♪ >> campaign 2020. watch our continuing coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail. as the voting begins next month, watch live coverage of the iowa caucuses. c-span's campaign 2020. your unfiltered view of politics. back peter baker, chief white house correspondent host: i want to welcome back peter baker. i want to begin with david sanger's piece. you retweeted him yesterday with the news over the past couple of days.

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 c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. monday morning we will preview the week ahead and washington with zach cohen, and political white house reporter gabby. we will talk about u.s./iran sanctions with the foundation for the defense of democracies. also, a discussion of the afghanistan papers with washington post investigative reporter craig whitlock. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern monday morning. join the discussion. is on the agenda

when the house and senate return this week. the house has yet to decide on impeachment managers and sending the two articles of impeachment over to the senate. the senate will sit as a jury to hear the cases against president trump. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, and minority leader chuck schumer spoke friday about the upcoming senate trial. have to address some of the deepest institutional questions contemplated by our constitution. we'll have to decide whether we're going to safeguard core governing traditions or let short-term partisan rage overcome them. back in december i explained how house democrats' splint into the most rushed -- sprint into the most rushed, least fair and least thorough impeachment inquiry in american history has jeopardized the foundations of our system of government.