very differently, a lot of this surrounds, a lot of the politics echo what we heard 21 years ago. host: peter baker is the co-author and bill is joining us from norcross georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say mr. baker, that in being part of the new york times he's about peace for the democratic party. as for the killing of this uranian general, assassination whatever you want to call it, here's a guy who is going to do whatever is going to do. a terrorist, it makes no

difference. the reality is they're going to retaliate whether we kill this man or not. .t makes no difference the man was doing everything to kill americans. i did not hear a word of retaliation when president obama killed osama bin laden. it was all celebration, happiness and fun and mr. baker was curate fish was cheering us on which trump does the same thing he screams we are going to all get killed. guest: just to be clear, i don't think the new york times as a mouthpiece for the democrats. i'm not part of the editorial pages, i'm not a democrat, not a republican. i don't take sides to be clear. i do think the difference between the bin laden case and bin ladenani case,

did not have a state behind him. he had lost support across a lot of the most the world and therefore -- there were feelers -- there were fears of retaliation. the story i wrote that day said americans were concerned about what would happen as a result of killing bin laden and whether we would be at risk as a result. means you're talking about what the consequent as might be and consequences are important when it comes to arean by any president host: we will go to henry, democrats line, joining us from michigan. >> let me help you out mr. baker. president oak -- president obama was also colored under the authorization of military force that gavefter 9/11 any president the authority to go ahead and use military force against any of the material actors who perpetrated 9/11.

in leiden, i was say, was one of those kinds of people. one of the people under that act. also, republicans are keen to use the redline in syria president obama drew to claim he was weak and feckless because he becauseattack syria president obama decided to follow the constitution and asked congress for authorization, which the republicans denied him to attack syria at that time. that is taking me off my question. i called in when trump was a candidate and i said that donald trump was a russian asset. nancy pelosi has said all roads lead to putin. every decision donald trump has made up to now has benefited

putin and russia, look at the russian stock market, how it outpaced every stock market exchange on the globe because president trump has aided and abetted russian oil. we will get a response. no question it is a different legal issue with bin laden and there is with soleimani. no one had any doubt the president of united states, president obama, had the authorization to strike bin laden at that point. he was covered by the 2001 military authorization. soleimani is a different case. we are not at war with iran and there has not been authorization for military force against iran but he was in iraq and fomenting conflict in iraq for which there is authorization from 2002. that is with the trump administration's argument is. and there argument is a matter of legal issues.

fact, the commander-in-chief always has the right to defend americans. we don't know the answer on the intelligence they say they are operating on. as a matter of law, self-defense is usually considered a strong argument. host: your book is a great perimeter in the development of this country and constitution. the presidency did not arise by accident. delegates to the federal convention met for months behind closed doors shuttered and sealed to immunize debates from public pressure hammering out a government with overlapping spheres of power none might grow too large or powerful if coequal legislative judicial and executive branches are aligned against one another. lawmakers could see legislation vetoed by an executive who found their work on route -- their work unwise. a president's actions it counter to the -- presidents require congressional per approval

before spending a dime or concluding treaties with foreign lands. because none held unlimited power the constitution's framers reasoned none would be able to attain it at the expense of the others. incredible guest: guest: work that they put together hard to imagine that they could do it today or we would not be demanding to be in the room. fascinating about the history of the constitution is the creation of this impeachment clause. you mentioned george mason. george mason thought we should include maladministration as a justification. he set if the president had a bad presidency, ineffective, we should be able to impeach him. james madison said that is too far. you basically make a parliamentary system where a vote of no-confidence by the senate means the president is out. delegates agreed. that is too far we don't want to make it such an easy lobar.

that's where they came up with the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors. they did not define it for us. they did not tell us what they meant by that. during discussions they gave us clues. corrupting an election, they did talk about that. being in service to a foreign power. that something they raise in the concerns. something they talk about a lot. we do hear some echoes from back then in today's debate. theously an issue with allegations regarding president trump. host: let's go to homestead, pennsylvania. good morning. i had caller: caller: just a couple of points i wanted to make. as far as the assassination of soleimani, trump has been talking about iran since 2012, when he claimed that obama was going to attack iran to get reelected. i think his plan is to look like a wartime president and not

really have a war because he think it's a good way to get reelected. his numbers, people may think are too low, getting into a war or a fake or, might be the best thing for him. some covered.osi she can say the president is involved in this war. we don't want to get in his way with the impeachment hearing. i'm going to hold off so there's no trials of the president can fight his war or until the situation with iran is resolved. president trump might be the only president ever impeached never acquitted. i would love that for an end to his term and for her to never send those things over. that is my comment anyway. host: a great way to kind of tea off what we think will happen this week.

guest: it's interesting. the consequence of an impeachment battle is anything that comes -- anything the president does falls under suspicion. in 1998 president clinton was bombing iraq at the same time that the house was voting to impeach him if people were talking about wag the dog and was he doing that to distract attention and republicans were not going to let him throw us off because he decided to do this. democrats today, using the wide the dog criticism of president trump. is he doing this to distract attention from the impeachment? that is a consequence of impeachment, such as suspicion in the country. that giveno debate the stakes of what's going on. host: in the case of president clinton there was a pause and what congress is doing to give the president authority to initiate those airstrikes. guest: they paused the vote one day.

they went ahead and continued even as the bombers were operating in iraq. the bombers were operating on the very moment that the house was taking this vote the president called off the strike hours after the vote, the same day. that's why it was an extraordinary day. livingston resigned, the house impeached the president and the president ended four days bombing strikes on a rack in the same few hours. host: the president saying the u.s. spent $2 trillion on u.s. equipment. the biggest and by far the best in the world. if iran attacks any american we will be sending some of that you to full equipment their way and without hesitation. the president is saying in this chess match the next move is iran and if you make the wrong move we are after you. guest: they have vowed to revenge, there phrase. we don't know what that will look like. take a look like a terrorist attack, attacks on american troops. he could look like a cyber strike. at the hard thing to defend against.

we don't know what it might look like. the president is trying to deter them by saying we have power you don't. sites may inflame irradiance of the other direction. it may make them angry and a way he does not intend to. ,ne thing is clearly done positions of the hardliners in iran any appetite there might have been for diplomacy with united states is gone for the moment. we are at a period of confrontation. we will see how it proceeds. host: which again goes to the headline on the front page of your newspaper. iran unites in its hostility toward america. guest: it is a striking thing. many iranians, some people spent time there say most iranians actually like the united states. the young ones are eager to have -- they want to be part of the west. faint movement in that direction at various points throughout the years.

there were these protest in the streets recently. brutally cracked down on. the question is whether or not by attacking soleimani we have given hardliners an excuse to rally around their flag the way we rally around hours. that is a consequence you need to think about when we talk about the good, the bad with a strike like this. host:host: peter baker is the chief white house correspondent for the new york times. impeachment. of a longtime friend of the c-span networks. thank you for your insights. happy new year. a deep dive into u.s. iranian relations. c-span's washington journal continues on this sunday morning. we are also streamed on the web on c-span.org. we are back in a moment.

>> normally what would happen is there a be a team of helicopters supporting each other to make sure they were safe. because there was no one else there and it had to be done, o'donnell made the decision that he would rescue these men. into these landing zone areas and he would hover on the ground for four-minute waiting for the reconnaissance team to arrive, which, in a battle condition, is an eternity. a long time to be sitting vulnerable to the enemy. the reconnaissance team arrived, injured but safe. they boarded the helicopter and

o'donnell began to pull the helicopter up above the tree line and radio i have everyone i'm coming out. >> president and ceo of the metropolitan museum of art, daniel weiss on his book about the life of michael o'donnell who went missing in action during the vietnam. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. > monday night on the communicators, adrian shabazz of freedom health talks about the organization's report on world internet freedom. >> what we are seeing is social media used to be this level freeng field for expression by activists and ordinary users. now it's being co-opted by some of the more powerful well resourced actors in our society. i think that is where social media companies need to re-level

the playing field to root out the bad actors and i think to make certain policy changes within the algorithms to incentivize the type of productive democratic discourse and conversation. >> watch the communicators at two.eastern on c-span fellow at thecome hudson institute in washington dc, an expert on the middle east. you have been busy tweeting over the last couple of days with regard to the president's actions in iran and the attack of the iranian officials in baghdad. the question that seems to be looming, one of the questions, was it the right move. guest: i think it's hard to answer that question completely in isolation. what happens next is going to determine whether this was the right move or not. i think the situation the

president found himself in was -- at least attack tankers in the persian gulf attacks on the saudi facility. 11 rocket attacks on u.s. bases in a rack over the last two months culminating in the killing of an american contractor and the attack of the u.s. embassy. the president was facing a situation in which you could do nothing and allow iran to to new ratcheting up attacks on u.s. interests or respond in some measure. it is the case that this attack shook the irani an establishment and challenged assumptions about what the u.s. was going to do. i think the value of this attack, in terms of its deterrence on iran, is not just taking out a key figure in iran's military establishment. i think iran had grown confident it could push the united states and not elicit l terry response.

presidents to u.s. elected on the promise of getting out of the middle east, so i think they were confident they could keep pushing and there would not be response. this has challenged that. what does the u.s. do now in what is sure to be a continued back-and-forth with iran. host: what we've been hearing from democrats is despite some of the flaws in the iran nuclear deal signed into thousand 15 at least iran was contained. they were not proceeding with nuclear capabilities and we were keeping them in check. so with president trump moving out of that agreement and then basically hitting the hornets nest by going after general soleimani, that we have escalated the situation when for a while it was contained despite the flaws. how do you respond to that? guest: i think that is a myopic view on the history of what has happened since 2014 2015 when

the jcpoa was negotiated. int about four years ago january of 2016 right after the jcpoa was agreed to, iran took hostage american sailors that were operating in the persian gulf and held them at gunpoint. so this is not a regime that took the jcpoa as an invitation to better relations with the united states. they continue to antagonize us during the deal and it certainly -- and certainly continued to antagonize the region during the jcpoa and conducted multiple wars in syria, yemen, strengthened its grip in iraq. it oversaw the use of chemical weapons so i think the reading of the jcpoa as in any way pacifying irani and aggression is misplaced. and put limits on iran's nuclear

program and those are limits that have -- iran has broken out of and might accelerate its nuclear program as a reaction, halt anycpoa did not aggression in the region. host: senator bernie sanders submitting legislation that essentially would block a for the president to use for military operations in the middle east and on the campaign trail the democratic candidate for 2020 with this on the president's moves from iowa, senator sanders. [video clip] >> the wise course would have been to stick with that nuclear provisions,nforce and use that diplomatic channel with the iran to address a wide , includingncerns .heir support of terrorism unfortunately, trump ignored the

advice of his own security officials. ignore the advice of his own security officials and listened to right-wing extremists. some of whom were exactly the same people who got us into the war in iraq in the first place. as we all remember, trump .romised to end endless wars tragically, his actions now put us on the path to another war. potentially one that could be even worse than before. host: part of c-span's 2020 campaign coverage. your response? guest: i do think it's important to note that president trump ran and was elected on a slogan of ending endless wars and just

three months ago in october the washington establishment and many members of congress were parading president trump for withdrawing from syria and pulling out of the middle east and ending support for the syrian kurds fighting isis and for the exact opposite, for taking the u.s. out of the region. now he's being paraded for potentially having greater involvement in the region. i think we need to remember the instinct of the president thus far has not been toward war and that is why i say we can't judge this act in isolation. if this is an attempt to shake the irani and establishment and pull the u.s. out of the region as president trump has indicated , it might not change a lot. it might be a reset and will go back to where we've been with iran furthering its aggression in a couple of weeks if not months. if it is the start of a new strategy, a new attempt to roll back irani and aggression

throughout the region, further american deployments, then it will lead to different outcomes that are hard to judge at this point. host: based on your expertise in the region, do you think iran will directly respond? guest: i don't think so. iran's whole strategy is to never play the same game as the united states. never directly confront the united states. the irani and regime knows the position is always precarious. a nose that lacks the military might the united states has. it's not looking for all-out war because it knows it cannot win it. host:host: this is rhetoric on behalf of iran. it will certainly want to respond and needs to retaliate to save face and prove that it will not cow in the face of american pressure. it will find another means to do so, either through cyber attacks, terrorist attacks, but any large action that would precipitate a u.s. overwhelming

response, such as some of the world war iii scenarios that have been thrown out in the twittersphere, i think those are definitely going to be off the books. host: people can fall you online. how so? guest: on twitter. of this isrote all part of a pr strategy by iran. explain. guest: iran has to do two things. itseeds to prove to constituents that the supreme leader is still in control. he will need to retaliate in order to save face. iran's strategy ever since president trump backed out of the jcpoa is to cast itself as the more responsible followingnal actor, the law more so than the united states. this has particularly been the case with the european countries that iran has been trying to convince to keep away from sanctioning it and doing

business with it. and its reaction to this strike, it is going to have to walk a fine line between retaliating against the u.s., casting itself as a victim, and as following international law. anything that is explicitly and overtly aggressive and militaristic will not serve its purpose. it will continue using its proxies that are deniable. it will continue using attacks in cyberspace that are hard to , but you will not see iranian military units conducting operations against the united states because that will subvert this image of iran as a responsible international actor. host: complete this sentence, the state of iran's economy today is what? guest: fragile. iran has been under immense political pressure at home and across the region in the lead up to this strike. there have been massive protests in iran, iraq, and lebanon

against iranian rule and oppression. in iran alone, thousands have been jailed. people have been killed by men .orking for general soul money that pressure has not gone away. the worst thing the u.s. could this this point is use strike to distract attention from the political woes iran is feeling in the region. used to strengthen the message of this is the man that has oppressed the people of iran, iraq, lebanon, and syria and turn the power back to the people of the country, then it will be a successful strategy for the u.s. host: used to strengthen the u.s. drones attacking the iranian leadership inside baghdad, inside iraq. it is a sign that this is not a dramatic escalation by the u.s., to the level some people have claimed.

if this had been an attack inside iran, that would have been a drastic measure, violating iranian sovereignty. iraq is a country in which we have had authorization from congress to operate. it is a country that so far the iraqi government has invited us to operate, although parliament will be voting on whether to continue that. it is a country in which we have the right and the ability to operate. it is not as drastic and action as might have been seen if it had been conducted somewhere else in the region. host: let's get to your phone calls. gail is joining us from kentucky. good morning, republican line. caller: i just have a question that i would like answered. host: certainly. caller: how can angail is joinim kentucky. impeachment happen with only one party wanting the other party out? oup?t that a c

what is the difference? host: a little off-topic, but let me use this as the jumping off point of how this is being viewed overseas. guest: in terms of the domestic politics, it is like everything else that happens today, seen largely through partisan lenses. you have president trump supporters cheering this attack and his critics calling it into question. i don't think whatever happens next is likely to change those dynamics. it is interesting that secretary pompeo in the immediate aftermath of these attacks spent more time calling his european counterparts than consultation with congress. it shows there is an attempt by the trump administration to create a diplomatic strategy and call on our allies and partners who might have connections and relationships with tehran to push iran not to escalate

further and to take this as an opportunity to reset what has been a growingly antagonistic relationship. let's go next to bill, joining us from maryland, line for republicans. caller: good morning. wondering, we got a is doingder of iran harm, attacking our embassy in another country, iraq, and you are going to say that iran is contained? we have been battling with them for 40 years, then wanting to do away with america and our culture, and they even get across our border and attacked homeland. please.

president get to send $150 billion of our tax dollars over to iran, and i am here struggling to pay obamacare? host: we will get a response. guest: good morning. i would agree with you that iran is not contained, in that we have seen growing iranian aggression over the last six months and over the last six years or so. the last decade has been one in the middle east that has been dominated by iran and its rising power. this is an act that certainly resets that balance somewhat. we cannot judge it in isolation because by itself it will not roll back iran's presence and influence throughout the middle its and want undermine

desire for hegemony. it does great an opportunity to change those dynamics. host: our guest with the bipartisan policy center, available online at hudson.org. this tweet saying, usa kills a top general of iran and he wants us to believe this is not an escalation or big deal. nobody agrees with him. how do you respond to that? guest: i think it is certainly an increase in american military action in the region. what i said is it is not a step ladder --alator for a escalatory ladder in that this is not an attempt to have dominance and to hit iran so hard that we think they will not hit back. from thisbeen clarity

administration that they understand there is the potential for retaliation and that they are preparing for it. the state department issued warnings for allescalator amerio get out of iraq and to use caution traveling the middle east. what this was was an attempt to shock iran and change the rules of the game, so this was not part of a tit-for-tat military action but an was was an attempo shock iran and change the rules of the announcement to the iranian regime that their assumptions about u.s. willingness to use force, red lines, and how the u.s. is going to behave is going to change from here on out. i don't think iran is going to take a step up the escalatory latter because iran is not going to directly confront the u.s. it will find other ways to retaliate, ways that they think are deniable, ways that are going to evade u.s. redlines and

not prompt a response. this is not the beginning of a u.s. strike trip up the escalator that leads to all out war. host: we are from secretary of hete mike pompeo, on cnn said the trump administration is advising congress that iran could respond within weeks in some fashion. guest: i think it is likely that there will be a response. the iranians have to respond. i don't think it is going to be direct iranian military units attacking u.s. personnel. it is going to be iranian proxies, iranian militias, iranian supported terrorist groups that might go after terrorist bases. somethingmeant to be

drastic that raises the potential for direct confrontation. host: you can watch the secretary of state on meet the press, fox news sunday, this week, and face the nation. you can download the free c-span radio app. michigan.b in thank you for waiting. caller: thank you for taking my call. as far as the escalation, iran has never needed a reason to cut ,ff somebody's head with a dull rusty sword. we have been partners with russia for 20 years in the international space station and a military base in australia, sharing our most valuable secrets. i don't think trump is a russian spy. have a good day. host: thank you. this is a text message saying, trump has created a common enemy for the middle east. nothing brings groups together like a common foe. who knew that trump was such a

peacemaker? in kansas.m bev i think it is a mistake to judge the sentiments of the middle east based on what we see broadcast on tv. the regimes of the middle east are autocratic and expert at manipulating the images we see and controlling what happens in their streets for the most part. just in the same way that when there was an attack on u.s. embassy, this was originally described as a popular uprising and protest against american actions, when it was iranian backed militias directed by iran to carry out this attack. we should be careful to believe that what we see on tv is representative of the popular beliefs and public will of the people of the region.

bolton, heard from john the former national security advisor. he praised the administration, saying he hopes ultimately it will lead to regime change. how likely is that? this one action is unlikely to lead to regime change, but it raises the larger question about what exactly the trump administration's iran policy is and what their objective is. part of the problem in the three years they have been in office is there is a decided lack of clarity about what they are trying to achieve, or different parts of the administration have different goals. we have seen some parts of the administration talk about regime change as the ultimate objective. secretary pompeo has a list of 12 objectives that he wants iran to meet, including better human rights at home, answering aggression abroad.

president trump keeps talking about just getting a better deal on the new leader program. he has said he is not interested in regime change. what they want to accomplish is up in the air. that is part of the problem for the administration and iran. they don't know what to expect. int: we will go to nikki west virginia. caller: good morning. i think the president did the right thing at the right time to let them know we are not going to stand for these attacks. if they come back with a cyberattack, go in with the drones and blow up every means of communication there got so they cannot -- they have got so they cannot do a cyberattack. host: marion from georgia. caller: good morning. i have a question.

i don't know if you can answer this or not. israel and russia, worthy notified before our congress was -- were they notified before our congress was? the answern't know in regards to russia, and i cannot say with complete certainty about israel, but there has been reporting in the israeli press that they were notified that there would be some action, and they were not taken by surprise. what they knew when is still up in the air. caller: that concerns me that our congress was not notified before other countries were. have, in question i the 1950's when we overtook -- we did regime change in iran, what led up to that? what has been our issue?

there have been so many other countries that would cut people's heads off like the other man said. what is it that we have this zero focus on iran for? it seems strange to me. if you could explain that, i would appreciate it. guest: i think you are referring to the 1953 coup that the cia helped enact against the democratically elected leadership of iran and that the iranians still blame the u.s. for. that was an act that was encouraged by the british, who at that point were still largely involved in iran, which had previously been a british colony and british controlled territory. aboutere concerned attempts to nationalize the oil resources of iran, which were

still very important to the british economy at that point. at that time it certainly was all about the oil. since then, what has transpired was the 1979 coup that created the islamic republic of iran, which led to them taking the u.s. embassy hostage and soured relations in a different direction. this is a regime that defines itself in entirety almost against the united states, describing the united states as the great satan. that is different from what happened in 1953. host: we have a tweet from heartstorm saying we should correct the ignorant caller, saying barack obama did not sin tax dollars to iran. it was iran's money. guest: that is correct.

under the terms of the jcpoa, iranian money that was being held had been frozen by the united states was returned to iran. in addition to that, there were payments the united states made that are seen by some, as for example, paying for them to release hostages. some of that money arrived on the same day that american sailors were released. host: the president is in mar-a-lago, back in washington this week. iran.ed tweets at this is what he said yesterday iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain u.s. assets as revenge for ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just

killed an american, not to mention all the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of iranian protesters. he was already attacking our embassy in preparing for additional hits in many locations. iran has been nothing but problem for many years. let this serve as a warning that if iran strikes any americans, some had a very high level and important to iran, the iranian culture, and iran itself will be hit very hard very fast. usa wants no more threats. guest: this shows an interesting threading of the needle. the message from secretary pompeo and others in the aftermath of the strike was one de-escalation, that the u.s. was looking to not go further.

originally president trump tweeted something along the lines of iran has never won a war, but it has never lost a negotiation. suggestion to come to the negotiation table. i think that was an attempt to trump's to president instinct, which is to negotiate. at the same time they don't want to suggest to iran that this was a one-time strength in the u.s. is good to ignore anything from here on out. we don't want to go further. we want to negotiate. let's come to the table. if you do decide to retaliate, we are going to discourage you by saying we will go further if need be. from those hostages held 1979 until 1981.

today on cnn's state of the union, j cap are with a question to the secretary of state about identifying 52 iranian targets. [video clip] >> do think president trump threatening to attack 52 sites in iran is the escalating, is providing an offramp for the iranians? >> we have provided them clear guidance of what we have as an expectation. we have worked with them. it is important that they understand that america will no longer behave the way it did during the obama-biden administration. off in this war kicked the jcpoa was entered into. it told the iranians they had free reign to develop weapons that extend from iraq to syria and threaten israel. we have taken a very different approach.

that approach has been successful. there is more work to do. host: your reaction? guest: two things need to be taken into account. i think the secretary is right to say we should not think of act of war.as ana it is an admission that iran is at war with us and has been for a while. the last thing that the secretary of state said that the u.s. had a successful strategy does far, in some ways, the strike is an admission that the strategy pursued by the trump administration was not getting the results it wanted. the trump administration putting sanctions on iran, believing that pressure would be enough for iran to buckle. iran responded through a series of attacks around the persian gulf on u.s. interests and allies.

the decision to strike so leimani, was a decision to curtail that. reset of the obama strategy and become strategy in some ways. host: let's go to robert in massachusetts on the democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to say that we have a president in the white house who doesn't know what he is doing because if we look at the muslim ban, the kids in cages, i wish he would take his own advice and he said obama would start a war before the election because he does not know how to negotiate. he does not negotiate. now he just wants to start a war on impulse.

i think we are in trouble with this president. i think he would take his own advice. this is not going to be a war. i hope this stops where it is. he needs to put a stop to his impulse. host: thank you. it is important to note that president trump like president obama was elected on the promise of ending endless wars, getting out of the middle east, not pushing further into military entanglements. just like president obama found out, saying you want to lead the middle east doesn't mean the middle east wants to leave you alone. despite president obama's desire not to start wars and some decisions not to act militarily, such as when syria crossed the red line and used chemical weapons, he had to act in libya and syria and iraq against isis.

i think president trump finds himself in the same situation. he wants to quit the middle east, and yet cannot do it entirely. sometimes he has to act to protect u.s. interests. i think president trump's voters will not reward him for starting a war. i think any greater military involvement, putting boots on the ground to fight iran is not going to be politically popular. i don't think president trump is looking to do that for political reasons or ideological ones. it is not something i would expect to see in the next year. host: we will go to north carolina next, independent line, mary. caller: thank you for taking my call. iran must love the democratic party and the mainstream media. they don't have to retaliate because the democratic party, mainstream media is doing it for them.

i have one more point. i keep hearing people talking about putting kids in cages. obama built the cages. obama put the kids in the cages. the cages are still there. he is the reason for the cages. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you. about thethe point media, i would say that we have seen excellent reporting from the new york times and washington post in the last several months that has exposed the true face of the iranian regime. we have seen excellent reporting on iran's violent suppression of the protests that has been happening against the regime. we have seen the washington post expose intelligence and cables from the iranian intelligence apparatus, showing how they buy off and control iraqi elites. we should be thankful for the u.s. media because it has made clear what the nature of the iranian regime is, and that is a

bloody, murderous, and completely uninterested in the well-being of its own people. host: from california, jeremy. caller: good morning. i think it has been proven over that he is a man of his words. he never says something that he is not able to make true. when he says the retaliation will be hard, it will be hard. imani.led sole the lesson he talked to the iraqi people that they should fight occupying troops like the united states goes on forever. we had better get out of there before we regret it. do you think we still should stay there? guest: i believe we should, as

long as they are iraqi people want us there. i think there has been an interesting dynamic unfolding in recent months where hundreds of thousands of iraqis were taking to the streets and protesting against a foreign occupying force, not the u.s., but against iran. that was probably the greatest threat to iran's presence in iraq and the region in the last decade, more so than any u.s. action could be. to the extent that this strike is a distraction from that, it will be a loss. if we use this as a message to send to the iraqi people and using some of the intelligence the washington post has one whod, he was the was keeping this corrupt regime in power in baghdad. he was directing violence against the protesters.

he was making sure this government served the wishes of tehran, not its own people. if we put the focus on the iraqi people, it will be a success. 1988,pisode reminds me of when the u.s. tragically shot down an iranian commercial airliner by accident, but he convinced then supreme leader khamenei that the u.s. was willing to do anything and everything to fight iran, and it led him to end the iran-iraq war. that shows to me that iran is willing to back down not when it is greeted by open arms but when it is greeted by determination. hopefully this strike communicates to them that what they saw as american fecklessness has turned to resolve. host: grad from new york, good morning. i have a question.

i am seeing in the media sole imani's casket in baghdad with thateople supporting funeral. i don't understand what is going on in iraq. explainur guest could -- is iraq limited on the american side to the green thumbs? are these militias in control of the rest of the country? can you explain what is going on just in iraq? host: thank you. pointing out that the iraqi parliament is debating today whether or not those 5000 u.s. troops should remain in iraq. what you are seeing is an outpouring of grief from the shiite militias that were backed

, controlled, funded by iran, so these are iraqi she, largely beholden to and allied with iran. they are in the streets showing their grief over the strike that killed soleimani. these militias largely control the country today. technically now official members of the government security apparatus. they have much more sway. they are almost as large in number. they actually have a larger budget than the official national military of iraq. they have more power. as we saw earlier this week when -- the assault on the u.s. embassy in the greens own, the greens own is darted by iraqi military and police. they just stood down. they let these militias into the green zone and let them to the embassy without shooting at them

or trying to turn them away because they are largely beholden to tehran. work please michelle, his misztal, his work available at hudson.org. it is a new year and new tax law. what does that mean for you as you prepare your taxes on the federal level? karl smith of the tax foundation will join us on "washington journal." you are watching and listening to "washington journal" on this sunday morning, january 5. we are back in a moment. >> normally, what would happen

is there would be a team of helicopters supporting each other to make sure they were safe. because there is no one else there and it had to be done, o'donnell made the decision that he would rescue these men. he went down to the landing zone area and hovered on the ground for four minutes, waiting for the reconnaissance team to arrive, which in a battle condition is an eternity. he waited. the reconnaissance team arrived, injured but safe. they boarded the helicopter. o'donnell began to pull the helicopter above the tree line and radioed, i'm coming out. >> president and ceo of the metropolitan museum of art on his book, in that time, about the life of michael o'donnell, who went missing in action during the vietnam war. tonight on c-span's q&a. >> monday night on the

ofmunicators, adrian shabazz freedom health, a group that advocates for democracy, talks about world internet freedom. >> what we are generally seeing is that social media used to be this level playing field for free expression by activists and ordinary users. now it is being co-opted by some of the more powerful, well actors in our society. i think that is where social media companies need to level the playing field to root out the bad actors and to make certain policy changes within the algorithm to incentivize the type of productive democratic discourse and conversation. >> watch the communicators onday night at 8:00 eastern c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: the website is tax foundation.org. is karl smith, vice president in charge of policy organization, which is what? guest: the tax foundation. host: what is it? guest: organization, which is it is a nonpartisan group that advises on tax reform. host: on the top line as we start the new year, what is the number one change that our listeners should be aware of? guest: congress at the end of the year past couple of tax. the major one got rid of the cadillac tax hearing originally on obamacare, one of the things to fund obamacare was a tax on very extravagant health insurance lands. -- plans. the goal was to raise revenue were obamacare and to discourage

employers from having these very extravagant plans. ndme of them pay for cruises a massages.r congress had been passing extenders to keep it from going into effect. at the end of 2019, they killed we aregether and host: dividing our own lines little differently during those of you that make less than $2000 a year (202) 748-8000. -- less than $50,000 a year (202) 748-8000. if you make in excess of $100,000 a year, (202) 748-8002. last year, we saw debate over the state and local tax. guest: for a long time, economist felt like the state and local tax exemption was one of the worst distortions in the

tax code. what it allows you to do if you are an itemize or, you take what you pay on state and local taxes deducted that from your taxes. that affects only people who are itemizing and only for people in states high taxes it usually has to be coupled with the mortgage interest reduction. the people that are most impacted our people in high tax rates in large homes with large incomes. host: new york and california. guest: economists have been against it that is a powerful -- against it. that is a powerful constituency. there was a cap on how much you could deduct. politically that was seen as an attack on blue states. blue states tend to have higher taxes these days they tend to

have higher income. they include some of those taxpayers. what we saw and what was unusual, a lot of democrats fighting to get rid of that cap, so it is a cap that mostly benefits upper income people. getcrats were fighting to rid of it because it impacted blue states. host: you can follow his work at tax foundation. this is part of the 2020 political debate. in the most recent democratic debate cosponsored by pbs and political, senator elizabeth warren on her so-called wealth tax. [video clip] >> how do you answer top economists that say taxes of this magnitude will stifle growth? >> they are just wrong. [applause] let's start with the wealth tax, on idea of a two cent tax

the great fortunes in this country, $50 million and above. for two cents, what can we do? we can invest in the rest of america. we can provide universal childcare, early childhood education for every baby in this country age zero to five. universal pre-k for every three-year-old and or-year-old, and raise wages of every child care worker and preschool teacher. debt. cancel student loan think about the economic impact of that. you leave to sense with the billionaires, they are not eating more pizzas. they are not buying more cars. we invest that two cents in early childhood education and childcare, and that means those babies get top-notch care. it means their mamas can finish their education, mom and dad can

.ake on real jobs, longer hours we can increase productivity in this country, and we can start building this economy from the ground up. host: from the pbs political debate that aired in mid-december, explain this to set tax on income of $50 million. guest: it is actually a tax on wealth. that is what makes it interesting. most of our taxes are on income or consumption. federal taxes are usually on how much money you made this year. the wealth tax is on how much wealth you have acute related over your entire lifetime. even though it is a small number, it is a large fraction over of what you have accumulated. invested in treasury bills, you would only make about 1.5% in interest every year on year treasury bills, but warns

tax would be 2%. every year it would tax more than the interest you got that year from having your wealth in treasury bills. it would go down year after year. it is designed, the economists who designed it designed it to eliminate the wealth people had but she related. that was the point, to be an equalizer across the economy. unlike the income tax that takes a portion every year, the goal of this is to erode your savings over time. a hundredou had million dollars, in this kicks in at $80 million and above, even if you are only making a year,illion dollars a you are taxed on that second $50 million? guest: you would be paying $1 million a year, even if you only make a couple hundred thousand

dollars. host: let's go to dominic. caller: good morning. how are you? host: we are fine. you are on the line with karl. caller: you sound extremely knowledgeable about a number of parts of the tax code. i have a question on the state and local tax deduction for $10,000. it is sticking it to the states that have had democratic leadership, california, new york, and virginia, where property taxes have skyrocketed. $18,000 a year for tax on an ancient house in upstate new york. that state has been decimated by democratic leadership. that is the first point. the second point, i came up with this one after listening to elizabeth warren and her wealth tax, i will remind everybody when jimmy carter passed a

luxury tax on boats, it decimated the boat is this. i could go on. guest: on the state and local tax, economists have been against the state and local tax deduction for a long time. subsidizes taxes in high tax states. it encourages them to raise their taxes higher and higher because the higher they raise their taxes, the larger deduction their citizens get. it winds up that the entire federal government is subsidizing tax increases that occur in new york or california. that distorts the system. nfairness where presumably people are getting some benefit. the cost is on the entire country. tax,rms of the wealth obviously all taxes impact the economy.

been theh tax has hardest to predict what it will do. in many countries they have had a hard time raising much money at all because instead of it being a tax on boats and people stop building boats, this is a tax on wealth, so people try to leave the country. they take their money and try to leave. france has a tax on wealth. people left france for london. our guest is karl smith. in thek has been seen new york times, forbes, aoomberg, previously professor of economics at unc chapel hill. mike is next, oregon. good morning. caller: good morning. host: good morning. , i basically just

wanted to ask, is folks in the profitability of -- are they going to be helped by this bill? host: thank you. guest: i don't know if he is referring to the state and local tax. host: mike is still on the line, are you? caller: i'm still on the line. it's a matter of, from what i have seen in the past, when you generally cut large amounts of tax, everyone benefits. am i correct in this assumption? host: thank you. we will get a response. guest: in the case of the state and local tax deduction, it does not actually affect marginal tax rates that much. the difference is going to be mainly on the people who are

paying the tax. where we see the tax effect the economy is when it changes tax rates, or when it changes your returns on investments. which doestax, affect investment, that is where we see more effect on the economy. host: in terms of the tax brackets this year, anything changing? guest: most of the tax brackets now are simply going up for cost-of-living adjustments. i don't think there are any major changes to the brackets happening this year. host: in terms of what you can contribute to your retirement funds, how does that change? up, i they are going from the 401k is going up $9,000 to $9,500 this year. one of the major changes is that you are allowed to make ira

up fromtions up to 7250 7000. we will go to vanessa in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. are you talking to me? host: we are. good morning. thank you for being with us. caller: good morning. are makingand i around $68,000 a year. $2417 in taxefit, break. also because we got the deduction of $24,000. before we got $12,000, but my interest deduction and

state income tax and all the , charity, i never make up to $12,000 deduction. i am glad i have that tax break. understand, they keep saying about our rates. deduction maximum tax for the people with the mortgage is $700,000. the rich people, i think they have a mortgage of more than $700,000. they get taxed. am a middle class, and i get a tax break. i appreciate that. my cousin, who used to make about $14 an hour, and now he makes extreme dollars an hour -- $16 an hour due to the tax

break. we are grateful. host: as i listen to her, one of the questions that strikes so many people, wire the tax laws so complicated? why is it so difficult to fill out your tax every year? we heard in years back filling it out on a postcard. guest: we have not gotten there yet. the tax cut and jobs act did a lot. most of the complications came from deductions for people who itemize and lobbyists for various groups who are always here trying to get deductions related to whatever their industry is, so realtors are trying to increase the home mortgage deduction. there are deductions for travel that get pushed by you all and people like that -- uhaul and people like that.

they increased the standard deduction that you take if you do not itemize. around 40% of people itemize. now only about 20% do. a smaller number of people are itemizing. this is our hope, it is slowly eroding the interest or benefit from lobbyists by pushing for so many deductions in the tax code because it is impacting a smaller number of people. consistently there are groups who are trying to increase the complexity of the tax code by introducing a deduction for this or credit for that. simplifying it helps everyone a little bit, but all those individual groups don't want to see their particular deduction go away. we have really expanded the standard reduction, but there is still a lot of itemization out there. host: we will go to will in illinois.

good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. warren 2% wealth tax plan that would maybe tax to nothing sounded ominous to me. i want to clarify, with their wealth be taxed to nothing or down to $50 million? guest: yes, that's right. their wealth would be taxed down to $50 million. in the original proposal, the economist who worked for elizabeth warren had essentially ,o exemption on the wealth tax and so it would eventually tax away fortunes. that was too much for elizabeth warren, so you would be taxed down to $50 million.

that is correct. host: bob from oregon. caller: good morning. while we are busy crying the superrich in the united states and their terrible troubles that they have, both of you guys have been sad about that wealth tax, i'm thinking we need to make it known that getting rid of the hasitable deduction resulted in $30 billion less giving by the uber rich in this country. example ofretty good what the rich in this country really value in terms of the american experience. i know it is sad to see that people will only have $50 million left to give away. really, you guys?

really? host: we will get a response. guest: i think it is not so much being set for the people themselves and then losing their money, i think it is the incentives it produces and distortion in the economy. when your wealth is subject to that much tax, the incentive to move to another country, to take all of your assets to another country is heightened. one of the things we are trying to model in the tax foundation is how this is going to affect innovation. a lot of innovation comes out of places like silicon valley or startups, where investors take a lot of chances on very risky companies in the hopes of having a huge return. if you know that huge return is going to be taxed away, that is going to cause you to be more cautious. that is going to cause you to not take as big of risks.

that is going to cost you to not invest money in the next company that is going to be innovative. we are worried about those kinds of effects on the economy, people moving out of the country and taking their assets with them were people having less incentive to invest in really high return assets where what they are going to get out of it is a large payoff. host: two new hampshire, barry. caller: good morning. just a couple of comments. i was a little puzzled about the charitable deduction versus the wealthy keeping their money in bonds at 1.5%. i don't think most of the people with a lot of money would keep it in bonds. they could invest it in securities or businesses. host: stay on the line, and we will get a chance to respond to your point. at the $50 million level,

there is quite a bit of money that is invested in low risk assets like that. to illustratele how much of an example it is on the return you are making. even if you are in the stock market and making 7%, the tax will be 2% of your 7% return, which is a large reduction in your overall return. for people who are very rich, elizabeth warren wants to go to 6%, so if your average stock market return is 7%, she would take it down to 1%. that makes it effectively a much tax than it sounds. host: next is kim joining us from oklahoma. caller: now that the courts have declared the individual mandate sounds. host: next isunconstitutional, o about getting our money back?

is there a class-action lawsuit? do i file for a refund? host: thank you for that. guest: to my knowledge, there is not a way to do that. -- i assumeuired she is saying if she had to pay the penalty if she would get it back, into my knowledge there is not away. m.st: from missouri, ji to use mitt romney's figure, i am one of the 49% that pay no income tax. group me in with the poor people. i still pay a personal property tax, which is a wealth tax. on the car taxes i've had for 20 years. it is not a classic. break froming no tax

get higherll, but i prices from trumps terrorists arrifslower -- trump's t and lower prices, so i am worse off. historically americans do not like to pay taxes. go back to the boston tea party. i think we all need to pay more .axes we have a debt to pay off. we have a military to pay off. we have a specific number of retirees retiring every day. withems we cannot deal boosting social security, but we can steadily increase our military spending despite the no measurableave

increase in enemies. host: i will leave it there. thank you for your call. it is a $23 trillion debt and growing. guest: i will take two parts to that question. , that issue of the debt is a concern to a lot of people. in our work, what we see is interest rates are extremely low. one of the reasons they are low in the u.s. and around the world is because most developed countries are experiencing very slow growth. for these countries, the u.s. included, one of our major priorities is to keep growth going, to create more jobs. we have been lucky in the u.s. that we have not gone close to the recessions they have had in germany. better in part because of the tax cuts. it does contribute to the debt.

right now, we are in a period where those interest rates are low. i think the growth concern is worth it. i will say, you are right about the tariffs. the took back maybe 40% of benefit of the tax cuts and jobs act just in the amount that they were taken from people's pockets. they did more damage in that they created uncertainty for businesses. that business investment has slowed down, most of the american economy has been healthy, but business investment has slowed down because of concern around tariffs. host: karl smith is the vice president with tax foundation. thank you for being with us. we want to give you a sense of how the debate over the attack by the u.s. over the iranian leader is playing out in

domestic politics. a statement from nancy pelosi that reads, the classified war notification released to congress raises more questions than it answers. this document prompts serious and urgent questions about the timing, then a, and justification of the administration's decision to engage in hostilities against iran. the congress and the american people are being left in the dark about our national security. the statement is available online at speaker.gov. the house republican leader with this tweet, think of the contrast, while democrats are trying to remove president trump from office, the president is focused on removing terrorists from the face of the earth. that is from kevin mccarthy. all of this will be part of our conversation tomorrow morning on c-span's "washington journal."

zach cohen of national journal, gabby, and we will take a look , andat is next from iran order, looking at the findings of the event again papers -- afghanistan papers, online on washingtonpost.com. " is up next. thanks for joining us on this sunday and enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week. ♪ >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been

providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from the end around the country so you can make up your own mind. in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. viewn -- your unfiltered of government. >> coming up this morning on c-span, next is newsmakers with the director of the national institutes of health, dr. francis collins. then, it is c-span's special two-hour program on teen vaping and the regulation of e-cigarettes. president trump delivers remarks at the launch of his evangelicals for trump coalition, at a mega-church in miami. >>